Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 10/04/2018
AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., OCTOBER 4, 2018, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 6, 2018 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: This item has been continued from the September 6, 2018 CCPC meetink and further continued to the November 1, 2018 CCPC meetinz: A. PL20170001729: A Resolution amending Resolution No. 90-292 (Development Order 90-3, as amended) for the Halstatt/Grey Oaks Development of Regional Impact by providing for: Section One, amendments to Development Order by revising the Master Plan to relocate unbuilt access locations from Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway to access locations on Livingston Road for access only to the areas of the PUD identified as FP&L easement located south of Grey Oaks Drive East; amendments to Exhibit E, Development Order access conditions and Sub -Exhibit 1, project access locations and Sub -Exhibit 2 project access conditions; Section Two, findings of fact; Section Three, conclusions of law; and Section Four, effect of previously issued Development Orders, transmittal to Department Of Economic Opportunity and effective date. The subject property is located at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Airport -Pulling Road in Sections 24, 25 and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Companion to Agenda item PL20170041548-Grey Oaks MPUD) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] NOTE: This item has been continued from the September 6, 2018 CCPC meetinz and further continued to the November 1, 2018 CCPC meetinz: B. PL20170001548: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 07-40, the Grey Oaks MPUD, by relocating unbuilt access locations on Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway to Livingston Road for access only to the areas of the PUD identified as FP&L easement located south of Grey Oaks Drive East, and by providing an effective Page 1 of 2 date. The subject MPUD consisting of 1,601+/- acres is located at the northeast, northwest, and southeast quadrants of the intersection of Airport Road (S.R. 31) and Golden Gate Parkway (C.R. 886), in Sections 24, 25, and 26, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Agenda item PL20170001729-Halstatt/Grey Oaks DRI) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] C. PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-2: A Resolution relating to the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, providing for the annual update to the schedule of capital improvement projects, within the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan based on the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities (AUIR), and including updates to the 5 -year schedule of capital projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element (for fiscal years 2019 — 2023) and the schedule of capital projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element for the future 5 -year period (for fiscal years 2024 — 2028), and to sections relating to the public school facilities Capital Improvement Plan and Work Program, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp Page 2 of 2 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission 1� AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 October 4, 2018 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice -Chair Patrick Dearborn Ned Fryer Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 912 712 018 October 2018 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. September 6, 2018 CCPC Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Advertised Public Hearings A. PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-2 - A Resolution relating to the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, providing for the annual update to the schedule of capital improvement projects, within the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan based on the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities (AUIR), and including updates to the 5 -year schedule of capital projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element (for fiscal years 2019 — 2023) and the schedule of capital projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element for the future 5 -year period (for fiscal years 2024 — 2028), providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 9/27/2018 10/04/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: September 6, 2018 CCPC Minutes Meeting Date: 10/04/2018 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst — Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 09/18/2018 1:54 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning — Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 09/18/2018 1:54 PM Approved By: Review: 5.A Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 09/18/2018 1:54 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 10/04/2018 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 3 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 6, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative Page 1 of 83 Packet Pg. 4 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the September 6th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Ebert's here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mrs. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wishing. Addenda to the agenda. The applicant has requested on the Grey Oaks PUD and the DRI to be continued to the October 4th meeting. That's the stretch along Livingston Road where they were proposing a couple new accessways for a landscaping nursery. Items 9C and 9D. So if you're here for that today, we will not be hearing it. We'll be hearing it on October 4th. I'll read them into the record. It's PL20170001729 and P1,20170001548. Both are for the Grey Oaks development. Is there a motion to continue those to October 4th? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make that motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. The other item to the agenda I want to mention, if any of you are here for the stormwater issue -- I had one -- someone had told me there were people coming in for -- that that's going to be heard tonight at 5 o'clock not by this Board, but the Board of County Commissioners, thankfully. So if you're here for that today, it's not part of our agenda, just in case. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is September 20th, 2018. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on September 20th? Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will not be here on the 20th or the 4th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Page 2 of 83 Packet Pg. 5 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the approval of minutes. We were electronically distributed the minutes for the August 2nd meeting. Is there any changes or corrections? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll move approval of the minutes as distributed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. BCC reports and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners did not meet in August, so we have no recaps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a really short report, Ray, thank you. Chairman's report. I had a couple issues. I'm down to one now. The only -- I noticed something, and I think I understand why it has occurred. But for the first time in nearly 18 years, I have received staff reports that didn't have signatures on them. So I don't know if staff signed them off. I don't know if the various managers and directors above the staff signed them off. I was told that's because we flipped over to the Accela system and they don't get signed off like we used to anymore. Is that -- just for the record, is that what's happening? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yes, we have electronic review and approval now through the Accela system that is on your computers and desktops. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when we receive the packet, even though there's no signatures in there, we wouldn't have received it until everybody's signed off? MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that includes legal? MR. BELLOWS: That includes legal. Legal is a component of the sign -off process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I just want to make sure, because their review has been really important. Go ahead, Joe. MR. BELLOWS: It definitely has. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Doesn't Accela provide a signature sheet that indicates that it's been staffed through the appropriate staff? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the Board of County Commissioners has a sheet like that. I'm not sure if we do that for this. I'll check into that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. Well, that would seem to be the appropriate method is to provide an indication in the file that indicates that they were reviewed and signed off on. MR. BELLOWS: Electronically it's done that way, but I don't know if they attach a sheet or not. We can look into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jamie, did you have something you wanted to add? And you are the director of the Developmental Services group. MR. FRENCH: Deputy department head, Jamie French, for the record. Joe, you're correct. It follows the same path as the Board of County Commissioners. It would not require a physical signature, and based off their permission. So, for me, I would not sign off on that Page 3 of 83 Packet Pg. 6 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 document until after, let's say, Ray or Mike would have done it, and then it goes off to the County Attorney's Office for their final markup or -- and then all of the members or all of the staff members that are included within that routing, they would be -- the system would update them that changes may or may not have occurred. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, you provide a summary sheet. Let's take, for instance, 9A today. There's a summary sheet "prepared by," and it has "submitted by" and "approved by." MR. KLATZKOW: Hold on. Hold on. Guys, you can sign this and scan it in, right? Would the Planning Commission be more comfortable if staff signed it off and just scanned it in? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The approval sheet is in there, and it says, "complete, complete, complete." I'm assuming, when I see this sheet, that they've reviewed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- MR. KLATZKOW: That's what we do with the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's easier for the record to be clear when you see the signatures and names are right there and you know that those people had to review it to put their name on. And I thought that was valuable, and I missed it, so -- MR. KLATZKOW: So just sign off on it and scan it in. MR. FRENCH: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's an easy solution, too. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I am so glad we have a County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And he's so glad to be here. There's nothing on the consent agenda today. ***We'll move first right into our first advertised public hearing. It's PL20170001733. It's the Regal Acres Residential Planned Unit Development. This is on Greenway Road east of Collier/951 and north of U.S. 41. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item -- if you're going to speak on this item today, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll start down with Tom for disclosures. MR. EASTMAN: I spoke with Laura DeJohn regarding school capacity issues. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Before I start, what's on the computer, the Board computer? That's an agenda that I should be able to access, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking the wrong person. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You need to reboot. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I need to reboot? How do I reboot? Anyway, I couldn't access that, so I turned on my own computer. Now my computer seems to be talking to the other computer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's bizarre. But, anyway, my only disclosure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the subject. Let's start with disclosures first. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I'm just going to listen. I'm not going to try doing anything with anything electronic today. I'm just going to listen to what people say. MR. KLATZKOW: We'll get the IT guy down here, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll just work through it. Yeah, I walked across the parking lot with Nick. That's about my only contact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I met with the applicant's representatives a couple days ago and went over issues today that we'll be talking about. I also have received -- initially emails came to my office Page 4 of 83 Packet Pg. 7 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 with letters of no objection from two communities, and then I started receiving a couple of letters or more from one or two individuals in Reflection Lakes, and I've also met with staff and had a long conversation with staff. With that, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I have had conversations with Commissioner Fiala and other residents in East Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I did talk to Commissioner Fiala as well. Go ahead. Joe? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did also. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I had an email from Laura DeJohn. I sent some questions in which she responded. I have numerous letters that were sent by separate emails by the staff that were not part of the packet but obviously came in after the packets were sent to us, and I did speak with Commissioner Fiala about this request as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I also did speak with Commissioner Fiala. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move right into the presentation by the applicant. So I don't know who wants to do that today. MS. DeJOHN: I would like to do that today. My name is Laura DeJohn. I'm with Johnson Engineering. I'm a principal planner. I'm here today on behalf of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County. I'm going to try to make sure, technically, we have what we need here. Bear with me. We're going to be giving presentation by PowerPoint. Does everyone have the PowerPoint? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Our systems aren't working up here for some reason. Is there an IT person -- not in this audience, obviously. But if someone in IT's listening to the things going on in this room, could you send someone down. MR. KLATZKOW: We're working on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have a single one of our monitors working. Let's start -- we can follow on the screen. I'm comfortable with that for now, and then we'll see if IT shows up and take a break or two if they have to correct something. MR. KLATZKOW: Just old school. We used to do it this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So go ahead, Laura. We're just going to use -- we'll use the same screens the public's using at this point. MS. DeJOHN: Thank you. Just to do quick introductions. Who you have before you is the applicant, Habitat for Humanity. President Nick Kouloheras is here. Pavese Law Firm, Neale Montgomery is the land -use attorney involved in the project. From Johnson Engineering you have planning, environmental, engineering, and transportation experts on hand. And a real estate appraisal expert, Matt Simmons, will also be part of our presentation. First I'd like to just allow Nick a few brief minutes to give you an explanation on Habitat and what's proposed here. MR. KOULOHERAS: Thank you. Good morning, Commission. Nick Kouloheras, president of Habitat for Humanity. Just very briefly. I know most of you up here are well aware of what Habitat for Humanity of Collier County does, but I just wanted to kind of recap. Habitat for Humanity is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to provide housing solutions for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the IT people have shown up, and she's fixing everything. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And I know nothing about computers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it's ironic because her office is next to mine, and she has difficulty with computers a lot, but today she's wired. This is great. Thank you, Heidi. Page 5 of 83 Packet Pg. 8 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. KOULOHERAS: Yeah. The County Attorney staff just knows no boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and you know, they've got a variety of talent, and it's amazing. MR. KLATZKOW: We're a full-service organization. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Those are billable hours to IT, by the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. Okay. Please go ahead. Thank you, Nick. MR. KOULOHERAS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as I was saying, provide housing solutions for families in Collier County that make between 30 percent and 80 percent of the area median income. So just on average to tell you who that is, that's your family of four that collectively makes somewhere in the neighborhood of, you know, 40- to $50,000 per year. It used to be Habitat Collier. Back when we started in'78, it was very much catering to farmworkers and very low-income wage earners, but as we've developed over the years and as incomes have shifted and housing pricing has shifted, we find ourselves dealing with a lot more residents within Collier County that work for the school district, Arthrex, Collier County Government, Sheriffs Office, bankers, manufacturers. So we're finding ourselves in a different ballgame than where we were when we first started. So it seems like housing is obviously a big topic within Collier County, and although, unfortunately, we're not able to address the entire income spectrum of need, we are trying to do our best to address the issues between 30 and 80 percent, which is what our charter does. So if you have any questions for me, I'm, obviously, here, but I just wanted to briefly recap what Habitat does. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. And just to -- I know it's in front of you in your agenda item, but just to recap what is requested today. There's a 23.15 -acre piece of land zoned -- currently zoned agriculture that Habitat is requesting to rezone to combine with its existing Regal Acres RPUD. This change will amend the master plan and include that additional land and will increase permissible dwelling units by 116 units. The request includes a companion affordable housing density bonus agreement for the added 23.15 acres. That agreement, based on the formulas that the county has in place to incentivize affordable housing, will generate 46 bonus units. That's inclusive -- so the 116 includes 46 of those bonus units being awarded as an incentive for providing housing for low- and moderate -income residents of Collier County. The project location is -- you know, generally is described in our industry as an infill site. It's lodged between the existing Regal Acres community to the east, the existing Reflection Lakes community to the west, the existing Naples Reserve community to the north, and the existing West Winds community to the south. To give a little perspective, even wider view here, we're along the East Trail corridor east of the 951/41 intersection. The property is accessed via Greenway Road. It's north of U.S. 41. And as you can see just from the graphic, that yellow property that's shown in the middle of the image here is a small piece within a much larger pie of residential development that exists and is continuing to grow in the East Trail corridor. From a zoning standpoint, this just illustrates on your Collier County zoning map that the subject site is an agriculturally zoned site surrounded by residentially zoned sites, and the proposal to rezone this from agriculture, which would typically allow things like dairy farms or livestock and reptile breeding, would be more appropriately zoned residential planned use development like the communities surrounding it. I do want to bring up a clarification because it came up in our neighborhood meetings. When you look at the aerial of the subject site, it is a wooded vegetative site. But this site is not a preserve. There was some beliefs among community members that what's being done here is the rezoning of a preserve. A preserve is a defined term where dedication of land is made through conservation easement to preserve in perpetuity some land. This is not a preserve. This is just a vegetated site, which was formerly mainly abandoned agriculture now occupied with vegetation and exotics. Where there is a preserve -- this illustration just gives you a better lay of the land here. Where there is a preserve is the -- if you can see that dot. The dedicated Page 6 of 83 Packet Pg. 9 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 preserve area on Reflection Lakes property is about 151 -foot -wide dedicated preserve area that exists on Reflection Lakes property. What's proposed as a concept plan for the Regal Acres property shows that a preserve would also be dedicated abutting that Reflection Lakes property in addition to the future development that would be concentrated beyond the proposed preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Laura, while you're on the slide before, just because it's relevant to this slide, there's a -- it looks like a no man's land in between the two preserves. Whose is that and what is it; do you know? MS. DeJOHN: There's the skinny strip that you're referring to between the two preserves. That's on Regal Acres' property -- sorry. Reflection Lakes' property. Reflection Lakes has a platted 20 -foot -wide drainage easement that creates that gap at the property line on Reflection Lakes' property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. I'm going to have Gary Nychyk jump up just for a brief explanation. Since we're talking preserves, I want him to give a quick prospective on the environmental data package that he prepared for the project. MR. NYCHYK: Thank you, Laura. Good morning. For the record, my name is Gary Nychyk, and I'm an ecologist for Johnson Engineering. As Laura indicated, the Regal 2 site is one of the last sites in the area to be developed. There are existing residential developed on all four sides of the property, as she's shown already. The existing habitat types found on Regal Acres right now include abandoned agriculture, palmetto prairie, some mixed hardwood conifer swale, and about six acres of wet prairie. Most of the site is heavily impacted by exotic vegetation, including earleaf acacia, Melaleuca, and Brazilian pepper. As I said, there's about six acres of low-grade wetlands on the site, and those wetlands have been impacted through the construction of surface water management systems to the north and to the west associated with past developments. These structures have degraded the water environment and likely lowered the wet -season water table, because if you go out to the site, you can actually see upland indicative exotic vegetation moving into the wetlands. So these are certainly degraded wetlands on the area. The zoning division staff report agrees that the project includes 22.46 acres of native vegetation, natural vegetation, requiring a total of 5.62 acres of vegetation preserve, and the master plan locates that preserve in compliance with Section 3.05.07 of the LDC. The preserve area will include uplands and wetlands and is situated adjacent to existing preservation on the Reflection Lakes side. Where's the preserve map? Right there. So here you can kind of -- you can kind of see the location of the preserve is adjacent to the Reflection Lakes preserve, and that will maximum any benefit that there might be to wildlife species there. Protected species surveys were conducted in accordance with the Land Development Code, and protected species management plans are included for -- where appropriate, including Florida black bear and wading birds. During the survey, there were no signs of listed species observed; however, there were two leaf nests or stick nests observed along with one cavity tree that was observed, and those will be monitored in accordance with FWS and FWC guidelines as we move forward in the process. The property is within the panther secondary and primary protection zones, and we're moving forward with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on calculating those habitat impacts, and the area's also within the consultation area for the Florida bonneted bat. So we'll be working through that process with Florida Fish and Wildlife as well -- or U.S. Fish and Wildlife; I'm sorry. As I indicated, Regal 2 is currently being reviewed at the state level by the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the South Florida Water Management District. The wetland lines have been evaluated by South Florida Water Management District, and we're all in agreement, and the federal review is also underway by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I will be here available for questions as they come up, and I'll pass that back to Laura. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Joe. Page 7 of 83 Packet Pg. 10 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Reference Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which you're going through consultation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, you just said you are still working on the calculation for PHUs? MR. NYCHYK: We have a preliminary calculation for PHUs, but they haven't been reviewed by the agencies. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have a cost yet? Have you determined a cost that you're going to pay for panther habitat units? MR. NYCHYK: A preliminary, yes, I can probably come up with that. I don't know if I have it right on the tip of my tongue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm curious what you're paying. The bonneted bat should be covered by the Comprehensive Plan that's being performed right now under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. You may want to check that just -- MR. NYCHYK: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- because they're doing a comprehensive analysis for all of South Florida. But I'm curious as to what you think you're going to be paying for -- MR. NYCHYK: Well, the total PHUs that we've calculated so far is 221 units. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. NYCHYK: And those are about $900 per unit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, 900, 1,000 apiece. MR. NYCHYK: Yeah, right. So that gives you an idea. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: Moving on to some other basic elements we consider when doing rezoning, traffic and access. It's worth noting that Habitat for Humanity did prepay for their contribution related to 60 dwelling units for this project. That was part of a 2008 developer's consortium agreement. That agreement helped fund some improvements including the intersection improvements at 951 and 41, six-laning road improvements to Henderson Creek, and four -lane road improvements to Henderson Creek from -- to about a quarter mile east of Naples Reserve Boulevard. So those contributions have already been made in addition to the dollars spent to -- and contribution associated with the first phase of Regal Acres, the first 184 units. Access to the site is from Greenway Road. There will be no changes to traffic circulation patterns because the main access off Greenway through Majestic Circle is how you will access this site. And the TIS performed by Josh Hildebrand of Johnson Engineering found that there are no significant impacts on surrounding roadways, and he's here if there are questions on traffic. Similarly, drainage was addressed in our application by the fact that there already is an existing water management system within the existing Regal Acres community, and this proposed addition will connect to that existing system. There's existing outfall locations and discharge that will not be changed and will just be updated to accommodate the flows associated with this additional development area. There is an upgraded level of discharge rates that now apply due to some recent changes in county policy. So the Parcel B, this addition to the Regal Acres PUD, will be subject to and meet those new standards established by county policy. This will be consistent with what's currently applied to Parcel B. Water and sewer is available from Collier County Utilities in this area. Habitat actually has already constructed the infrastructure needed to serve the site by doing improvements along Greenway Road as part of their initial Regal Acres development, and county -- the county additionally asked for a utility easement for a well site on this property, and that has been addressed and is provided for on the master plan. There's a 40 -by -60 -foot utility easement designated along the north property line. Now getting into the layout of the site. First, because this is a proposed addition to an existing PUD, the PUD document you have is a strikethrough/underline format to reflect what changes are being proposed with this new addition. So the PUD document is kind of a combination of what's already approved for what's called Parcel A on the existing developed Regal Acres site, and then what's being proposed on what's called Parcel B on the 23.15 acres that are being proposed as additional acreage. So the master concept plan includes a sheet depicting the Parcel A approved master plan for what's Page 8 of 83 Packet Pg. 11 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 already developed, and then what's proposed is the Parcel B master plan as shown here. And I just kind of -- I want to walk you through some of the aspects of this proposed site plan. The site has a single loop road that has a short additional road that stubs out along where the site boundary jogs on the north side of Parcel A. The R that's depicted in the diagram, R indicates where residential areas are, where the homes will be located. There's a recreation area shown near the proposed access point to the site. This space is dedicated for residents of the site to enjoy as well as being located so that residents of the existing Regal Acres Parcel A area could enjoy the recreation area as well. Our master plan set includes detail sheets that also show the arrangement of how that core area in the middle of the roadway loop will be developed with alley access and homes that would front on common green spaces in that core area. And I do want to point out there's a hatched area. I'm going to keep -- if you see where I pointed to, there's a hatched area labeled as an overlap area, and that overlap area is just an extra detail showing where proposed homes would back up to the existing Regal Acres lake that's on Parcel A. And this overlap area's just noted on the plan, and it's also referenced in the PUD document to indicate there would be a re -plat of that Parcel A area if and when development of this area gets done. You can see here, again, we've told you already about the preserve location along the western half of the property. There's also a lake positioned along the north property line. By kind of framing the development area of the site, we've basically made a compact development area where the preserves and the lakes create substantial separation to that north and to the west of the site as it develops. Some of the inspiration that went into how the laying out of the site works was from communities where you see houses being clustered around green spaces where this would be very suitable for a Habitat community where children are able to play out in front of their houses. That's kind of the concepts that we were following with that central core area design. And an artistic rendering of how that development plan would work is shown here. This diagram is a computer-generated rendering of how development could be -- how the development could be laid out based on the concept plan. And this is helpful because you can see some of that green space that gets created when there's an existing preserve area already established behind the Reflection Lakes homes that are just to the west of this site, and then the preserve area that's added by the proposed preserve on the Regal Acres site. You can kind of see the distance created to the north where there's a lake proposed between the Regal Acres homes providing several hundred feet to the nearest Naples Reserve home to the north. And, again, to the south, there's -- the depiction also shows that there's preserve area between the proposed Regal Acres homes and the mobile home units of Westwinds to the south. Looking inside the community, again, this is an artistic representation based on the initial plans for the project. You can see how sidewalks are provided along the streets. There's on -street parking proposed so that cars are accommodated along the street consistent with county on -street parking standards. The homes are proposed to be fitting in kind of a compact space with a two-story housing model. And, again, this just kind of gives you the look and the feel of what Habitat's after as they work on this project. There's a closer -up view of the proposed home, a model that Habitat seems to keep kind of raising the bar with their communities as they develop them, and this kind of shows a nice look of the proposed home. That leads into discussion on density. This is designated per the Growth Management Plan as an urban mixed use/urban residential land use designated site. Within the density rating system of the Growth Management Plan, this site is eligible for up to 11 units per acre of development on the site. What's being proposed is five units per acre development, so over half the eligible density is being proposed because Habitat realizes this area is a neighborhood where densities range and are in the range of four to seven units per acre, and five units per acre is consistent with the existing Regal Acres development, and five units per acre is proposed here as well. We don't need to go into development standards, but this is basically in this -- the slide is provided if we want to discuss any of these development standards. The PUD document contains these and shows, kind Page 9 of 83 Packet Pg. 12 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 of, the development standard for the different unit types that are part of the PUD request at this time. So the biggest part of the presentation today is going to be on buffers. First of all, the buffers get depicted on the master concept plan, and we've done that. The buffers depicted on the master concept plan are 15 -foot -wide Type B buffers, which is consistent with what's requested within this PUD request, which is a range of uses. There's a variety of uses requested including single-family, two-family, multifamily, and townhouse. That generates the requirement for a 15 -foot -wide Type B buffer versus what would normally be required for single-family homes adjacent to single-family homes, a 10 -foot -wide buffer with trees spaced only every 30 feet. So Habitat has worked extensively because buffering became, you know, one of the major issues we heard during neighborhood meetings and with interactions within surrounding communities. So I'm going to walk you through the evaluations and the considerations that Habitat took into account as they worked with the neighbors on the question of buffers. This is a view where Naples Reserve residents who are just to the north of the subject site view -- this is their view today looking towards the Regal Acres site. Here's a second picture from a different angle of a vantage point of the Naples Reserve properties looking south into the Regal Acres site. What was brought to Habitat's attention was that this wooded view, what's in front of you there, is existing vegetation that's been planted in conjunction with -- on Naples Reserve property, the palm trees, and the shrubs, and then beyond which is a chain-link fence which is on Naples Reserve property, and then a wooded area. And it was brought to the attention of Habitat that this wooded area and this view is a concern to be -- if the Regal Acres project is going to cause that view and that vegetation to be removed. And working with those neighbors, solutions were arrived at because Habitat came up with a buffering and tree planting and supplemental planting plan that achieved that look of a forested view as -- from the vantage point of the Naples Reserve homesites. And by working with those property owners, this, what we're calling an enhanced buffer condition, has been agreed to by both Habitat and the Naples Reserve owners who were concerned about the views that they would have from their vantage points. We've also got -- Habitat has engaged with property owners in Reflection Lakes who have concerns about what they would see or hear or the potential security issues that they would -- might face as development goes on behind them or to the east of them with this project. This is a view looking from Manchester Drive, which is within the Reflection Lakes community, toward the Reflection Lakes preserve. Beyond which I've described to you will be a Habitat for Humanity preserve that matches up to that preserve. Here's another view. Again, just to give perspective of that same vantage point from Reflection Lakes looking east through -- looking at the Reflection Lakes preserve, again, beyond which will be Habitat for Humanity preserve, beyond which would be homes. There wasn't really a solution that Habitat could offer beyond -- to make this any more opaque or to make this look any different for the Reflection Lakes vantage point. So in working with residents of that community, Habitat has offered to provide a fence to address the security concerns that Reflection Lakes residents expressed, but view and the distance that's being provided for with preserve vegetation does not lead to any more solutions, really, that Habitat could offer other than that fence. So this was not in your packet because it's been -- there's been work going on in the past month to arrive at these solutions. The enhanced buffering plan shows exactly what has been worked out or discussed on Habitat's behalf with adjoining property owners. So to the north are those -- the representation of the proposed wall and additional plantings worked out with Naples Reserve. To the south there's been additional -- the addition of a wall worked out with the property owners who are just close to this site at Westwinds mobile home park, and then to the west, the proposed preserve and fencing is what's been committed to by Habitat as an enhanced buffer to the west. That was one of the biggest issues that came out of the neighborhood information meeting, but I didn't want to neglect others. Just to list off, we had our neighborhood information meeting in early June. Page 10 of 83 Packet Pg. 13 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 Some things we heard about were concerns about the list of uses including not just single-family but multifamily, which we can talk about further. Traffic on Greenway Road was brought up, and Habitat has engaged with the Sheriffs Office. The Sheriffs Office has done a traffic study on Greenway Road. In early July they did a study for a week and found no issues with speed and no issues with traffic. So they will continue to do their normal operations that the Sheriffs Office does, but that was the finding as Habitat pursued that issue. Again, we've heard about noise, views, and the potential for pedestrian traffic through Reflection Lakes, and I've kind of talked through what's been done to work on that issue, and the solution being providing the adequate distance of preserve and then fencing along the Reflection Lakes boundary. And then views from Naples Reserve have been addressed, as I showed you. School capacity was something that has been brought up, and part of your packet includes the evidence of the standard school district review that goes on for any residential development and the finding there that elementary, middle, and high school level of students are adequately served by the existing capacity within the system. The question or the thoughts about saturation of affordable housing or concerns about affordable housing being in East Naples or being in proximity to neighborhoods that we've just discussed has also been an ongoing comment that we've heard. To address that, Matt Simmons is going to step up and talk to you. He's a professional real estate appraisal expert, and he'll be able to kind of talk through what it means to have affordable housing in any area. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Laura. I want to briefly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Identify yourself for the record, please. MR. SIMMONS: Matt Simmons. I'm a licensed real estate appraiser and broker in Florida. I'm a partner with Maxwell, Hendry, and Simmons. We're primarily an appraisal and consulting firm based in Fort Myers. What we've done for Habitat is conducted a value impact and affordable housing study. And I want to just briefly summarize some of the results of that study with you today. MS. MONTGOMERY: Matt, before you do that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to go to the mike; identify yourself, first. MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Neale Montgomery, for the record. I just -- before Mr. Simmons started, I just wanted to ask him a question about whether he has testified as an expert in this capacity and other quasi-judicial hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SIMMONS: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SIMMONS: So I'll move right into the presentation. The page you're looking at now is a summary that others have already touched on, so I won't dwell on this. I'll get right into the meat of what we did here. As I mentioned, one of the components that we looked at were affordable housing, demand versus affordability. The ZIP code of 34114, which is the ZIP code within Regal Acres, currently the median sales price there is $480,000. If you condense that down to a potential purchase and look at what that mortgage price might -- mortgage payment on a monthly basis would look like, it's plus or minus $2,400 a month. The reason I bring that up is the table -- and I apologize, there's some smaller print over on the right-hand side. But what you're looking at there is a table reflecting the top 10 occupations within Collier County as it relates to the number of folks within that workforce, and these are figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And so the area of the workforce where we have the most employment, number one, is in food preparation and serving -related occupations where we have roughly 21,620 people employed. And, again, that -- this methodology carries down through the list. I won't name each of the occupations. But the annual mean wage, for example, among food prep workers is $28,590. Page 11 of 83 Packet Pg. 14 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 Now, what we do from there is we look at HUD's affordability metrics. HUD identifies that in order to be affordable, a household shouldn't be paying, essentially, any more than 30 percent of their monthly household income toward housing expenses. If they're at 30 percent or above, they're considered cost burdened. So, simply put, that final column that you're looking at is a reflection of 30 percent of the monthly gross income based on these occupations and the wages that they take home. So as you can see, those -- the monthly income allocated for housing between these top 10 employment occupations stretch between $700 a month all the way up to $2,140 a month. There's one sector, healthcare practitioners. But the majority, nine of the 10 occupations, can afford according to HUD's guidelines, roughly $1,100 or less per month allocated toward housing. And, again, I would ask you to consider that in conjunction with what we just reflected as the monthly mortgage payment for the median sale price within 34114. Obviously, purchasing isn't the only option for getting housing, so we've taken a look also at rental properties. And what you see here is a list of all of the available annual rental properties within a five -mile radius of the subject property. And these are properties currently advertised within MLS. And we have rents ranging from $1,150 a month up through $6,250 a month, but the median rent is $2,200 a month. Again, consider that in context of what we just looked at in terms of what's affordable to the highest sectors of the workforce. I would note that on the low end you see 1,150. If we had a large number of units on the low-end side, that would stick out to me. We actually have six units currently offered for sale at $1,600 a month or below. So the majority of these 57 rentals that are available are clustered around the $2,200 range. In addition to this -- and, again, this is only a summary, but I did want to touch on apartments. We looked at apartments within a five -mile radius as well because, again, that's another driver of where can workforce find housing. And we looked at the five closest projects. The average rent amount for the lowest unit available in those projects was $1,111 a month. The problem is, while those projects exist and those rates are out there, occupancy is the big issue. Among the most affordable projects for apartments, which are Whistler's Cove and College Park, they're reporting 100 percent occupancy, and they have waiting lists for units there. So supply has to be looked at not just in the context of what's the pricing of what's out there and what's available but in terms of what's available to be occupied by people right now, and that's where we're struggling. Next thing I want to share for you is the five -mile radius of properties available for sale. Before we looked at just ZIP code 34114. Now we're looking at a five -mile radius of for -sale properties. The median price is 399,900, or $202 a square foot. Again, if you run a mortgage payment on that calculation with a 20 percent down payment, all those assumptions built in, you get to a monthly payment of a little over $2,000 a month. There's a wide range among those 668 properties for sale. For example, on the low end, you can find condominiums listed for sale at or below the $100,000 mark that are within this criteria; however, the problem is when you look at the details -- for example, the lowest price condo in this dataset had membership and condo fees that were nearly $20,000 a year by the time you added them all up. So on the surface, the price looks like it's affordable but, again, when you go back to HUD's metrics of total housing cost, you see that, really, to be in that property, it's astronomically larger than what the price alone would imply. I want to touch briefly on the value impact component of what we did and just give you a couple of examples. There were more that we completed, but I want to highlight a few. We conducted both an aggregate sales analysis and a paired sales analysis. One of the communities that we focused on was Charlee Estates, which is located pretty close to Regal Acres. It's just south off of U.S. 41, and it's another Habitat community. And so what we did here is we took sales of properties in the neighborhood in Fiddler's Creek that's directly to the south, and the street is Aviamar, and we paired up sales with like factors where we were isolating the only variable being proximity to the Habitat community. And I want to show you how that Page 12 of 83 Packet Pg. 15 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 paired up on the following page here. The property on the left is within 155 feet of affordable housing. It sold in February of 2018 for $565,000; roughly $252 a square foot. The property on the right is nearly identical in all of its features, components, and characteristics. The only difference being that isolated variable of proximity to the Habitat community. This property is a little over a thousand feet away. Sold only a month earlier for 550,000 or roughly $245 a square foot. Again, no real difference there when the only variable isolated is proximity. In addition to paired sales, because sometimes paired sales can be only an individual indicator, we did an aggregate analysis looking at larger data sets. Again, we performed this analysis first in Charlee Estates because it's another Habitat community. And we took a number of sales, in this case 15 sales between two different zones, and analyzed their price per square foot. Zone 1 is the section that's closest to the Habitat community. Zone 2 is the one that's furthest away. Again, remembering our example before of roughly 150 feet compared to 800 to 1,000 feet. And we have prices per square foot that are nearly equivalent. In fact, in this case, although I think it's kind of an outlier, the price per square foot in Zone 1 is actually a little bit higher than the price per square foot in Zone 2. So, again, no indication there that the properties proximate to Charlee Estates are being impacted by that project. The next page, again, I reference -- this is just a part. I'm summarizing for you a lot of work that we did. We looked at these individual communities and performed these analyses on each of them as well, so I wanted to just show you those communities. Each of these communities demonstrated a similar pricing relationship to that which I just showed you. I want to show you one more aggregate sales analysis. What you're looking at here is a map in South Naples here. Naples Manor is the triangle highlighted parcel toward the bottom of the page. There's more affordable housing within Naples Manor. The 10 -year median price point within Naples Manor over the trailing 10 years is roughly $85,000. What we did here is we took Lely Golf Estates, which is reflected in Zones 1 through 4 going north, and we analyzed their 10 -year median price points based on zones. Overall in Lely Golf Estates, the 10 -year median price trend is 282,000. So when we look at 85- versus 282-, we're talking about something that is nearly a fourth, between a third and a fourth of the price for comparison purposes. Zone 1 is the closest zone to Naples Manor. Zone 1 has a price per square foot of around $151 per square foot. At this point you get the idea of what we're doing. Zone 2 is further away; 149. Zone 3, roughly $160 a square foot. Down to Zone 4, the furthest property away from Naples Manor, at 147 per square foot. Again, large enough sample sizes in distribution over the period of time also for the analysis that we performed. No difference being demonstrated in Lely Golf Estates for proximity to the areas closest to Naples Manor. The last area I want to just highlight for you was proximate to Leawood Lakes. The Foxfire community is represented in Zones 1 and 2. The median 10 -year price in Leawood Lakes is roughly $123,000, and in Foxfire, over the past 10 years, it's about $300,000. So a little less than three times the price difference between those communities. Zone 1 is directly proximate to Leawood Lakes. In fact, the properties that are on the eastern side of Foxfire, there's very little buffer at all in distance between those properties. Zone 1's price per square foot is $177 based on 31 sales. Zone 2, $170 per square foot. In addition to the individual detailed primary data that we pulled, we also did a substantial amount of research for academic studies that have been done both locally and nationally. I included quotes here from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency for the Center for Housing Policy and then also from the research arm of Trulia. Those firms, Trulia and Zillow, because of the data that they're aggregating, are developing research arms that are pretty substantial and able to address some of these issues. Each of those studies indicated that there was no negative impact, none demonstrated as it relates to property values tied to their proximity to affordable housing. And so, in closing, I want to summarize that -- and I think this is mostly understood. There's a clear Page 13 of 83 Packet Pg. 16 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 affordability issue as it relates to housing and serving the folks that make up the workforce here. I think market changes over time have necessitated the need to look at affordable housing and perhaps consider adding units. And then, secondly, based on the research that we've conducted, and not just us but other firms across the country, there's no data that we see that suggests that the proposed change here and the addition of affordable housing in this area would have a negative impact on the neighboring properties and residential communities. And with that, I will turn things back over to Laura DeJohn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do, just in case we have any questions pertinent to your -- anybody have any questions on the appraiser issues that were just presented? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have one. I understand what you did on a broad basis. You looked in different parts; I understand all that. But I think the issue probably for the people closest to the project would be those immediate values that that project has, that the projects around them have, and how it affects the average value of those areas. Did you do any research on the price points in the Windward (sic) mobile home park to the south, Reflection Lakes, Naples Reserve and Parcel A of Habitat to see how all those compare in price points? MR. SIMMONS: The research that we conducted, I know off the top of my head the price per square foot in Windward to the south is actually roughly between 65 and $70 a foot. For the few properties in Regal Acres that have transferred, they've been actually around 160, 170 a foot. I didn't focus so much on the price per square foot that currently exists within Reflection Lakes or within Naples Reserve because the focus of what we were doing was essentially trying to make sure we understood would there be damage to the property values there, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, and my understanding the way the Appraiser's office works is as new sales are allocated or come in, they change the market standing on the Appraiser's site for properties in that immediate area. And if you've got Parcel A established for whatever price points they have previously sold for -- I don't know what that is. I think it's around 130 maybe, somewhere in that neighborhood; and you've got the project to the north which has Naples Reserve and Reflection Lakes. You know where their price points are; and you also have the project to the south, which is the mobile home park, Windward Estates; and now you've got your new piece coming in. So is your new piece going to change the average values in that area? Have you looked to see how -- because, basically, I think the mobile home park has less value than the Naples -- than the project you're dealing with, the Parcel A and Parcel B. MR. SIMMONS: Yes. So, so far the sales have indicated that it's about two -and -a -half times less than the existing Regal Acres 1. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: But then Reflection Lakes is about the same amount higher as, probably, Naples Reserve is. And I just -- I didn't see any statistics or data on that, and I thought, being most relevant to the neighborhood, that would have been something that would have been helpful to see. I just wanted to let you know I was looking for something like that when I heard you were going to speak. MR. SIMMONS: Okay. A paired sale within Regal Acres 1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the immediate surrounding communities. People are always concerned, how is that going to affect my house value. MR. SIMMONS: Well, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to affect them because our appraiser looks at it in a local area on the current sales prices. So I appreciate all those data you went to, but you didn't hit the nail in the actual subject at hand today, and that's what I was looking for. Neale? MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. I just want to ask Matt a question. I appreciate your question. But, Mr. Simmons, based on the data that you have, since this project isn't built yet, is there anything in the data that you looked at in Collier County and nationwide that would indicate that the Habitat project is going to have a negative impact on housing values in the surrounding community? Page 14 of 83 Packet Pg. 17 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. SIMMONS: No, nothing at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And I didn't -- you just missed my point. That's all. MR. SIMMONS: Well, no. I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would have been more helpful to know that you had the other communities and your averages and how your new numbers will affect those. I think you're actually going to -- probably your new numbers on your Parcel B will be higher than the mobile home park to the south. MR. SIMMONS: I think there's sometimes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would have been advantageous to know in understanding this, that's all. MR. SIMMONS: Okay. I think there's sometimes a misunderstanding about how assessments work, though. The comparable sales that will be used for assessment purposes between Naples Reserve and Reflection Lakes won't be coming from either Windward or from Regal Acres. Things aren't looked at in a macro level like either from a proximity standpoint for assessment purposes or not. When they're developing assessments or developing comparable sales for comparison, for most properties within Naples -- because our properties tend to be insular and gated, those comparables come just from within. For the same reason that if any one of us had a property in Naples Reserve, we wouldn't suggest that one of the appropriate comparables be either from Windward or from Regal Acres, because they're not comparable projects. So I don't think there's any concern from that respect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, again, I don't think I made myself clear, so -- but that's okay. I don't think I'm going to be able to, so -- but thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay. Go ahead, Nick. MR. KOULOHERAS: Mr. Chair, just -- I think I might have understood a bit of your question there. But from a sales standpoint, you're absolutely correct, Regal Acres Phase A, if you will, the average sales price when Habitat was in there selling was somewhere in the 130- to 145- range. The proposed price at Regal Acres Phase B is going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 180- to 205-. So that might help answer your question a little bit better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it does. Thank you. MR. KOULOHERAS: You're welcome. MS. DeJOHN: Okay. Now we're at the point we're going to wrap up our presentation. I'm just going to summarize by pointing out that we've worked hard on addressing the many criteria that must apply to rezones and to PUD rezonings, compatibility being one of the biggest. We've worked with the surrounding communities, including, of course, Regal Acres Parcel A, who has its own HOA, Naples Reserve to the north, Reflection Lakes, and the Westwind mobile home park. The development standards have been crafted to be in alignment, generally, with what development standards apply within the surrounding area. The open -space standards are aligned, generally, with what's in the surrounding area. Separation and buffering, as proposed in the enhanced buffering plan, greatly exceeds code standards and matches or exceeds any other conditions you might find in all of Collier County between communities that are adjacent to one another. That being said, we hope our presentation helped demonstrate this project and this request are consistent and meet the criteria of PUD rezones and rezoning. We're consistent with the GMP. We've appreciated that the staff report states those facts as well. And we are available to any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And before we start asking questions from our panel, I just want to explain to the audience, the way this works is we will ask questions of the applicant, then we have to have what's a staff report, and staff will describe where their position is on this. We'll again ask questions of staff if need be, and then we'll turn to public speakers, and everybody will have a right to speak that wants to address this issue. And that the applicant has a right for what's called rebuttal. He can address any issues raised, make his final statements. And then we will go into a discussion and then a vote for a recommendation from this Page 15 of 83 Packet Pg. 18 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 body to the Board of County Commissioners. Now, every meeting has to have a break periodically. We break at 10:30. This young lady that's sitting here patiently hoping I don't talk too fast because I had a lot of coffee this morning needs her fingers rested. So we will break at 10:30 for about 15 minutes, then we'll resume right after that wherever we left off. So with that, I'll turn to the panel first. Does anybody have any questions? And we'll start down my right with Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just a little clarification. I was distracted by my computer before. Under disclosures, I had an email exchange with Laura about buffers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a number of rather pointed questions and some serious concerns. But in fairness and in order to commend where commendation is due, I want to say a few good words about Habitat very briefly. I do commend you for the work you've done in this area and elsewhere. You certainly in -- completely in support of the stated policy of this county to help bring about more workforce housing, and I commend you for that, and thank you for your work. My issues, though, involve this particular proposal, not the concept of affordable or workforce housing or the good work that Habitat for Humanity has done here and elsewhere. Having said that, my first question has to do with single-family versus multiple family. The staff report on Page 18 -- and this is of 1,938 pages that we have in our electronic document. That's how I'll refer to what I'm quoting or referring to -- says that this is a single-family residential project and, of course, then if you look down at the uses that you're asking for, you ask for multiple family dwelling units as well. It appears to me that the work that was done to vet the proposal, traffic, utilities, and other infrastructure issues, assumed that this was to be a single-family development, but it's not at all, really, is it? MS. DeJOHN: Well, I'm sure you're -- Laura DeJohn. I'm sure you're familiar with the methods of getting PUD rezonings filed. The list of uses under the residential component of the PUD does include that variety. That variety allows a developer to use a corner of the property that's awkwardly shaped to put two units together, for example. That flexibility is what the developer looks for when he's launching the project, which this project launched by submittal to the county almost a year ago. We have had the questions about how serious is this project intended to be multifamily project; we're not seriously trying to make this a multifamily project. Habitat is willing to take out the multifamily component of that list of uses to prove that this is not intended to be a multifamily project. It was only listed as an option because when laying out a site, starting a year ago, and then ultimately getting permits three years from now, there could be some flexibility that the developer wants there. If it's concerning everyone because, as you've now worded, you consider this a multifamily project, we'll definitely take that out of the list of options so that you're not -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will you limit your occupancy to single-family? MS. DeJOHN: Single-family is listed; two-family is listed. The existing Regal Acres project is a two-family development. I don't know if that's apparent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I take that as a no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you -- MS. DeJOHN: So single-family -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do, there might be a terminology that needs to be squared away. If you take out the multifamily dwelling units, that means you don't do the process by an SDP. You use fee simple. MS. DeJOHN: Right. C14AIRMAN STRAIN: If you hit fee simple, it's considered like a single-family. Attached townhouses are fee simple. Duplexes are fee simple. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- I think that might be the question you're trying to get to, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's see. The language in C3 of the uses -- and this is on Page 48 -- it Page 16 of 83 Packet Pg. 19 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 says, two-family and duplex dwelling units. So I -- that's not quite what I see in the flexibility that you're asking for and, therefore, I would ask that you limit it to single-family and duplex dwelling units, duplex single-family dwelling units. MS. DeJOHN: We would limit it to fee simple single-family and two -- I mean, we're, again, just talking terminology. Two-family is actually the better definition of two units attached to one another. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I notice that all of the studies were done, and there's lots of rhetoric in the material both from Habitat and also from staff that just assumes that this is a single-family project, and it's -- we can't look at it that way because of what you're asking for. And I think that -- I think you should seriously consider -- and we'll see what other Planning Commissioners have to say. But from my viewpoint, I think you should seriously consider limiting it to single-family the way your studies -- these studies on this have apparently been limited. So that's my first comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and before we leave your comment -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because I think it's relevant to stay on it while we're at it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura, what was Parcel A developed as? MS. DeJOHN: Two-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And two-family but still sold fee simple for each half of the unit. Is that correct or is it -- MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. DeJOHN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How does that differ from what you're proposing for what we have in front of us today? MS. DeJOHN: All of that would be the same condition with the exception that I said we would take out the multifamily item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, no. Your intention to build today. MS. DeJOHN: Single. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plan that's in front of us on the screen -- MS. DeJOHN: Single. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that the same methodology used for Parcel A which was two-family or duplex fee simple? MS. DeJOHN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of what I think may help us understand where the issue is and what type of uses you need beyond fee simple single-family. So what is it you need that you would have to have for that parcel shown on this overhead right here out of that list of 1 through 6 to meet that criteria? And then we can kind of zero it down to what you're actually doing. MS. DeJOHN: One through 3 match the diagram. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So those houses that we're showing here are a mix of single-family detached, which is fee simple; zero lot line detached, which is fee simple; two-family and duplex dwelling units, which will be fee simple? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: So you don't have a condominium? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which means you don't have an SDP? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which means you have a plat and lots, and they're all fee simple? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that help? COMMISSIONER FRYER: It helps me somewhat, but I do not take the point that simply because Page 17 of 83 Packet Pg. 20 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 you have two-family occupancy on Parcel A that you should automatically have it on Parcel B for reasons that I'm going to get into. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we understood the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That was helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was a little confused on what was being asked to be removed and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. My next comment has to do with market value. And let me just say very briefly, my background of practicing law for 46 years, I've done countless advocacy pieces for clients on issues, and I know how they are done, and I know how selective resourcing of data can be compiled to really look, really, however you want it to look. So I'm no stranger to that. And there's nothing unethical or inappropriate about it. It's just how advocacy pieces have done. But when I see something like this, and I see Section 10 -- or Subsection 10 of 10.02.13 of the Land Development Code which asks us to consider whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas, your advocacy piece comes to the conclusion that it won't. To me that defies common sense and common knowledge. And I suspect that if -- if as much funding had been put behind a similar study to come to the opposite conclusion, that could well have happened. And I'll just leave it go with the fact that I find that as incredible, please. The next thing that I want to bring out has to do with an email. We received a series of emails early this morning, and one was from a Mr. and Mrs. Livingston who made some points about the activities taking place on, I guess, Parcel A. And the Livingstons commented that there appear to be multiple families living in single-family units, multiple cars parked in front of units, including during working hours, roaming children. And I maybe shouldn't even bring that up, because we don't know where the roaming children came from, but that was mentioned in the email. And all of this leads me to a conclusion that I have seen reached before with respect to aggregations of low-income housing. And, again, to me it's a matter of common sense and common knowledge that when you have large aggregations, you're going to potentially, not always, but potentially create the same kind of problems that I think Habitat was designed to remediate. And the -- my research into this led me to an article in the Treasure Coast Palm newspaper that I think covers Vero Beach, and the headline of this was, "Some fear Habitat for Humanity creating ghetto neighborhoods." Well, that's a rather -- a rather, perhaps, slanted, unfair headline. But then I went down and read the article, and they quoted a fellow. Well, it says here, "Many people living in Winter Beach area say they support Habitat's mission of providing housing for low-income families but contend the homes should be built on scattered sites rather than concentrated in Habitat -only subdivisions. John Chilberg, who said he was one of the original board members for the local Habitat chapter, is among those who thinks clustering of homes in single neighborhoods is a bad idea. 'They are actually creating ghetto neighborhoods,' says Chilberg. Some residents also say that they're worried such a subdivision along this way would lead to increased crime and lower property values." Again, no studies behind this stuff, but this was an article that was out there, and it seemed to ring more truly to at least my common knowledge and my common sense than the advocacy piece that you put forward, so I wanted to mention that. Continuing with the concerns that I have here and the questions that I want to ask you, I notice that there was no data included in your materials showing the current areas either of workforce or affordable housing concentrations or Habitat concentrations, particularly in the East Trail area, the East Naples area. That would have been very useful, I think, for an objective analysis to have been made whether there is excessive concentration of low-income housing in a particular area that can be detrimental to the overall area and also detrimental to the people who dwell in those high concentrations of lower income housing, as noted by the article that I quoted. So I'm sorry that we didn't have a map showing all the places where the Habitat is. I'm going to continue looking for that because I expect you'll be coming before us again, and I personally would like to know where they are. Page 18 of 83 Packet Pg. 21 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 I assume you don't have it available this morning, or do you? MR. KOULOHERAS: Nick Kouloheras. We don't have it available for you this morning; however, we did engage a third party to pull up all of Habitat for Humanity's building permits 2012 to two thousand current. And what it will show is in the 34113, 34114, kind of the East Naples area, that since the inception of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County in 1978, in that East Naples area Habitat for Humanity has built roughly 992 homes, of -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you have, like, a pushpin thing to show where your concentrations are? MR. KOULOHERAS: We can -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I looked at your web site and didn't find what I was looking for. MR. KOULOHERAS: We could certainly send it out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. KOULOHERAS: That's the rough number. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe's got a followup. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to follow up on that as well. I would ask that after the break, Nick, you come back with a map, or at least put it up on the web. You can easily show the clustered Habitat communities on the Trail, very easily. I could tell you where they are. You know where they are. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And 2012 is certainly not the right metric. You go all the way back to 2001 and'2. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And we have all that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And when Charlee Estates was built and all the other developments that are cluster developments down there, I think it's disingenuous that you show up at this meeting and not have that. I think you can easily do that during the break. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yeah, certainly can. We have that information. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. There are really two complaints that we have heard about affordable or workforce housing, whatever you call it, that -- first of all, in order to be successful, the housing units really need to be integrated into communities, more diverse communities at large rather than bundled together in tight concentrations, that some of the very problems that sometimes people see in low income housing areas is that the closer they're pushed together, the more likelihood they're going to be for problems. I just say that anecdotally. So I'm surprised that you're not out there building more houses that are to be integrated into a larger, more diverse community than having concentrations of affordable housing. That's the first complaint. The second that we hear is that East Naples has become overwhelmed with affordable housing, that it has really more than its fair share of this kind of housing. And, again, that's only anecdotal, and I'm glad you're going to come back to show us exactly where your activities have been. And if you have something that also shows where all affordable housing is, that would also, I think, elucidate this for me. And it may well disprove the common belief, but the common belief is that there is just an unfair -- an unfair concentration of affordable housing in an area that should be focused upon as one that has potential to be a leading area in Collier County rather than a home for low-income housing, shall we say. So that's -- that is a second point that I wanted to make. Now -- I'm going to get to a question here, believe me. On Page 404 of the material -- and again, Ms. Montgomery, is that your name? MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Counsel, you adopted an interesting tact at the NIM. You were sort of asking rhetorical questions, but it did bring out useful information, and I appreciate that. It was somewhat unusual, but it worked. And in the course of that someone said, someone advocating for Habitat said, "And we don't anticipate any significant impacts to the surrounding roadway network." Again, common sense and common Page 19 of 83 Packet Pg. 22 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 knowledge tells me it will have a significant impact, and particularly if you're going to get -- even if you limit it to single-family use and you get multiple families living in a single-family dwelling, there is going to be a negative impact on Greenway and possibly other streets as well. And I think to say otherwise really challenges credulity. MR. NEALE: Yeah. Neale Montgomery, for the record. What I would say to that is this project analyzes traffic impacts in the same manner that all projects analyze their traffic impacts under the county standards. And based on the county standards and county criteria, it's not a negative impact, and it's consistent with your regulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the terminology's a little bit different. A significant impact is defined at a certain percentage hitting on the roadway system, and you don't reach that threshold. Any -- even one car added to a road could -- you theoretically could say, well, that's -- if you believe cars are negative, then that's a negative impact, and I think that's kind of what Ned's saying -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is. That's exactly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that you have a negative impact; you just don't have significant impact. There's probably a slight difference. MR. NEALE: And I appreciate that clarification. I just wanted to point out that the project as proposed does meet the county criteria. But, you're right, traffic -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's bound to. And sort of like you're over -arguing your case, if I may respectfully suggest. And, again, same thing, quoting from the NIM, Ms. Montgomery, you're asking a rhetorical question. "Okay. So you've given us a lot of information," you said to your clients, "but the short answer is, is this going to have a negative impact on the property values?" And the CEO -- and I apologize, sir, I can't pronounce your name. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yeah, that was me, Nick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, Nick. MR. KOULOHERAS: It's a long last name. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nick said, "No, it will not." Again, a categorical, unequivocal and, in my humble opinion, unsupportable conclusion that challenges credulity that I think you reach too far, and I think your case would perhaps be more credible if you would acknowledge that statistics point to at least a probability of at least a marginal adverse impact on traffic and on adjacent property values. How much of an impact people can debate. So that was the point I wanted to make on that. Now -- let's see. One of the neighbors asked for a commitment that the new homes on Parcel B be composed exclusively of single-family dwellings, and one of your representatives failed to give that assurance, and I understand where you are on that today; that you're willing to say single and two-family. I -- let me use -- let me use your offer of compromise as a springing -off point to drill a little down into that. And, again, I commend you for a lot of the vetting that you do before you let people into your projects. I think you do a good job. You ask the right questions. You try to assess their ability to be viable under the circumstances of having a mortgage and a job whenever at all possible and a certain amount of longevity in Collier County before they can apply. All that is good. But what I heard from the neighbors in the NIM is a concern repeatedly expressed that in spite of the good vetting afterward, things happen, such as multiple families moving into single-family dwellings and creating a crowding situation that even under the best of conditions is going to lead to problems that will invariably leak out of that dwelling unit into the neighborhood. And so that's why I am reluctant to support the two-family option, and I think the single-family with better -- better control measures on your part to be sure that they remain single-family would be something that I would far prefer to see. If you want to comment on that. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. MR. KOULOHERAS: The comments suggested there, the anecdotal comments about multiple families moving into a single-family home just not -- don't remember who this person was, but we had a discussion with someone with one of the adjoining property owners, and they said, "Well, I drove through Page 20 of 83 Packet Pg. 23 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 that Regal Acres community, and I saw eight cars in the driveway." And the problem was they didn't realize it was an attached house. They didn't -- I use duplex because I'm from Massachusetts. The Florida term is "attached villa." For all intents and purposes, a duplex. They didn't realize it was a duplex and the driveways adjoined each other with just a little divider down the middle. So they made an assumption that because they saw eight cars in front of a home that there was two families living in there. They didn't -- and then when I clarified, "Well, you know that's a two-family home, correct?" the response I got was "Oh." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't take any comments from the audience until -- sir, that's fine. You can wait till your turn. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I take your point. And you're right, it was based upon that observation. But are you, then, in a position to say that that -- that multiple families occupying a single-family dwelling is not a problem? MR. KOULOHERAS: No, it's not, not within our communities. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How do you verify that? MR. KOULOHERAS: We verify that through deed restrictions, we verify it through mortgage restrictions, we verify that through having a very, very close relationship with both Code Enforcement and the Collier County Sheriffs Department. We've started to implement certain things within our new mortgages starting July lst. It goes back to comments Mr. Strain and I had years ago about, hey, how do we get back into these communities and make sure certain things aren't being done? Within our mortgage documents now we have an inspection program. So we are allowed to walk into a home. First year we plan on doing it quarterly. Second year bi-annually, and bi-annually continually after to do spot visits on homes, to walk into the house and see what's going on, see if things have been modified illegally, see if -- see what we see. But, unfortunately, to be perfectly honest with you, we have not had -- can I sit up here and say, undoubtedly there's never been another family living in a house, of course not, because I cannot visit every house every day. MR. KLATZKOW: You can't regulate this, because it gets to the definition of what's a family, all right. So -- and it doesn't matter if it's affordable housing or if it's high-end housing, okay. So the typical structure of the concept that we have is the nuclear family, okay, from the 1950s. That's what's embedded into all our minds with single-family residential, but that's not what America is right now, okay. It's changed. So you get -- in Golden Gate -- I've driven through Golden Gate City many times. You'll see multiple cars in front of a house, because there are multiple families living there, but they could be related. So this is my cousin, okay. They just lost their house. They're living with us. Going to throw them out? Okay. This is my sister, okay. Her husband just left her. She's here with her family. You going to throw them out? So I understand the point of multiple families living in a single-family residence. From an enforcement standpoint, you can't do anything about it because it gets down to, what is the definition of a family? And you can't parse that out. We're not going to run Code Enforcement there and check identifications on see who's living there. It's just -- it's impossible -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does bring us to another issue. MR. KLATZKOW: It's an impossible burden that you're putting on the applicant here, is what I'm getting at. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: And this board is here to decide issues related only to the Land Development Code. So I would suggest if we can keep our discussion focused on elements relative to the Land Development Code, which management afterwards is not something relevant to Land Development Code until it rises to the level of code enforcement. So maybe we could steer into a direction more related to what this board is supposed to focus on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I will certainly take your point, and I take the County Attorney's point about enforcement. These were issues that were raised by the neighbors, and I felt that they needed to be thought about, and reviewed, and considered by this board. I do think they relate to the Land Page 21 of 83 Packet Pg. 24 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 Development Code, provisions having to do with the neighborhood property values and traffic issues. So I think they're sufficiently connected. But I pretty much finished with that line of questioning. The next question that I have has to do with the neighbors asking for a wall to prevent trespassing going in either direction. And I see that a fence is being proposed but not a wall. Could you comment on that? MR. KOULOHERAS: Sure. In regards to the community of Reflection Lakes to the west, you know, we feel that the roughly 300, 320 feet of a dedicated preserve adequately addresses the buffering and opaqueness. When it comes to a security standpoint, we think that if that is a concern, putting up -- agreeing to a 6 -foot -high chain-link fence that buffers the property where we don't believe a wall really does anything, because if I'm a 12 -year-old kid, I can get over a wall if I want to get over a wall. And we've got to remember what we're here trying to do is provide affordable housing. Right now at today's dollars -- and we put a small inflator out there for an 8 -foot -high precast concrete wall, you're looking at roughly $100 a linear foot. That distance right there would require us to spend roughly another $100,000 for a concrete wall that may not have the ultimate effect or result that the residents would like to see. A 6 -foot -high chain link fence which, in many ways, accomplishes the same thing, is about $27 a linear foot. So at the end of the day, we're trying to bring homes online here, and every penny we put into the project gets moved down the line in some way, shape, or form. So we believe we've addressed the security issues with a fence. The logical question I would ask if I was sitting up there was, well, why did you do one on the south and one on the north? And the answer for that is the distance between our proposed community and the Westwinds neighborhood to the south is significantly less, roughly half. And so we believed as a sound barrier that would help. And to the north, there was a lake as a buffer, but as we all know, sound tends to travel better over water than it does through woods. So when we talked to the residents that are most affected at Naples Reserve, we decided that, along with some upgraded landscaping, would help address their issues. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Those are all the questions I have, but I'm not sure -- and maybe if you would like to answer about the issue of concentration, why you're doing that versus the placement in more diverse communities. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, absolutely. I do have some --just some statistics. This is stuff that's -- Habitat for Humanity holds all of its own mortgages. We pull the data out of every single Habitat home we've ever built since 1978, which is roughly 2,100 homes. In District 1, we have built 949 homes; in District 2, zero; in District 3, 111; District 4, 23; and in District 5, 852. So to get to the answer of concentration in that area, the number's roughly 949 homes over -- since Habitat started in 1978. We'll bring back a map that will show those locations. The second part of your question is we're trying to do that. We are actively right now out. We've put multiple offers on parcels in the North Naples area of town. Over the past, since 2012, we've built roughly 100 homes in the Golden Gate Estates area. We've built, since 2010, roughly 150 homes or so, give or take, 120 maybe, in Golden Gate City. We just finished up a home down in City of Naples proper. So I don't disagree. We are trying to spread it out; however, you know, pricing is obviously a constrictor. Government regulation is a constrictor. And so as we try to go and do these different communities throughout Collier County, all those factors have to be considered. But we are -- but we are trying to do that. I was just here at the Board of County Commissioners before they broke making that exact statement. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: While we're on the wall, was the suggestion that the wall go on your property line down the middle of the buffer? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, I believe so. That was -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Page 22 of 83 Packet Pg. 25 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, I believe so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Honestly, it's probably a good time to take our break for the court reporter. We'll resume in -- 10:45. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome back, everyone. We left off with questions from the Planning Commission. Ned had finished up his, and I'll move to other Planning Commission members. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm going to go with the easy one first. Nick, can you, or, Laura, go back to the fence issue and the buffer issue. But before that, I do support -- and you know -- and I've known Nick for many years and, God rest his soul, Sam, who was one of the great motivators and pursued Habitat -- MR. KOULOHERAS: I thought you were saying God rest my soul. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was thinking the same thing. I'm wondering, where's this going? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You survived. But as you know, as administrator, I was a big supporter of helping Habitat. But I do have a lot of questions regarding this project. Regarding the fence. And can you throw up on the viewer or your slides, I want to follow up on the questions about fence in the preserves, just to show that, and then where you were proposing a fence versus a wall. And -- because are you talking about the chain-link fence right through the preserve, the entire length of the preserve? Is that what you were proposing? And have you agreed to that, or is that just -- MS. DeJOHN: Chain-link fence along the entire length of the preserve, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Along the western edge of the preserve? Down that western edge? And it would be those two sections. So, in essence, where the preserve is it will be a chain-link fence, and then there will be a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I think there's some clarification needed, just so we're accurate. First of all, the purpose of the fence is security; is that what you're looking for? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then in order -- if it is to be secure, it's got to be encompassing the points where the wall starts and stops right now. So you really have to go along the north property line and the south property line if your intention is to put it on the west side of the preserve. If it's to put it on the east side of the preserve, you can pick it up where the wall's left off and go that way, and I think that's the question Joe's asking; which is it going to be? MS. DeJOHN: Correct. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Either way, one will take you more fence because you'll have to go further north and south than just -- east and west than you would north and south. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So, essentially, the fence behind the property line or the fence right through the preserve. I'll say the property line. The individual -- MR. KOULOHERAS: On the back of the lots versus through the preserve is what you -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. KOULOHERAS: What we had proposed is that the fence would go down the property line of the preserve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. KOULOHERAS: So not the backyards -- the perimeter. I'm sorry. The perimeter of the preserve, and it would loop back around and connect back in and meet up with the concrete wall on the north side and on the south side of the property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then the -- where you have the darker lines on the north and south, that is wall? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, sir. Page 23 of 83 Packet Pg. 26 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It will be a masonry wall of some sort or -- MR. KOULOHERAS: Your standard 8 -foot precast like you see, you know, in a lot of other subdivisions in town. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Can you go back two or three slides. Laura put up a slide that showed the buffer. Go back. That one. No, go back a few more and maybe -- go back. Go back. Nope. I'm sorry. Go back the other way then. It just shows that buffer. It seems to indicate that you're going to put up some royal palms. Those are pretty expensive, 8- to $10,000 each. Are you looking at royal palms, or is that -- as I see in the bottom picture, in the distance it said supplementary landscaping, points an arrow. Are those royal palms? Just appears that that's what you're presenting, and I -- MS. DeJOHN: They're not -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Those are fan palms. MS. DeJOHN: Yeah, they're not a royal palm. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Those are fan palms. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just want to make sure that we don't -- or you're not -- people are not misled thinking these are going to be royal palms lining that whole strip. MS. DeJOHN: No. The conversation with Naples Reserve talks species. And this is a fast-growing palm. It's not a royal palm. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And the fences that exist at Naples Lakes -- or Reflection Lakes and Naples Reserve, there are already fences there. I was out there the other day, and I noticed the one fence, but I wasn't in Reflection Lakes. There are -- but there is a fence in -- MS. DeJOHN: Naples Reserve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- Naples Reserve. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That is their fence. It's a chain-link fence? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I'm going to get to the hard questions, because my biggest concern in this -- have you measured -- I'm talking about school concurrency. My biggest concern is Manatee school. I sent you an email. It's just intuitive from the standpoint of my assessment. I have nothing to back this up other than looking at the density of children. I would have to believe there's a higher density of children coming out of Regal Acres, Trail Ridge, and -- then there would be at -- in Naples Reserve or Reflection Lakes. And my biggest aggravation -- and I am really aggravated about this. I've already mentioned it to Tom. I think it's absolutely deplorable that this county still has what I would call trailers where they put schoolchildren in at Manatee school. It's been 17 years. I've been here 16. Those trailers have been out there 16 years. Sixteen years is not temporary. That's permanent. I think it's deplorable that the school board has not developed any kind of capital improvement program to accommodate the growth in East Naples, specifically Manatee school, and that they keep on shoving children -- and I use the word "shove" children into the trailers. In fact, I've heard those trailers -- I've not been in there, but they used to be pretty bad. I think I lived in better trailers when I was in Afghanistan than what some of those trailers are out there. It's just a personal thing. So I have a real problem with the school concurrency and is there capacity in the school to absorb the density of children that I suspect will be moving into this community? And is there -- and I'm going to pass to Tom, because I want Tom to address it as well. Is there anything going to be done about replacing the trailers? Is there any Capital Improvement Program? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's stay on the focus of this PUD, though. I mean, I think your question is, is there a capacity in the schools for the children from this facility? And that would be possibly Manatee school. And if Tom is the person that can answer that, fine. If not, the applicant may have information. I know that they submitted a school concurrency requirement to be this -- to have this PUD, and that was supplied affirmatively. But we'll turn to Tom at this point. MR. EASTMAN: Yes, you're correct, Mr. Chairman. There is capacity. Page 24 of 83 Packet Pg. 27 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that includes the temporary facilities? MR. EASTMAN: I don't know that they're considered permanent capacity. We have portables throughout the district. I think there are 78 total portables. Eleven elementary schools have portables. Laurel Oak has the most with 15 portable units. And it's my understanding that the portables at Manatee have recently been remodeled on the inside. Two of those portables were purchased by federal grants to do a Head Start program. So I think that only three are being used for classrooms at this -- at this stage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So there is concurrency validated? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's -- the current development now, do you have any idea what the concentration of school-age kids are out of that? I'm just curious. I mean, I'm just -- from a standpoint of school concurrency, you send them that information. They look at a household. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The average household size in Collier County at the last census was 2.47 persons per household. So some of those are going to be children, obviously. So I can't -- I don't know how many are. I don't know if we've got that statistic, but that's the current number. MR. KOULOHERAS: Well, I hate using decimal points when it comes to relating to a family, because you're either a whole person or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is less than half of a person now. MR. KOULOHERAS: So from -- Lisa, our CEO, has just informed me the average Habitat for Humanity family size for children is 1.8. So if you were to take a community of 116 homes, you're talking 2 -- roughly 232 children, give or take, and that range would be, you know, diversified over the elementary, middle, and high school. So you might only have 50 kids that go into elementary, and, you know, 60 in middle. I don't know the exact breakdown. But Lisa's telling me it's about 1.8 per family. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Lisa would know. She keeps track of it. I know we're not here to approve the affordable housing density bonus. That goes to the Board. And, Nick, you mentioned about having oversight and control of the mortgages. And just a question, because it comes up from the public. How do you control resale and, with a resale, making sure that if that resale -- and I see Cormac back there -- about making sure that payments are made on impact fee deferrals. Because that was one of the things that always comes up is these are sold after five or six years, an investor comes in or somebody comes in and buys them up and then turns around and rents units. MR. KOULOHERAS: So there's kind of two sides of that. There's the Habitat restrictions -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. KOULOHERAS: -- and then there's restrictions put on families if they've received any type of down payment. And I'm saying "down payment." I'm using SHIP funds in that general sense. I'm using impact deferrals. So from a Habitat standpoint, Habitat does a number of things. Number one, Habitat has the right of first refusal on all its homes. Habitat puts in place a shared appreciation agreement in order to control someone from manipulating the system and trying to flip the house. I mean, you've got to remember, back in the boom days, Habitat was selling homes at 80-, and they were appraising at 250- the next day. So that's what came out of the those days is the shared appreciation agreement. On the governmental side, if they receive any type of federal home loan assistance, SHIP down payment assistance, or impact fee deferrals, those are all restrictions that are put in the deed that have to be repaid if transfer of ownership happens. So transfer of ownership is even so specific, if Nick Kouloheras as a Habitat homeowner, I receive an impact fee deferral, Nick Kouloheras wants to sell his house, Habitat for Humanity has a first right of refusal, buys it back with every intent, obviously, to put another income -qualified family in. Habitat for Humanity as an entity, though, is not an approved income -eligible family. So Habitat for Humanity immediately has to repay -- make that repayment even though we're just the median to transfer to another family. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You make the replacement -- Page 25 of 83 Packet Pg. 28 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- of the impact fees? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you still hold a -- do you hold a second on those homes? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that's the way you can control transfer and receiving. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's just curious. I do have questions about Greenway Road. I don't know if we're going to wait for the staff, because I have questions of Mike Sawyer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you -- if you have questions that their traffic engineer could address, if he's here, that might be the step we do right now. We'll get Mike during staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My questions are more general in nature. I'm going on, typically, in the past a project of this size, the county would look to the developer to make improvements to the impacted road, and that would be Greenway Road, but there is no requirement for you to do any requirements at all to improve Greenway Road; is that correct? MR. HILDEBRAND: Joshua Hildebrand with Johnson Engineering, for the record. I'm a transportation engineer. That is correct, the traffic generated as a result of Parcel B was estimated using single-family homes based off 100 -- the total p.m. trips was 120. Based off of that peak hour, peak direction on Greenway Road, no improvements are anticipated. There was a turn -lane analysis, a left turn -lane analysis conducted at the main entrance. It did meet or exceed the threshold for left turns, but due to the location at the northern terminus of Greenway Road, we are requesting a deviation from the left turn lane due to the opposing through traffic that was counted in April of 2018. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And just for the record, I do live in Fiddler's Creek. I'm well aware of the improvements in Fiddler's Creek because that came before this board. I did not vote on that, but I'm well aware that Greenway Road intersects right at the -- I just lost the name of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sandpiper. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Sandpiper, thank you. Lost the word. Sandpiper Road. There was significant concerns at the intersection of Sandpiper where there will eventually be some kind of retail store on the Fiddler's Creek property on the east side of Sandpiper. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is one on Sandpiper -- on Greenway and 41. There's a 7 -Eleven with gas pumps came in for approval there; just so you know. Northwest corner. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And -- well, on the Fiddler's Creek side? C14ARZMAN STRAIN: No. Across the street. Across -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But there's also -- there was concerns about a traffic signal, signalization of that intersection, and there was a commitment that was going to be made. I'm not -- or certainly the CDD is -- Fiddler's Creek is going to pay for some of that, the CDD2. Was there -- is there any requirement of the county for Habitat to contribute towards any signal if, in fact, a signal goes in there to accommodate for this left -turn requirement? Because there will eventually be a signal there. It will probably be warranted somehow because of the amount of traffic that will be going into the Sandpiper gate and to the commercial entities that are going to be constructed on the Fiddler's Creek property there at the southeast corner there at 41 and Sandpiper, which is directly across the street from Greenway Road. In fact, that exit was put there to align with Greenway Road. So is Habitat required to -- for any type of -- if there's eventually a signal to be put there, would Habitat have to contribute towards the payment of that or no, or is that something the county is going to require? MR. HILDEBRAND: I would have to defer to the county. To my knowledge, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And while we're on the topic of your TIS, you use single-family. MR. HILDEBRAND: Correct. Page 26 of 83 Packet Pg. 29 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe single-family has a higher trip rate than multifamily. MR. HILDEBRAND: No, that's incorrect. Or the single-family does have a higher trip rate, and it was utilized for the parcel -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because the TIS is supposed to show the highest impact of those uses requested. So by using the single-family, you didn't use it because you intended the project to be built in single-family. Analysis required that. The analysis was required to just look at the most intense so that anything else used would be less than the most intense that was utilized; is that a fair statement? MR. HILDEBRAND: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's just for clarification based on some previous questions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I'm going to -- I still want to ask Mike Sawyer why staff -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That can wait till we get the staff report? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else of this gentleman from their TIS perspective? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: TIS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That concludes my questions in regards to specifics. I think you've addressed everything except for -- I don't know if Nick was able to get a map just to show the other Habitat communities. MR. NEALE: Yeah. For the record, Neale Montgomery. I would just refer you in your packet to Page 57. There is a traffic condition in there that references the signal. I don't know if that's what you were inquiring about, but there is a condition. MR. KOULOHERAS: Let me see how bad I can mess this thing up. So there was -- and Cormac Giblin I notice is in the back from county staff that might be able to help address this question a little bit better. But there's two pieces of data we have here to show. This map right here -- I'm not sure if you can see it that well. But this map right here was a map that Habitat had done through GIS Solutions. This map right here, unfortunately, is a few years old, but what it will show you is the county as a whole, and then the communities that have been built are named out with -- at this particular moment in time, with exactly how many homes were built within each community. And if it had -- if it -- there's a number of them that, like -- that reference 10 acres, for example. That was the original parcel -- that was the original acreage for Regal Acres Parcel B. So it, obviously, doesn't have an exact unit count on it, because at the time this map was generated we didn't have a site plan to go with it. But you can see the different Habitat communities and dispersion between Golden Gate Estates up here and the Immokalee Road corridor and the Town of -- in Immokalee proper. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you zero in on the 41 corridor down there in that area. MR. KOULOHERAS: Absolutely. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can you get the other map? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is fine. MR. KOULOHERAS: Well, because it shows the affordable issue as a whole. But Habitat specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is a better map at the county. You -all know it. MR. KOULOHERAS: There is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you've seen it. So I think that would probably solve the issue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm looking at the cluster developments that they -- C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Then there's a map that does that, and shows all the Habitat properties. Then we have another one that shows all of the low-income housing in the area. So all that is available, but it's a series of maps that have not been included in today's presentation. MR. KOULOHERAS: That's correct. But to answer your question, there are four Habitat communities in the East Naples area. Those are Trail Ridge, Charlee Estates, and Victoria Falls, and Regal Acres A. Those are the designated Habitat -specific communities. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: How much more land do you own off of Greenway Road, or what are your plans for additional development off Greenway Road? Do you have any now? MR. KOULOHERAS: So the existing lands Habitat for Humanity currently owns in the East Naples Page 27 of 83 Packet Pg. 30 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 corridor are all sitting within receiving lands, and so there is no development planned at this point in time just because I know that, you know, there's been studies going on for the past few years of what's going to happen within the receiving land area. But, I mean, as it sits right now, Habitat for Humanity owns two tracts of land. Those two tracts of lands at current density, or current allowable density, could yield a number of -- or roughly 300 -and -something units. I'm sorry. I'd have to go back and do the exact math based off TDRs. But we own 93 acres east of Fritchey Road, which is off Greenway, and we own an additional 84 acres just north of the Links of Naples golf course, which is further east. That's the -- that's what Habitat owns currently in all of East Naples, or in that corridor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's in the receiving lands? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But nothing right in this vicinity where -- I don't think there's anything you can do any more up there, right off of Greenway Road at this Regal Acres. MR. KOULOHERAS: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Across the street is the seed farm. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yeah, Syngenta Farms, and then a number of private properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll talk to Mike when we have time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? MR. KOULOHERAS: So, Mr. Chair, this was the better map I meant to show. This is the East Naples boundary in dark green, and the red dots represent Habitat homes. As you can see, the four communities are the clustered ones down here that are very defined, and then you have Naples Manor, which is the triangle up here, and then across the street. So that shows you everything Habitat has done in the East Naples boundary area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All the red in Naples Manor -- MR. KOULOHERAS: Correct. Naples Manor consists of 1,500 homesites. Habitat has built roughly 300 of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That green line, is that what you think represents East Naples? MR. KOULOHERAS: Well, sir, I think that's up to debate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only reason I've been asking is that Golden Gate City is not part of East Naples, so I think that line needs to be adjusted at some point. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yeah. This is the civic -- yeah -- well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, oh, the civic association for East Naples includes Golden Gate City. MR. KOULOHERAS: East Naples Civic association -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because they've got their own civic association. MR. KOULOHERAS: That's right. And this map was not created by Habitat. This map was created by Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just curious. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I've often said, even at the last meeting with Cormac, I said, we ought to use the planning communities as the designator. We have had planning communities on our Comp Plan for 20, 25 years, and -- MR. KOULOHERAS: Long time. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- those are the ones we should use to identify our communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nick, I just have a couple. I have, for you, a couple questions. In looking this over, I went to the county assessor, and I see you purchased the 1.35 acres, which makes the piece very odd. Right next to it going towards Greenway Road, there's another 1.35 acres, and then you have Fair Homes Silver Linings, LLC, which has 2.46. Why did you not buy all of that? The Silver -- the Silver Linings One was -- went into foreclosure, and it -- this other one with 1.35 acres is landlocked. MR. KOULOHERAS: Correct. So to answer your question specifically, we sent out letters to those Page 28 of 83 Packet Pg. 31 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 adjoining property owners some time ago, a number of years ago, kind of informing them of our intent, asking them if they'd be interested in selling. The parcel we did buy was an owner, didn't even realize she owned it. It was deeded to her through a trust at some point in time, and she said, yes, I'll sell it to you. What's it appraise at, and that's the number. The other property owners, we heard back, I believe, from one of the three, and they just said, no, I'm not interested in selling. We didn't hear back from the other two. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, it just was curiosity, because then there's the 10.55 acres behind that. So what it would do would complete almost, like, the whole section and -- but at some time you could buy those and put that in there. MR. KOULOHERAS: There's no intention, but I guess you're right. I mean, what happens 10, 15, 20 years from now -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: You could come back for a PUD amendment again. MR. KOULOHERAS: That's right. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do these -- you know, you're right. When she was showing the homes, they were single-family homes in your pictures, and all the drawings looked great. Do these homes have garages? MR. KOULOHERAS: These particular homes do not have garages, and there's a reason for that if you'd like an explanation, but... COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, in looking also at Google Earth in your first section, I can see where people are upset. I went in and took a look, and the cars are enormous amounts, and not having garages does not help. And it is -- it did not look good. If you go in on Google Earth, it did not look good at all. And you're going to go through A to get to B. I had a question. Because you carry the mortgages on all these properties -- and in the NIM meetings and the stuff I was reading -- and I know you've kind of changed things because you had such an uproar of the people in Collier County, because after you leave these places go to pot. And I agree with the people. That's one of the biggest problems that Habitat has. And you can't control -- you're telling us you can't control the Parcel A because that's the homeowners association. You own the mortgages. I would think that you as a banker could step in there and do something about that. You could get -- you could do something about that now. I just really feel you could. And the other thing I was going to -- are these all three-bedroom homes? MR. KOULOHERAS: They're mostly three-bedroom, two -bath. There are probably going to be a few four-bedroom, two -baths as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So they will be three- and four-bedroom -- MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- units? I'm going to ask you about the sidewalk. MR. KOULOHERAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I notice you put the sidewalk around the lake. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It's supposed to go in front of the people's homes. And I looked across the street and, you know, to you that's not a big deal. But people with pets, that's where they're going to take them so they walk on the sidewalk, and that's right at the lake. I just -- I just feel it should be on the side that the homes are on. That's normally what we do. MR. KOULOHERAS: And there is a sidewalk in front of all the homes. The sidewalk that goes around the lake was actually designed as -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Walking path. MR. KOULOHERAS: -- a low-income amenity package, if you will, an amenity so people can get out, walk. You know, it's kind of, I don't want to say wasted space, but there's space around lakes that I don't believe, personally, is utilized. And as someone that wants the neighborhood to be active and a place to just walk and kids to run, that's why that lake was designed. But there are sidewalks within the community. Page 29 of 83 Packet Pg. 32 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER EBERT: There are? Okay. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because I was looking, and it said they'll cross the street to go to the sidewalk by the lake, and I'm going, no, no, no. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yeah. No, there are sidewalks in front of the homes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Mu1:atell] oil] :10.7:`.�i 0 COMMISSIONER EBERT: All right. That's all I have for now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: How about the garages? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Why would you -- I know that years ago, and it happened at the Planning Commission level, they were Habitat -- it was added to Habitat communities that they have a garage. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And part of this community does have a garage. Why would you leave it out? MR. KOULOHERAS: So what we've -- one of the biggest comments we've heard over the years is parking. It's just that. We've driven into our communities. Habitat communities have this bell curve of families move in, children are younger. As that community ages, those children obviously grow up, more cars need -- more cars are inside the community, and then as those children move out after high school, the bell curve drops again. So when we went back and looked at our older neighborhoods, some that have parking -- I'm sorry -- some that have the garages, some that do not, what we've found as far as the buildable footprint space, that the garage itself is really not being used to put a car in. Of the couple hundred or so, 3-, 400 homes that Habitat has that have garages, I personally -- this isn't a statistical number, but I personally know of about a dozen people that park their car in the garage. They turn into -- you know, I have a two -car garage. I don't even have a car in there right now. It's just my kids' bikes and everything else. So what we've tried to look at is -- the main focus was addressing the parking issue. Where do you park if you have no more pavement space? You try to park on the grass. You try to park on sidewalks. You try to park on the street. So we have found by designing the home where the garage does not take away parking space, we're able to have more spots on property, if you will. The on -street parking helps alleviate some of that issue as well. And then what we've done -- this goes into too many details right now, if you will, but what we've done to try to help that issue down the road are certain design criteria. Number one, instead of a valley gutter system, in our latest community we poured an F curb, which is, you know, the 6 -inch curb to prevent people from -- not that you can't jump over a 6 -inch curb, but to drive over it. In between the sidewalk and the F curb, we have now put plants. Once again, not that you can't drive over plants, but it's less likely, and those plants are owned and maintained by the HOA. So if someone drives over them, they're bearing the cost. So the next logical place was, well, okay, so you pull in your driveway, and you look at that last green spot, that little slice of grass over next to your driveway, and we have put a tree right there that is owned and maintained by the HOA specifically to address these type of parking issues. The other thing we've done is within our recent community -- and this is a practice going forward. You now have to register your vehicles, and you're restricted to a number of vehicles. And just like any other gated private communities, you're assigned a parking sticker that has to go on your vehicle, and those parking stickers are monitored through staff and/or volunteers and/or even code. If you do not have a parking sticker on your vehicle, then your vehicle gets -- you get one warning, and then you get towed. The older communities don't have that. We're going to try to -- we're trying to work with those HOAs to implement some of this stuff, but all of our -- the most recent community we built up on Immokalee Page 30 of 83 Packet Pg. 33 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 Road and all of these going forward intend to carry those type of practices over to address the parking. So we're trying to create more designated spots by on -street parking and being creative, and then also restrict the folks if there are more cars than what we allowed. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you're doing that now in Parcel A of Regal Acres. MR. KOULOHERAS: No, not in Parcel A, nope. We're trying to work with -- that HOA was turned over about four or five years ago. That has been a new practice we've put into all of our -- to the design features of our new communities, and we've only built one to this point in time. We have a number of them that are in the design process, such as this one, and all of those elements are looked at being implemented. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it will be in Part B? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, ma'am; yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Diane -- or Karen? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I just want to touch on what Ned was talking -- I think speaking about with the traffic impact and having single-family homes. I agree with everything that he said. And when you're doing a -- like, when they're doing a traffic study, they're using single-family home as if it were a single-family home and not an extended family. So you're not getting the right numbers for traffic impact. So I don't know how you -- you know, if you're limiting the number of p.m. trips -- if you're limiting the number trips, you're not even -- the study's not even getting the right number. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the only number they're allowed to use from the traffic methodology -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know. But I'm just saying they're not getting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they can't use any other number than is allowed by the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I realize that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what did you suggest they were going to do that you wanted -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm just agreeing with Ned, and I'm making a point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. I thought it was a question. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. I want to -- before I pass it by and forget, during the traffic light discussion, Neale had popped up and indicated a certain paragraph. I didn't catch that paragraph. Could you tell me what paragraph it was. MR. KOULOHERAS: Just one second. I believe there was a five in there, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5.6.E is what I think she may be talking about. MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. There was a condition that says -- Neale Montgomery, for the record -- "if in the sole opinion of Collier County a traffic signal or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be borne by the developer and shall be paid to Collier County before issuance of the first CO." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think that's written in error. I know it's in the existing PUD, but I think you really mean -- the county should have meant, to be fair, the pro rata cost of such an improvement, because you're not going to be held up for the traffic light, especially when you've got Fiddler's Creek using most of it. So I would suggest we add that language as one of the points. MR. NEALE: And if you want to add pro rata share in there, I'll be real happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I think it's just something we'd done for every project, and it should be the same for everybody. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's already in the -- wasn't that discuss -- I wasn't -- you and I weren't part of that, but it was part of the PUD amendment that just recently came in for Fiddler's Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it definitely should be a pro rata share, and you would have to Page 31 of 83 Packet Pg. 34 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 coordinate that with the county to figure out who's going to pay what, because that was one of the significant concerns about that intersection. MR. KOULOHERAS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a few comments on other parts of the proposed PUD. And on Page 11 of the PUD under Item E, it's Parcel B, permitted general uses. We don't always include the general recreational uses as being allowed anywhere in the residential tract as a permitted use. So, basically, where it says, permitted -- Parcel B permitted general uses, No. 2, the recreational facilities shall be limited to the location shown on the master plan. That language should be added. MS. DeJOHN: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me move to the next one, which is a couple pages past that. Now, on this -- this is your development -- your Development Standards Table for Table 2, Parcel B. And the distance -- the distance for the preserve setback on this particular project is measured from the structure, not from the property line. And the reason that's going to be important is when we get to your exhibits, I want to point out something in regards to that. The architectural standards, I think that I'll have a staff question on that. I'll wait to get to those. Under your preserve areas, Parcel B, obviously, if you're going to chain-link fence the preserve off from the backyards of the properties with the intent of security, you really don't have a lot of need for uses in the preserve, do you? MS. DeJOHN: (No verbal response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because under your permitted principal uses, it says principal use, preserves, and accessory uses, all those allowed in accordance with Section 3.05. Well, Section 3.05 includes boardwalks and viewing platforms and shelters. And you're not going to be doing all that. And besides, I understand you're right on the line with the quantity of preserves you had to provide. And those uses mean that it pushes some of that area out so you'd have to create more preserve, which you can't do. So I'd suggest we drop, under 4.2, that whole Section B. Is that a problem? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't think that fixes your issue because then it would revert to the LDC provision if it's not in there because that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's a good point. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- the current required LDC. So if you want to say that they're going to be limited, then I would limit them to certain uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. Thank you. I would suggest in accessory uses, none are allowed pursuant to the -- yeah, none are allowed. None are needed. I don't know what you intended for the preserve, especially now that you've volunteered to put a chain-link fence to keep people out of it. So I'm not sure why you need anything in there. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, you're absolutely right. Originally when we thought this through, we said it might be nice as, you know, a low-cost -- or long-term cost amenity would be, you know, a walking path through the preserve, but that is not our intention. So any of those recreational type uses I would be okay dropping all that. The only thing I'd defer to engineering is if there's any stormwater management that has to go through the preserves. But as far as recreation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm trying to figure out how to do that now, because we're at -- today's the eleventh hour. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yep. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: And I did pull up Section 3.05, and it has, the following passive uses are allowed, and it talks about impervious pathways. You don't need those. MR. KOULOHERAS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regular pathways, you don't need those. Shelters without walls, you don't need those. Educational signage, you won't need those. Benches for seating, you won't need those. Viewing platforms, you certainly won't need those. You will need wildlife sanctuaries for indigenous free -roaming wildlife, because that's what a preserve's for. So I would say F would be one that you could use. G is conservation related and recreational activities. I don't believe you're going to be doing that if you're fencing it off. H is the requirements of this section shall not apply to preserve pathways. You're not Page 32 of 83 Packet Pg. 35 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 going to have pathways. Double I is stormwater subject to the following criteria, so that one I think you just mentioned. That is typically used. So, basically, out of all the uses in that section of the code, you'd be looking at leaving F and double 1, stormwater subject to the following criteria. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of them don't seem --jurisdictional wetlands. Yeah, the rest of them don't seem issues -- yeah. So you -- I think that takes out all the active uses that would be in there. Joe? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. And I agree to that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only concern is you're going to have to allow for some access because you're going to have to have a preserve management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But he's not going to be building a pathway for it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. MR. KOULOHERAS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that was the issue. I think -- so when this gets tuned up as far as language goes, I think it needs to reflect that kind of a change to whatever extent the vote is today. And that takes us back to where I left off on that preserve section, and let me go to the next one. On the traffic trips that were -- I have a question of your traffic engineer. And I told you yesterday which it would be, because you have 184 units in Parcel A, and they produced 121 trips. You have 116 units in Parcel B, and you say you've got 120 trips. So I just don't know why for a lack of about -- almost 70 units or 68 units you only have one more trip. MR. HILDEBRAND: Correct. To clarify, the existing Parcel A was based off of the approved PPL Traffic Impact Statement prepared by Vanasse Daylor as part of the original -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Speak into the -- MR. HILDEBRAND: -- as part of the Parcel A. That was based off of ITE seventh edition multifamily homes at that point, and then the Parcel B was based off of the worst case of single-family, the most intensive traffic generation for Parcel B. So to answer your questions, the existing Parcel A was based off a previously approved TIS that considered multifamily homes, and that was the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in the case of Parcel A, your two-family were considered multifamily? MR. HILDEBRAND: That's how it was approved during the PPL submittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you end up selling -- well, you probably don't know. I think someone already acknowledged they were sold fee simple, so they weren't really multifamily in that regard. As far as the product that you used for the backside, would your -- would your single-family calculations still be the maximum calculation that you would submit for that buildout of that parcel? MR. HILDEBRAND: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only traffic thing I had, so thank you. Oh, one thing that we generally have started requiring around preserves is an assurance -- or with preserves, that we have 80 percent opacity. I didn't see that language in 5.10.B. So I would -- or it's now 5.8 under environmental. So I would think we'd want to add that opacity requirement, minimum 80 percent opacity after one year. The distance of your preserves will -- seems to be equally -- easily going to fix that. The areas that are shallow where you've got the walls will probably make up for the difference. On the Deviation 3,1 have to agree with staff, I don't see the reason for Deviation 3. It will set a precedent that we would have to -- we'd be obligated to provide everybody in the county, and I don't think that's a good precedent to set, so I'm just going to suggest to you, however this goes forward, my suggestion would be not to include Deviation 3. On Deviation 5 you've provided some diagrams for hammerheads and Y's. Those aren't necessary to be in there. You'll have to meet the code for those turnarounds. So you don't need to put that kind of detail in the deviation. Page 33 of 83 Packet Pg. 36 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 And the last five or six word where it says, "as approved by the local fire districts," staff has realized we don't need that language either, because that's going to have to be anyway. So there's no sense in being redundant with that. When we get to your master plan for Parcel B, I had suggested that you add to the master plan the minimum widths of your preserves. Obviously, you have brought one with you, but that's going to have to be updated on the master plan that's attached to the PUD. MS. DeJOHN: We actually -- yeah, we did get that update done for the slide show that you saw this morning. There's little dimensions added on there, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just mean make sure it gets in the PUD. There is a diagram on that first Parcel A master plan, and it shows a lake maintenance easement of 20 feet, then there's the word "varies" zero to 10 feet, and then there's a 5 -foot setback from the lot line. What is that space between the lot line and the beginning of the 20 -foot LME? MS. DeJOHN: The way these lots are planned is a little different than the typical way lots are subdivided. The goal here for Habitat is to confine the lot to the smallest space needed for the house to sit upon the lot and then have common space beyond that lot. That affords Habitat the ability to have the common element -- as much common space as possible maintained by a common organization and limits the amount of space that needs to be maintained by the private homeowner. So when you see that gap between lot line and the lake maintenance easement, you're just seeing where common space would occur, because the goal is to keep the lot as tight to the home as possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I imagine that's because you're selling fee simple, and the lot ownership goes with the fee -simple process; whereas, if it was a condominium, that will all be covered under common area in a condo association document. MS. DeJOHN: Right. And fee simple is the -- you know, part of, I think, the charter of Habitat is -- focuses on having people live on fee -simple properties. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the next page, it has a series of cuts with a house shown and the differences between the houses, the layouts. On the top cut on that page, it shows a house with a lot line five feet off the back of the house, and then from the house -- not the lot line, but from the house to the edge of the preserve, it shows the 25 -foot minimum preserve setback. And I know how that now relates to the standards table. It also is titled, the first one, typical preserve section. That doesn't seem to be what we were talking about today. So you have two types of preserve sections that you're having. One is on the north side. I think the south side's a little different because you've got a 15 -foot strip that's kind of like a no man's land down there. And then on the center part, the big part of the preserve, you've got the back of the lots where I heard earlier today that you would -- you were going to put a fence up, but you were going to put it up on the preserve line. MS. DeJOHN: Right, the perimeter. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Okay. So this cut doesn't work. MS. DeJOHN: Well, it -- what you're referring to is the diagram including what's labeled "fence wall potential." Is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DeJOHN: -- what you're saying? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not going to be in that location, is it, or is that your intention? MS. DeJOHN: There have been different intentions during the course of the project. This allows that potential location for a fence or wall. That's what that's showing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But didn't you offer today that if you were to put a fence up, it would be on the preserve line? MS. DeJOHN: I think the preferred location would be the perimeter, yes, on the preserve perimeter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, honestly, though, I don't mind if you use this cut if you put the fence on top of the berm. I just want to understand the difference, because that's not what you said. So if your intention is to put it on the berm, that's fine. I just need to know what it is you're trying to do so the cut's right and doesn't prevent you from doing something that we would weigh in on later today. Page 34 of 83 Packet Pg. 37 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. KOULOHERAS: So the intention is to go on the outside perimeter line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KOULOHERAS: This was put in here because it -- personally, in my experience with the Water Management District in the past, sometimes they get wishy-washy, if you will, whether something can cut through a preserve. So this was put on there to say, if they do not allow that, then we will put it on the back of the house side of the preserve, if you will. I'm not sure if that's clear enough. But that's why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But it's going to go in that 25 -foot area somewhere in the end? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand now. Thank you. The parking spaces that show on the two cuts below that -- and I'm -- I know we have a -- standard parallel parking is 9 by -- or is 9 by 18,1 think, or maybe that's perpendicular, I don't know. And you show an 18 -foot parking space. And we usually require 23 feet back from sidewalk -- or from garage door before you get to sidewalk. In this particular case, you have a sidewalk in front of the car, and then 18 feet for the car. And the only question I have is if we have 23 feet required so there's no overhang onto the sidewalks from the back door of garages, does that mean we have a car overhanging into the street in this particular case? And that's not something that you'll have to answer. I'm just kind of pointing it out here, because I think Stan Chrzanowski, when he was the county engineer, initiated that idea, and he happens to be sitting here today, so I ask him, do you see a -- did you have any -- when you came up with the 23 feet for the cars parked in driveways before they could -- back from sidewalks, was there any -- how'd that 23 feet come into play, Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Your average car is like -- well, the longest cars are, like, Lincoln town car. You've got 18, 19 feet. How it came up was we had a lot of -- nobody ever pulls right up to a garage door or up to, you know, where they're supposed. They always stop a few feet back so they could walk in. And we wanted you to get off the sidewalk, so we left about three feet between the car and the garage door you could walk through, so that puts you at 23 -foot of driveway and you're not sticking out into the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that explains it then, because these have parking bumpers. So everybody would be right up to the bumper. And that would -- that's why the 18 -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. If they pull up to the bumper, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. MS. DeJOHN: And I'll just add that the code does have a typical section for on -street perpendicular parking, and so this is in compliance with the code's typical section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm quickly running through the remaining questions I have at this point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, one -- while you're on that buffer, you've got 300 feet of vegetation there, right? MS. DeJOHN: It's not 300 feet of vegetation. It's 300 -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Preserve. MS. DeJOHN: -- feet between buildings. The vegetation is about 151 on Reflection Lakes and minimum 80 on Regal Acres. So 230 -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: 230 feet of preserve? MS. DeJOHN: Vegetation preserve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And if you put the fence, it will run kind of down the middle of the preserve? MS. DeJOHN: Well -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Which is not a great idea. MS. DeJOHN: Right. If -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But when you start removing exotic vegetation, how -- your environmentalist said there's quite a bit in there, right? It's going to thin it out. Is there any kind of low -growing really nasty vegetation you could put in there that's native that will stop people from going Page 35 of 83 Packet Pg. 38 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 through instead of putting a fence? You know, if you're concerned -- your concern is definitely not visibility. Your concern is access. So if you put something in there that's kind of a little thorny -- and I'm sure -- I canoe a lot, and there's a lot of nasty stuff out there that, you know, if you planted it, it's native, and it's going to stop people from walking through. Wouldn't that be better? MS. DeJOHN: What we've heard from the neighbors is that they want -- you know, I think -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A fence. MS. DeJOHN: -- proposing thorny bushes instead of a fence probably wouldn't satisfy what they're looking for. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Whatever. Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does it have to be instead of? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if you put the fence in, why bother with the thorny bushes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, because people can climb fences. MR. KOULOHERAS: Or barbed wire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Nick. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Triple concertina. Right, Joe? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time. Go ahead, Nick. MR. KOULOHERAS: We're going to be required to meet 80 percent opaque within 12 months of this project. So if we're at that level that we need to do additional supplemental plantings within the preserve, we can certainly look at any number of those options. In fact, I've already had a conversation with a neighbor to the south in Westwinds saying, hey, if we're going to do supplemental plantings, you're the one that's going to look at them. Let's get together, and let's decide what's native that gets allowed by county code that you'd like to look at. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You know, Joe, that's not a bad idea. One strand of concertina running through there would do a whole lot more to keep that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't allowed by code. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not by code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So anyway, we might as well just stop that before it goes too far. Okay. I have no other questions. Anybody else in Planning Commission have questions of the applicant before we go to the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Summer's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something you want to add? MR. NYCHYK: Yes. For the record, Gary Nychyk. If you don't mind, I would like to add that these preserve areas are not just the property of Regal Acres. They're not just the property of Collier County. They are going to be under conservation easement to the South Florida Management District as well, and they have very strict requirements on what can go in. Even if it's a native plant, sometimes they're not going to allow plants to go in there for those purposes. It's going to have to be specifically for the rehabilitation of those wetland and preserve areas, just to kind of keep that in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have a strong environmental reviewer who makes sure that happens, too, so thank you. With that, James, do you want to provide a staff report? MR. SABO: Certainly. James Sabo, principal planner, for the record. The zoning division recommends a little bit different paragraph that you have in your staff report. We recommend forwarding the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with the exception of Deviation No. 3 and removal of the local fire district language for 1 and 5 and recommending the -- forward to the BCC, the Board of County Commissioners, the affordable housing density bonus agreement application. That is our recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of James before we go to other staff members? Page 36 of 83 Packet Pg. 39 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Quickly. We've heard some information from the Chairman and from other quarters as well that single-family residency or single-family dwellings draw the highest traffic concentrations or peak volume. What about other aspects of infrastructure and concurrency? Is it fair to say that single-family dwellings are the -- are going to be the most intense from those viewpoints as well as traffic? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The concurrency management process in place has different formulas for different things but, in general, I think that's a correct statement that it's generally -- the traffic is based on trips coming in and out and demand for other utilities and services. You know, the number of residents in a unit will be higher in a single-family than a multifamily, generally speaking. COMMISSIONER FRYER: With respect to all infrastructure? MR. BELLOWS: Water/sewer and -- I think that's a correct statement. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, director of Planning and Zoning. Just let me add, and it corresponds to Ray's comments, and the Chair's pointed out that single -families are the housing units that will have the most people per household just by category. And with that, that corresponding, the more people per household, the more demand is placed upon the infrastructure system. So, as a whole, you can basically say that for the infrastructure components that are subject to concurrency that a single-family house will place more yield against the system than a multifamily house, in general. So if that -- I think that can answer the question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any question of James before we go to the next? Okay. I believe Joe had questions of transportation, so whoever's here might want to respond to those questions. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mike, typically -- go ahead. For the record. MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the past, a community of this size, the county usually required some improvements to the main road which, in this case, is Greenway Road. You saw no need for any type of improvements to Greenway Road based on the 300 homes now being back in this area? MR. SAWYER: We certainly looked at that aspect. We did -- we were especially concerned about a left turn into the development, which would normally be required. Because that particular road is, I would say, challenged because of right-of-way width, we have a county segment as well as drainage swales on both sides. It would be extremely difficult, number one, to put it in, any left turn, or -- and we would, obviously, do additional improvements on that particular road segment because of right-of-way limitations. Additionally, if you look at the uses to the north, the impacts on that road with this development are going to be quite minor. There really is only a back entrance, if you will, from the development directly to the north as well as one ag operation. You know, the traffic counts that the agent provided we felt met the standards of not requiring that left turn. Certainly, they will be required to contribute to the eventual potential signal that would happen at 41. I would say that is going to, honestly, be certainly determined by FDOT and their particular standards in concert with us as far as making sure that that signal would be warranted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: When you say "left turn," you're talking about traveling west to east making the left turn into Greenway Road off of 41? Is that the left turn you're talking about? MR. SAWYER: Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or you're talking about a left turn coming out of Greenway Road? MR. SAWYER: It would actually be a left turn on Greenway into the development itself. The turn lanes that we've already got -- Page 37 of 83 Packet Pg. 40 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, left turn off Greenway into the development? MR. SAWYER: Into the development itself They actually do trip our requirement for having a -- I'm sorry -- a left turn into the development itself COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's at the end of the road. I mean, there's no -- MR. SAWYER: Correct, exactly. That was my point. There really isn't anything to the north. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There are two entrances off of that Greenway into Regal Acres, is there not? Am I mistaken? There's the one entrance -- MR. SAWYER: There are two into Phase 1. Phase 2 is only going to be using the first of those access points. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can you pop that up on Google Earth? If no, just say no. MR. SAWYER: I'm sure it's possible, Stan. I am not adapt at being able to do that. I apologize. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Adept. MR. SAWYER: Adept. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So there's no requirement for a right -turn acceleration lane onto Greenway Road or no requirement for left turn off of Greenway Road into the development? MR. SAWYER: At 41? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. Into the development. You're talking about Greenway Road now. MR. SAWYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And with this addition, you said it was close, but given the -- there's no other traffic beyond this development. MR. SAWYER: That was my whole point. The agent did provide us good information as far as traffic counts, and looking at those in concert with the limitation that we've got for the right-of-way, the difficulty of providing that is that -- and they would actually be providing that -- theoretically, if we required them to do that, they would have the requirement to provide that left -turn lane, plus compensating right-of-way which, again, would almost double the difficulty of actually doing that, impacting the stormwater swales that we've already got. And the real issue at hand is that it doesn't make sense in this case because there isn't substantial traffic north of this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't see a real problem on Greenway Road. My concern was more off 41 and any traffic impact off 41 or onto 41 from Greenway Road. There was no trigger from a standpoint of requiring any improvements at the intersection of Greenway Road and 41. I'm not talking 41. I'm just talking Greenway Road, the capability to make a right turn off of Greenway Road, some kind of an acceleration lane or anything that would require improvements to be made at that intersection. MR. SAWYER: Correct. However, I will caution that that is also something that would be dictated by FDOT. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I would suspect if they ever put a signal there, there's going to be an analysis. Because across the street at Sandpiper, there's a significant difference in grade between the existing road and when 41 was improved, and that's all going to have to be brought to grade, which was assured during the PUD discussion of Fiddler's Creek that that was going to -- so you could -- there would be an improvement on that side. I would suspect there's going to be some kind of an improvement on the other side as well. MR. SAWYER: Part of that whole study that I'm assured would happen through FDOT -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Through FDOT. MR. SAWYER: -- would include that whole entire intersection, including the side roads on both sides. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have no problem with the proposed language as stated regarding cost share? MR. SAWYER: No. It actually is a good change. And, honestly, that would be the criteria that we would always use in these kind of cases. This is an existing PUD. It's existing language. Adding that does not hurt. Page 38 of 83 Packet Pg. 41 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of mike? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is our landscape -- Mark, yes, you're hiding behind that chair. If you could come up just for a minute. MR. TEMPLETON: For the record, Mark Templeton, Development Review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Mark, one of the things that we were shown today is a series of cross-sections for a -- buffers and wall combinations, and I think we were told they exceed the standards that we have. I want to make sure that if those are used, do they -- they get properly memorialized in the PUD. I didn't see much in the PUD describing any changes to the buffers. And so how do you -- if those were to be accepted, how would those get into the system? Would you have to -- do they have to articulate it and you review it and make sure it's right? MR. TEMPLETON: The buffers for Parcel A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for Parcel B. The Parcel B is what we're discussing today, and they showed new walls with a series of -- three different series of cuts and buffers. MR. TEMPLETON: The buffers were labeled. I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. They are not currently part of the PUD. I just want to make sure that we -- if they enter into the PUD, can they be done as an exhibit, or would it be text? Are they -- I just need -- okay. If we require one tree every 30 feet and they're going to put one tree every 25 feet or they're going to have a buffer that's 4 -foot high instead of 3 -foot high, all that has to be articulated. And I just want to make sure that it is if it needs to be, and that's kind of what my question was. MR. TEMPLETON: Either by text or with exhibits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you'll check that if it were to come back through language changes and all that? MR. TEMPLETON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TEMPLETON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I just wanted to verify. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a point of order, though, that I'd like to raise. With the lunch hour approaching, would it be possible to allow the neighbors who wish to speak to speak before we go to lunch, at least up to 12:30, so that they don't need to come back in the afternoon? And then if we have more questions or if our part of this is to be continued, it would be continued after lunch? C14ARZMAN STRAIN: And if someone would play that back, that was what I was going to say. So, anyway, what I'd like to suggest is what Ned just suggested is that we'll go into public speakers now. We'll try to stop when the public speakers finish, and we can debate after we get back from lunch. With that in mind, are there any registered public speakers? MR. SABO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The first one is Nile Duppstadt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many total registered public speakers are there? MR. SABO: Four; looks like four. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could you repeat the name again. I'm sorry. MR. SABO: Nile Duppstadt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Duppstadt, if you're here, if you can come up to the microphone, you need to identify yourself and spell your last name, please. MR. DUPPSTADT: Okay. Nile Duppstadt, D -u -p -p -s -t -a -d -t. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. DUPPSTADT: I live right across from the proposed recreation area. If we had a site plan, it would be handy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get one back up there. Laura, could you turn to that site plan. Page 39 of 83 Packet Pg. 42 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. DUPPSTADT: I have been sick and not around very much, so I apologize that I'm kind of at the late -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put the one on that locates the rec area. I think it's your master plan. Yeah, there it is. There's a site plan right there. Is that what you're talking about? MR. DUPPSTADT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to stay by the microphone. I think we'll be able to see it. Thank you. MR. DUPPSTADT: My house is right there. There's been a lot of discussion, apparently, while I was away about a wall and reducing the noise from a facility like that. I've had a little bit of discussion just in the last day or so. Several things that I would propose, and before that I would like to tell you that I'm a landscape architect, have a master's degree from Harvard, I practiced for 50 -some years, I'm pretty much retired, but I also was a professor at Florida International University and taught all kinds of courses in site engineering, things on environment. And so I have a couple of sort of major suggestions. One is that that recreation area go up to the east in Parcel A that they proposed a lake at the north end, get moved in, and become part of the lake that exists in Parcel A. That would provide a corridor across. It would increase the amount of preserve that they have and considerably reduce their cost in earthwork. So those are pretty much my comments. It's kind of a discriminatory thing of putting a recreation area right next to the old folks. Putting all kinds of preserve around where the rich people are but leaving us with something I think is very questionable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before the day is over, we'll have a discussion with the applicant on that, sir, to get them to respond, and then we'll go back and forth and talk with them about it. So once we finish public speakers. MR. DUPPSTADT: Hope I didn't exceed my five minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you did great. Thank you very much. Next speaker, James. MR. SABO: The next speaker is Dr. Michael Confusione. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you come up and identify yourself, you'll have to spell your last name, too, please. DR. CONFUSIONE: Sure. I always do. Dr. Michael Confusione, C -o -n -f as in Frank, u -s as in Sam, i -o -n -e. That should look like confusion with an E on the end. But using common sense, I'm not confused at all about my opposition to this proposal by Habitat. First of all, it's the only environmental area of trees and natural habitat for animals, for human beings within these four developments that surround it at this present time. I think it's a shame to remove all of that vegetation for the animals and for the people in it. I have a home -- or I should say my wife has a home also in Pelican Bay in North Naples. We moved to East Naples because -- and still have the condo in North Naples -- because of the crowded roads, because of the overdevelopment in North Naples, and because of the fact that we wanted a more rural atmosphere. And we have it with those few trees. Now, I'm not directly affected by Habitat's development, and I understand the need for affordable housing. I'm indirectly affected because when I lay at my pool in the back, I will be looking at those houses. I don't back up to them. As Nick presented that he has an agreement with Naples Reserve for the wall, no one ever informed me of any meeting regarding a wall with Habitat specifically for Naples Reserve. I give no agreement to that proposal. I don't want a wall because two-story homes will be over the wall. And when I lay at my pool, I'll be looking and hearing the noise from those two-story pools -- from those two-story homes. One-story home? I'd be all in favor of it. I was the one who Nick referred to as being the person who didn't understand that there were two-family homes in Regal Acres presently. I understood, but they're one unit. They're together. And at the meeting that we had when he said I misunderstood that there were two homes there, I presented the fact that there were a lot of cars in the driveway, and he said because there's two homes there; that's the reason. Page 40 of 83 Packet Pg. 43 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 There were cars on the grass. I was appalled by the condition of Regal Acres and what existed when I drove through there. Don't call it up on Google Earth, please. Go there yourself at 6, 7 o'clock at night and take a look at what exists. This planning board is responsible for planning for the county. I think if you allow this to occur with all of the pointed questions that have come up and the oversaturating on a bigger perspective for East Naples as compared to the rest of Collier County of low affordable housing, we're planning for a ghetto. I grew up in Brooklyn with two ghettos, and it was enforceable when illegal housing existed and people moved in and there were two or three families in there. They got notified, they were asked to leave, they went through a process of being notified two or three times, and then penalties came in that were dollars and cents, and people moved out after being there for over a year. And the Code Enforcement people were able to enforce that happening. We could do that here as well, because I believe there are many, many multi -families in Regal Acres as it exists. Nine hundred homes in East Naples, 100 homes someplace else, 100 homes someplace else. And when you compare that on a saturation level, that's eight times the amount of affordable housing in all of East Naples than exists in any other district. Please consider that in your planning. I can only hope that you do. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker -- ladies and gentlemen, if you mind refraining from the clapping. Go ahead, James. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Gail Alio. MS. ALIO: Good morning. I have a prepared statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you state your name and spell your last name, please. MS. ALIO: Gail Alio, A -1 -i -o. I live on Manchester Drive in Reflection Lakes. I have a prepared statement, and before I read it, I want to thank you for bringing up the school situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to pull the mike a little closer to you. I'm sorry to keep bothering you, ma'am. MS. ALIO: That's okay. I've been to Manatee. The school is really lovely; however, the trailer situation -- I brought up at one of the community meetings about Regal Acres, and I was told that according to the state, those trailers are considered permanent classrooms. I was shocked. But I did ask the question, and the reason I asked it is because I've taught in those trailers. That's not a normal classroom environment; it's really not. I've taught in them for a long time. But beyond the trailers, you need to look at the cafeteria situation. Are they going to increase the size of the cafeteria? Look at the multiuse rooms that they have for music, for library, for whatever else they have. Because coming from New York, our lunch hour started at 10:30 in the morning. I wouldn't want to see that here. I'm just letting you know. That's only about the schools. You are the gatekeepers. You're the ones entrusted with protecting the enviromnent we have now and looking forward to carefully developing our resources for the future. The disappearance of our preserves, nature, and wildlife is irreplaceable, but you understand this. I'm tired of hearing about credits and land swaps in other places. We live here. We moved here for the nature that surrounds us. Habitat has several communities in this area already. It is my understanding that this will not be the last time they will apply for rezoning down this stretch of 41. I request that you respect the rights of those of us who are already living here rather than tipping the scales in favor of those who have not yet come. It is good to plan for future housing but not at the expense of those of us who have worked so hard to purchase our space here. This particular tract of land is so close to existing communities that the proposed Habitat houses will be visible from all three: Reflection Lakes, Naples Reserve, and Westwinds. As you look down the stretch of 41 from the intersection of 951 toward Everglades City, the huge Page 41 of 83 Packet Pg. 44 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 tracts of land which have been cleared appear as large holes in the forest. They make way for the community at Manatee and at the next phase of Winding Cypress. Next will be the clearing for commercial real estate across from Naples Reserve. It is sometimes difficult now to make a right turn out of our development at Reflection Lakes at either entrance. During season it's dangerous. Making a left turn without any traffic light across three lanes of traffic going 60 miles an hour or better is near impossible. So now let's increase the density; make it more dangerous. During season getting in or out of Freedom Square shopping center is extremely dangerous, as is parts of the Lowe's shopping area. But if you don't live there, you couldn't experience the near misses. In closing, I would like to say that I love this quiet, beautiful part of Naples. If I wanted to live in a more populated area, we could have purchased further north. If we wanted densely populated area, we could have moved to the East Coast. We moved here from Long Island, New York. We have watched this movie before. When we moved there, nature and a quiet environment surrounded us. By the time we moved 25 years later, the local three -lane road became impassable at any time of the day. Every strip of land had become commercially developed, and the peace and quiet effectively destroyed. Please don't let this nightmare repeat itself for those of us who escaped. Joni Mitchell said it best: "You don't know what you've got till it's gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot." COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. Before you go, one thing. As I -- and the gentleman said don't look at Google Earth, but I always look at Google Earth. As I look at it, there's development all around there. That's the last tract. Is there anything that could go in there that would make you happy? MS. ALIO: Nothing. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, James? MR. SABO: Next speaker is Tom Custer. MS. CUSTER: For the record, Tom Custer. I don't really know how to follow all of that. I agree in principle with most of what everyone has said. I'm going to be directly affected because the photos that they showed of the trees and everything on Naples Reserve side, I provided. I don't know that we have a right to restrict others to provide or to buy housing when we're extremely blessed to have the housing that we have. Everywhere that I have lived -- I'm from Ohio originally. Everywhere that we have lived, we did what you were talking about and wanted to be out into the country. With the world growth and the population the way it's going, the country goes away. That's a fact. I don't like it. I would rather have the preserves that are behind my house right now. In fact, I would maintain that I am opposed to the development because of the beautiful serenity and the view that I have that I was misled when I purchased my home and selected that lot; however, there has been -- my other neighbor who couldn't be here today because he's away on business, we've been proactive instead of reactive, I believe, and took the initiative to make contact with you guys, Habitat, and come together to say, if this happens, we have to do something to improve the separation between the communities. And they had worked with us. The proposal for the wall was primarily for sound because the water and the noise that comes from there already, a lot of them with parties in the big buildings in the open fields that you hear with music. And they worked really well with us, and they proposed more, as you can see. But I think that we were grateful that they would sit down with us and to do it, and it's all up to you guys. But what we're saying is true; we want to be out in the country. We always want to keep places for the animals to live instead of coming into our neighborhoods and tearing everything up and have them a place to go, but the reality is the reality, and we just have to face up to it. And I'm not -- I'm opposed to having them move back there, but we can't -- we can't just say that nobody else has a right to place -- have a place to live. So that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, James. Page 42 of 83 Packet Pg. 45 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. SABO: I have no other speakers registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody who has not spoken on this matter that would like to speak on this matter? Yes. We'll start with the gentleman right there. First one, first row. Come on up. Please identify yourself for the record, and spell your last name if it's complicated. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And maybe be sworn in, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. Did you get sworn in when we first started? Did you stand up? MR. DOMINICKS: No, I was here late. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't both of you stand up. Were you sworn in? Okay. I know I saw other people stand up. Go ahead, and we'll just swear you in right now. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. DOMINICKS: My name is Richard Dominicks, D -o -m -i -n -i -c -k -s. I live on Greenway Road. I live directly across the street from Regal Acres. And you want to talk about traffic. There's no way Greenway Road can handle any more cars. You can't -- I mean, I sit in my driveway probably two, three minutes in the morning trying to get out onto Greenway Road. And, I mean, they've got a stop sign, but they don't stop for it. They just come flying out of there one right after another. And I don't see how you could put any more cars on there. I don't know where they did this study in July, but it wasn't on Greenway, because I'm up and down there -- they put one of those signs and lowered the speed limit from 30 to 25. Well, that didn't work. I mean, this morning when I'm coming here, I pull out onto Greenway, I look in my mirror, I've got two cars come out of Regal Acres, and before I got to 41, both of them passed me. And I'm doing 30 or 35 miles anhour. So, you know, I just --that's --you can't control them. If you put more cars there, how are you going to control them? Put speed bumps in? I mean, I wouldn't like speed bumps, but if that's what it takes, just -- they've got to slow down the traffic. They can't put any more traffic on there. And to put in a left-hand turn lane, you'd cut the front of my property off, and that ain't happening. There's no way. You can't put a left -turn lane in there. And like they said, it doesn't need it because that's the end of the road. So that's -- you've got to look at the traffic down there. It's bad. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me, sir. Before you walk away, you live -- so you have a permanent residence on Greenway, but it's in one of the bigger lots across the street? MR. DOMINICKS: Yeah. It's six and a quarter acres. Right next to the farm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Way back when I was still on this commission when the Naples Reserve project came in for approval, and the first thing they wanted to do was move a pile of fill off that site. And I drove out on Greenway and noticed it was a very narrow road, that it dearly didn't -- I don't think you had sidewalks on either side. I don't know if you do now or not. MR. DOMINICKS: No, there's no sidewalks. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: We had recommended some improvements to Greenway in order for that fill to be brought down. Well, that was an attempt. It didn't succeed. I remember voting no on the fill issue because of the condition of Greenway. But I heard today there were improvements on Greenway. Maybe I'm mistaken. Are there improvements on Greenway? What's Greenway -- I thought that was -- has anything been done to Greenway at all? I mean, what's the condition -- I'll ask transportation to explain it, too, as well, but I'd like to hear from your viewpoint. Has it been widened? Has it been -- the shoulders been improved? Is there sidewalks? MR. DOMINICKS: Well, they opened up the drainage, you know; they had to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But those are pretty deep swales. I remember I tried to drive down one. They go real deep. MR. DOMINICKS: Yeah. They weren't before they put in Regal Acres. They were nice slope. If you go to the farm next door to me, which doesn't -- his is all real nice and sloped. That's the way the whole street used to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DOMINICKS: So then when they decided to bring in dump trucks and stuff, they was going to Page 43 of 83 Packet Pg. 46 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 widen the road two feet on each side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember the discussion on that, yes. MR. DOMINICKS: Okay. One side was supposed to be done by the county and one side was supposed to be done by Florida Water Management or something. Well, one of the two bailed out, so they put -- they put the extension, the widening of Greenway Road on one side, on my side. So that took out more of my ditch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did they move the center line? MR. DOMINICKS: There is no center line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DOMINICKS: If they put a white center line down through there and the Sheriffs Department sat down there, they'd give out tickets ticket all day long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you mentioned people driving past, that happens a lot, and I just was wondering if they had a center line they were passing on. MR. DOMINICKS: But they stopped the widening right at the farm -- I don't think they widened it as far as the farm, but that was four. And then they also told us when all the construction was done for Naples Reserve that they were going to repave all of Greenway Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's not been done. MR. DOMMCKS: It's just got a patch on the side of it now, you know, because nobody drives on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It hasn't been widened? It hasn't been repaved? MR. DOMINICKS: No, it hasn't been repaved yet, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DOMINICKS: They said when the construction was all fmished because of the big trucks tearing it up, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, thank you. MR. DOMINICKS: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody -- sir, if you want to come up next. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me follow up on that, Mark, just a question. There is a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to come back up to the mike; I didn't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There is a fence back there now. Do they open that fence during the day for construction traffic, go into Naples Lakes? MR. DOMINICKS: Yeah. It's open during the daytime and then they -- you know, they lock it up at night. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Only for construction traffic? MR. DOMINICKS: Well, yeah. As far as I know of But that's been -- there hasn't been hardly any construction traffic lately. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no idea, and that would have to be staff, if they have any indication that eventually Topsail will go into Greenway and be another entrance into Naples Lake. I have no idea. MR. DOMINICKS: Well, I heard it was supposed to be. That was going to be a back entrance to Naples Lakes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Reflection Lakes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm sorry. Not Reflection -- Naples Reserve. MR. DOMINICKS: Naples Reserve. I don't know. I get them all mixed up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wrong Naples there. Naples Reserve. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, again, sir. Sir, if you want to come up. Again, identify yourself and spell your last name. MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Raymond Williams, W -i -1 -1 -i -a -m -s. I live in Westwind Estates. I'm one of the board of directors at Westwinds. Habitat reached out to us; had a meeting with us. We had some concerns about noise and everything else. And they came back, agreed to the wall, extra landscaping, and so on and so forth. Page 44 of 83 Packet Pg. 47 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 Going back to the green space that some of my neighbors have problems with losing, I think it is a problem that the county let everyone down because they never took and took green space and set it aside. I spent 20 years in Chicago. Some of the most beautiful parks in the world, downtown Chicago. But going back to this green space and saying no to development, we can't do that. They have to have a place to live. You talk about putting a house here, a house there, find Nick and his group some lots in your neighborhood, if they're affordable, let them buy them. Let them put houses in your neighborhood. And you know what's going to happen? The same thing; you're going to say no, every one of you. To my neighbors in Reflection Lakes, after the storm I had somebody come up to me and go, I didn't know I was living next to an F'in trailer park because nobody ever went that direction. They drove in their little house, and that's where they stopped. All I'm saying is, we have to have affordable housing. The county let everybody down after the recession came through, because before that, the county was talking when it was booming, oh, we've got to look at affordable housing. Well, when it tanked, the county sit there and go, we don't -- we will never see those numbers again. It's in the newspaper articles. You should have been buying property then and doing something about it. Now you're back looking at paying double and triple what you should have been paying. Just my thoughts. I'm all for their project. I'll welcome them as neighbors. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, you mentioned that you had a meeting with the Habitat representatives. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And it sounds like you were satisfied with the outcome of that meeting? MR. WILLIAMS: The first meeting they had with us we brought up some concerns. Neale was there. They came back at another meeting. I think the first meeting was in May, I think it was around first part of May. They met with some of the board and a bunch of residents. The next meeting was in June. They came back and said, okay, we're going to -- we agreed to the wall. We actually, as a community, paid to have a chain-link fence put up between Regal Acres' property and us because they would cut through and go to the convenience store. The convenience store is north of our property on 41, the green store. So they would cut through, go through the canal, muck and all, to go to the convenience store. So we put a fence up. Well, then the noise was getting a little bit more from weekend parties and stuff like that. We brought that up. Nick said -- I said, could you guys, if you're going to do this wall, could you extend it to where we've got our fence at, all the Regal Acres, and come up and around the corner, and they came back and said yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So you had concerns, you met with them, and they -- MR. WILLIAMS: And they met them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They made concessions, one of which was to construct a wall? MR. WILLIAMS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Any other concerns and concessions at that time? MR. WILLIAMS: I mean, I understand from Neale (sic), you know, his point is that the playground's going to be on the other side of the canal. But after looking at their site plan and everything else -- I drive by out of Walmart, go through their other development out of Walmart that comes over onto 41 to take the back way, and there's a playground down there, and I would say, at most, maybe on the weekends you'd see kids there, but during the week they're not there. You see it on the -- I mean, my biggest concern is with South Florida Water Management because where's all the water going to -- I know they're going to try to retain some of theirs. We have a lake. We've got canals around ours. But the way water flow for South Page 45 of 83 Packet Pg. 48 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 Water Florida (sic) Management goes, it goes the opposite way it's going right now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me for interrupting, but I want to stay focused on the concerns expressed and concessions made. Are there any others that -- MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you tell me some more? MR. WILLIAMS: No, that was -- I mean, that was our biggest one. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The wall? MR. WILLIAMS: The wall, and they came back with more landscaping and everything else. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There was someone else that raised their hand to speak. Does anybody else still want to speak? Ma'am, if you'll come up, identify yourself for the record. And if you haven't been sworn in, let us know, please. Thank you. MS. PANTANO: I haven't been sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll take care of that. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to spell your name. Yeah, there you go. MS. PANTANO: Yes. My name is Cathy Pantano, P -a -n -t -a -n -o. I'm a resident of Naples Reserve. I wanted to direct a question that you asked about Greenway with the fence. There is an exit out from -- I think it's Tropical Drive that will go out into Greenway. They have it roped off right now because people were complaining about the trucks coming up and down the area. There's, I think, approximately 800 doors that will go into Naples Reserve, so it has a potential of that traffic going down Greenway. Just wanted to clarify that for you. My other concern about the traffic is when you get out onto 41 when you make that right out of Greenway, that's the main artery from Marco during a hurricane that will be a road that they'll be coming down 41. With Reflection Lake on one side of my community and then this Green -- Regal Acres on the other, how will I ever get out of my community during a hurricane? This is a big concern for me seeing that I just lived through Irma, you know, last year. So those are my areas of concern. Also, from 951 down right within less than a five -mile radius, I have four or five Habitat communities right in my immediate area. So to expand on this area, I don't really feel a need. I don't feel that there is a need for affordable housing right in my little area. I'm not saying that there isn't a need in the county, but in our section right there, we have ample amount. There's also a very large rental apartment complex on Lord's Way, which is on 951, which is coming in that I think is scheduled for over a thousand -- maybe you guys know better than I what affordable housing rental is going to become available. The other side of it is that we have to look forward to is millenniums, which is the future of this country. Millenniums do not drive. There's no work down here for them, okay. Transportation is a big issue in this area, so if you really want to help these low-income people, why aren't we building in areas where there is, you know, an artery for them to travel on, be close to work and employment? We're at the dead end over here. We're getting into Everglades. So, you know, the potential for new business is very slim. Thank you. I'm against it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Out of curiosity, ma'am -- MS. PANTANO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- which way do you think the Marco Island evacuation traffic will be going on 41? MS. PANTANO: Well, leaving Marco, you go down over San Marco and you go past Goodland and you come up. So there's two accesses from Marco. There's one on 951. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you think they'll -- MS. PANTANO: Oh, absolutely. Page 46 of 83 Packet Pg. 49 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: 92, and then -- MS. PANTANO: Just when they were doing the bridge over, they were coming down this way. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you'll be making a right turn? MS. PANTANO: I would be making a right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. MS. PANTANO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I believe that's all the speakers from the public that indicated they wanted to speak. And with that, we will -- now, we've got to make a decision as far as the Planning Commission goes. We're going to break after the public speakers. We still have -- I need testimony from staff, I need some rebuttal and some questions from the applicant, and then we're going to have to go into a decision. So we're going to be taking some time yet. If we break for lunch and come back, just to advise you, we have to be out of here -- I think they were wishing we were out at 3:00, but we can stay until 4:00. There's an intense meeting going on this afternoon in here at 5:00, and we have to vacate by 4 o'clock to give time for the room to change hands. We have two other cases, and I can tell you they are not going to be quick. So I don't know if we'll get done today, and I'm kind of giving notice to the applicants in those two other cases, one of them may not make it through the day, be continued for at least two weeks. So with that in mind, is the Planning Commission in mind to take a lunch break at this time? I'd like to, if you don't mind, just do a little bit shorter. Come back at 1:15. Does that work for everybody? Okay. So we'll take a lunch break from now. We'll return at 1:15 to go back into discussions with staff and the applicant. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Dearborn is gone for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody, welcome back from our lunch break. And we had left off with the end of the public speakers. There are some lingering potential followup questions from that effort, and then after that we'll have an opportunity for rebuttal and questions from the applicant. So before we go too far, I had made a couple notes from some of the speakers. And one thing that happens at a lot of our meetings is people are sold property, and they look out and they see all these trees alongside it, and they're told by a salesperson, oh, that's a preserve. Well, nothing could be further from the truth in most cases. It's actually agricultural land. And if you've got ag in the urban area, it's there because eventually it's going to change. And that is the situation we're here today. I just would like our environmental staff, who I don't see -- so that takes care of that idea. So let's move -- maybe by the time we get done with traffic, we can get back to the environmental folks and see if she gets back. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question of Nick. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for Nick. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There you go. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On your recreation area, I notice where it is also. Could that be moved where that section is where there's nothing back and behind it? C14ARUV AN STRAIN: It's called a hammerhead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The hammerhead portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to switch those two out -- and, Diane, that's a good -- and let me explain something. We all received in our packet a letter of no objection from the trailer park to the south, or mobile home park, and one of the people most affected by that spoke today, and he really wasn't signing off on that. Normally when we look at rec areas, we're careful to put those central to the parcel that they serve. We try not -- in fact, the one coming up two cases from now has agreed to at least a minimum of 100 feet Page 47 of 83 Packet Pg. 50 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 from their property line for any rec area they would put in. Likewise, here, I didn't have a question about it at first because I got that letter. It said we're happy, basically. I would -- I have to agree; Diane brought up a good point. And I was looking at this plan thinking that would fit in that hammerhead and up against that hammerhead. All you've got is ag land. There's no buildout up there. So I think it's something to consider. When we get into rebuttal, if you want to have some time to think about it and respond, that might be helpful. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, if I could. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. The other thing is, I think I heard you say that this will then be recreation for both Parcels A and B? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you normally put in rec areas, recreation areas in all of your projects? MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes, we do, however -- so there is one in Parcel A; however, the -- Habitat for Humanity as an organization has shifted its mentality over the past number of years. When Parcel A was designed and brought through the system back in mid 2005, '6, 7 range, it was very much thought, well, get as many houses as we can and put a postage stamp size rec area that meets the absolute minimum. Well, once again, now that we have the luxury of going back and seeing ways we've failed, to be perfectly honest, we feel that that was an issue. And so the design of this rec area was put there, and the size, for two reasons: Number one, because we want more playable space so kids actually have something to do and, number two, it was put there to help the residents of Parcel A to be able to get to it versus putting it further up in the hammerhead. We've looked at a number of different designs, but that was the primary reason. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, if you could kind of look at it again with your design team to put it up on the other end, it would help everyone out. MR. KOULOHERAS: Okay. Yeah, if you don't -- we'll talking about it here, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And I saw our environmentalist has come back. If Summer -- would you mind answering a question or two or provide an explanation on an issue that was brought up. MS. ARAQUE: Summer Araque, principal environmental specialist. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Summer, we had a couple people, one, maybe two, indicate their understanding that this was valuable green space and their preference to leave it that way. Someone indicated that they had been told it was a preserve, and they realized it wasn't after that happened. I would just like a clear understanding from your department. You -all signed off on the plan in front of us from an environmental perspective. In your review environmentally, did you see anything that would have caused this property to be looked at differently than any other agricultural potential development property we have in Collier County from an environmental aspect? MS. ARAQUE: No. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Okay. So the amount of preserve they've got aside is equivalent to what anybody else would be required to do? MS. ARAQUE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you didn't see any areas in there that were special habitat areas or anything like that that required special attention? MS. ARAQUE: I can confirm with the environmental reviewer, but to my knowledge, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we understood that, because a lot of times -- this happens a lot, and across the county, and everybody thinks they lives -- and if there's a forest there, it's a preserve. That's not necessarily true. So that's all I've got. Anybody else have anything? MS. ARAQUE: And then I have some points if you want me to do that later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. No, let's do it right now. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. So just kind of going back over some of the things that were said, it seems Page 48 of 83 Packet Pg. 51 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 like the applicant may not be clear onto whether or not they're putting the fence on the western side of the property, which would be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're putting it in the 20 -foot -- the 25 -foot area -- or the 20 -foot area that remains in the preserve setback area between the house lot line -- MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the preserve lot line. MS. ARAQUE: So on the development side. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, on the development side. That's what I understand; that's the way it should be written up. MS. ARAQUE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. MS. DeJOHN: Correct. MS. ARAQUE: The accessory uses, we'll work with them on the language on that. And under 5.8 you wanted some language. Actually, we would recommend a buffer section. That's what we've been doing in the last few months is instead of it going in environmental because it's technically a buffer requirement -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ARAQUE: -- that those commitments go into a buffer section which may require a new section for this PUD. And, also, if this is single-family, then that changes the buffer requirement, but I think that the applicant may be just committing to a higher buffer requirement. I just wanted to put that on the record; is that correct? MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's been in design as -- MS. ARAQUE: They're providing a -- they're providing a Type B. The requirement would be a Type A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. ARAQUE: Yeah, okay. And in regards to the planting suggestion in the preserve, the code does say that the plantings need to mimic the natural plant community in that area. So I just want to put that on the record. And it shall not be maintained as landscaping. And I think that that's it. Am I forgetting anything? (No response.) MS. ARAQUE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I made the notes. Thank you. MS. ARAQUE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? Summer, so I understand it, we have two preserves, one against the other, and a fence is not going down between them so that the preserve is one piece, right? MS. ARAQUE: My understanding is the fence is going on the development side as shown on the cross-section. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Is there a fence on the other side? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, unless the -- unless Naples -- Reflection Lakes has one, but they don't have one on this property. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: They do have one. Okay. And this is just an observation. If it were me, I would not want a fence on their side of the preserve because you can't -- you can't see somebody go over that fence, and they can sneak through the preserve. If what you're after is security, I would want the fence on my side so that they come through the preserve and then you see them coming over the fence. But that's just me. You know, I'm basically paranoid. MS. ARAQUE: So, I mean, since we're talking about that just -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: They're really after you. MS. ARAQUE: Since we are talking about that, to put that on the record, if that were the choice and Page 49 of 83 Packet Pg. 52 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 that's what is done, then no vegetation can be removed from the Regal Acres preserve in order to install that fence. The fence would have to go on the property boundary, which is also the preserve boundary, not into the preserve at all, and no vegetation would be able to be removed because in this case they're providing the minimum requirement. So they don't have any wiggle room. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It was just an observation. Thank you. MS. ARAQUE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I have -- like some explanation on Greenway Road from whoever in transportation would like to address the issue. There was a case in front of this Planning Commission a few years back involving the widening of Greenway and improvements because of the amount of dump trucks that were going to be coming out of Naples Reserve. And I had gone out there at that time and taken a look, and there was no sidewalks, and their street was narrow. It's just like the streets where I live in the Estates. And the swales on each side are pretty extensive. It was not necessarily that safe. I thought those improvements were made. I think we heard today they weren't. So maybe we can get a status of a safety level for families of the magnitude that are going to be on this site in that location traveling up and down Greenway. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. I was not sworn in this morning, so if I could get sworn in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can take care of that. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MS. SCOTT: According to the Naples Reserve Planned Unit Development -- and the roadway was widened to 24 -feet -wide paved and stabilized roadway. Another provision within their PUD was that within 60 days of completion of the excavation activities they had to restore and re -stripe the pavement. They met last week with our Road Maintenance Department. They ceased excavation in July, and they met last week with our Road Maintenance Department to discuss how we would like -- how the county would like the roadway to be re -striped. It will be re -striped with the center line down the road. The folks who were doing the excavation have that -- have the restoration activities out for bid right now and will be submitting a right-of-way permit shortly to get that finalized and get the roadway restored. It will be 24 -feet -width pavement. It does not have sidewalks or bike lanes on the roadway, local roadway, and it will have a center line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The center line's a good improvement. That will also help enforcement probably, too, because, I mean, if they're crossing that center line to pass, that's a problem. Did they end up putting two feet on each side of the pavement as I thought we had talked about? And it's been a while, so I can't necessarily remember it all. MS. SCOTT: I don't know if they put two feet on either side or if they just put four feet on one side. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: Four feet on one side, okay. But they're going to re-lay the whole thing and then put stripes down it. So it will be like a brand new road. MS. SCOTT: The commitment is they have to restore the 24 -foot -wide paved area and re -stripe in accordance with our direction, which was why we had them meet with Road Maintenance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about traffic calming? Because when you put a new road in, people tend to drive it faster. And that may just aggravate the issue. MS. SCOTT: We have a process for traffic calming. If the residents along the corridor feel that that is an issue, they can go onto our website or talk to Mike or I. There is an application process. We do go out. We collect data and go through an education and enforcement before we get to an engineering solution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When the residents, you say -- can just one resident initiate that, or does it take a group of residents, or could Habitat initiate that as part of their package to proceed with this development? MS. SCOTT: The requirements are 10 percent of the affected individuals must sign to get us to go out to do the initial data collection. And once we collect the data, if we find out that there's a speeding problem or if the volumes are higher than anticipated, that's more for cut -through traffic. They won't really have that issue here. But if the speeds are an issue, as we progress through, then they must get 50 percent of Page 50 of 83 Packet Pg. 53 September 6, 2018 the anticipated -- of the affected individuals to sign that they agree that we're going to continue in the process. Because it's a process that's not just county driven. It's also working with the community and kind of having them take back their streets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the Board were to consider traffic control as something they want to see, would they need to go through all that? MS. SCOTT: The Board can tell me what they want to tell me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I thought. MS. SCOTT: The Board can direct me what they want to direct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just curious. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Trinity, does that road improvement meet the requirements of a rural county road? It's going to be an urban road cross-section. It will be rural county road cross-section, and that's a typical cross-section requirement, the 24 feet? MS. SCOTT: Twenty-four feet is fine. It does not have sidewalks on it, just from the drainage issues and so on and so forth out there, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. SCOTT: But our Road Maintenance Department was fine with -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And you're saying it will be done by when? MS. SCOTT: Hold on. Let me just pull up my email. It was out to bid now, and I believe that they were going to be putting in a right-of-way permit to hopefully try to get it started by September. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that will be the entire length of Greenway Road to 41? MS. SCOTT: It is from the entrance to Naples Reserve out to -- or where the hauling activities were occurring, which I believe is beyond this property out to U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, if you want an opportunity to do some closing comments and rebut any of the comments you heard and answer any of our questions, please feel free. MR. KOULOHERAS: Thank you very much. Nick Kouloheras. Just to let you know, Mr. Chair, I was out on Greenway Road last week. It looks like when Naples Reserve started that mining operation, if you will, they added four feet to the east side of the roadway. That has been done. No resurfacing. Also, to let you know about the traffic calming, Habitat has already initiated that process. We've sat down with the Sheriffs Department and sat down with Mike Sawyer as well to see if there's really a need or a demand for traffic -calming measures. And if there is, we're going to continue to look through that. But the data we received from the Sheriffs Department is that the speed on Greenway Road is 30 miles an hour. They put out one of those, you know, trailer units that clocks your speed, and the average speed over the week, around 8,000 trip counts, was 33. So the deputy was here earlier to make that statement. I don't believe he's here anymore. But that's an active -- that's an issue that we want to make sure is addressed as well because it affects us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. KOULOHERAS: At this time I'd just like to call Matt back up, our property appraiser, to address one of your concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. Matt Simmons. There was a question raised earlier about the average price per square foot within this area as it exists today, and so I just wanted to answer some of that. Over the trailing one year, Naples Reserve has had a price per square foot of $206. For Reflection Lakes it was $174. Windward had a price per square foot at $64 per square foot. And that's an average price per square foot among those communities of $197 per square foot. Page 51 of 83 Packet Pg. 54 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 And, again, I bring that up in the context of there was discussion earlier about the expected pricing for Regal Acres 2. I think there was a reference of 185, $200 a foot. So from a price -per -square -foot perspective, it's actually directly in line with the average of the three surrounding existing residential communities as they exist today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you took the three surrounding residential communities and you took Parcel A and added their selling square foot price, you'd come out with an average. If Parcel B is built at the price points that they're talking about, would it raise that average, lower it, or keep it the same; do you know? MR. SIMMONS: It actually, over a one-year period -- 197 a foot is where that comes out to. So it would be about even. Over a two-year period or five-year period, it would actually increase the price per square foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's just in the immediate area. So it's not in that general area that you were talking about on a wider scale? MR. SIMMONS: That's correct. This is in -- directly proximate to Regal Acres among those surrounding residential communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That kind of gets me where I was trying to understand. Thank you. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Whoever wants to wrap up. MR. KOULOHERAS: I guess that's me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KOULOHERAS: You know, at this point in time, I just want to thank everyone up here for a long day so far but, obviously, we're here to help, you know, address a community need out there. We believe that we've done a great deal of reach -out and effort to try to help calm some of the concerns of neighbors, and we're still trying to work -- work through those and will continue to work through those. Habitat for Humanity, myself and Lisa, as our CEO, are committed to do stuff completely different than we used to, and that's really to tighten up restrictions on the back end, that's to create new communities that are designed that have a better footprint and a better layout for not only its internal residents but also those residents external to the community. We want to look at communities that are much more friendly for the children that are in there. We want to look at the mistakes we've made in the past -- and we've made a few mistakes in the past -- and try to address those. So we're actively trying to work through this, and that's what this community hopefully represents. And that -- thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, anything further before we close the public hearing? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing, and we can either have discussion or entertain a motion. I've got some issues written down here, but I want to -- I don't know where this board's going, so I'm kind of waiting to see where you -all go as a group. Any comments from you -all? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll start with comments, and I think Ned was ready to jump in. But I have basically three comments. I do not support Deviation No. 3, and I think we've pretty much eliminated that. Have you concurred with that requirement as well? MR. KOULOHERAS: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we'd eliminate Deviation 3. 1 think any approval on this -- and I'm just going to wait and hear what the discussion is, but it should be contingent upon improvements to Greenway Road. I can -- meaning improve -- approve the zoning, but it should be contingent on an SDP -- could not move forward with an SDP until the improvements to Greenway Road are completed. It sounds like that's not going to be a problem, but I think that should be an issue. But I do have some -- still have some concerns about Manatee school. One of the problems in that part of the county is the Manatee school has such as bad reputation that nobody wants to buy property there who have school -aged children. And I'm not even talking about the demographics of the school. I'm talking Page 52 of 83 Packet Pg. 55 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 about the school itself. I still think it's deplorable in this county for what we pay for students to go -- we are taxed per student in this county to have a school that is operating out of temporary facilities for the past almost 18 years. And I just don't think that's acceptable, and I believe there should be some requirement on the number of units or the approval of this zoning based on requirements for Manatee school to meet the concurrency without the temporary facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really need to ask the County Attorney's Office if that's a direction we can go because of the concurrency issues involved. Do you have any -- MR. KLATZKOW: And I appreciate, by the way, you raising this issue, because when my kids went to schools, they had trailers on the other side of the county. When they went in, we were told they were temporary, and they've never left either. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: It's just -- it is what it is. That's how the school board operates. You know, when I'm thinking what you're raising, Commissioner Schmitt, it's really concurrency issue. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yep. MR. KLATZKOW: And I don't know that the school views this as a concurrency issue, because if they had, they would have gotten rid of these trailers years ago. I mean... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, they raise impact fees based on building permits, and those impact fees are supposed to pay for capital improvements. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Look, I couldn't agree with you from a factual standpoint any more than I do, but from a legal standpoint, it's a Comp Plan issue. And, Michael, you want to talk about that from the Comp Plan standpoint? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure if we're going to tie it to the zoning we do so in the proper manner or we don't do it because it can't be done. One way or the other. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want to make sure. I mean, if it meets concurrency and there's nothing legally we can do, I'll punt to the Board. Let them do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have more latitude than we do on -- MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning board director -- or director. It's set -- it's gone through school concurrency. Review of the school district has indicated that there is concurrency within the existing zone, and if there was not concurrency, they would look to the adjacent zone to see if there was concurrency. So from a concurrency management standpoint, they've satisfied what's required of that. And just as a side note, the state has changed per statute school trailer facilities can be permanent facilities. Now, that's a decision a local government could make or not make, but the state had said that trailer facilities are considered permanent facilities in terms of student capacity within schools systems. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Have the other two developments come in off of 41 right in front of Manatee school? There's two other developments. I believe they've already gone through zoning, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Argo Manatee, they've already got their PUD, 192 units, and they are just waiting, I assume, to get their either plat or SDPs approved. Down on Manatee further is that complex that came in for 183 apartments. It's now being converted to 392 single-family. They're in process for re -SDP review, and there's 60 acres of Roost Road for a mix of single-family and apartments. So there's a lot of stuff coming in that area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A lot of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that kind of begs the question. If we are looking at limitations that apply here, they would start applying to all of them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. I mean, my concern is we've got, in that area alone, within five miles, a significant amount of development going in. I'm talking about high-density housing. And I'm not talking about Naples Reserve or Fiddler's Creek or some of the other communities. I'm talking about the ones that have been recently approved which are high density and, frankly, they're market rate but they're market rate at affordable. Page 53 of 83 Packet Pg. 56 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. BOSI: Oh, and I could tell you that those other two projects that had already been through the zoning process have already received their cursory concurrency analysis. Now, we should also recognize that concurrency is only applied at SDP or plat level, so what we've provided -- there is capacity in the system, but they haven't applied specifically yet. That's done at the actual DO level. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. But apparently capacity includes trailers. MR. BOSI: Yes, as per statute, which is allowed to. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mike, I'm glad you gave that opening remark, because I'm thinking back to some of the places where I had classes when I was growing up. And it's the quality of the teachers and not the classroom that gives you the education. MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. EASTMAN: It's the county that decides whether impact fees are raised at what rate, not the school district, so I think we need to be clear on that. And it's also been the school board's position to be ready to accommodate development throughout the county. We've never stood in the way of accommodating development throughout the county, nor are we doing it in this case. To demand that we tie this or conditionally relate this to concurrency for school would be breaking entirely new ground. We're ready to receive the kids that will be generated by this project. It's clear. And I think we're raising doubt where there's certainty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, did you have any -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have question for you. Is Hacienda Lakes -- you have a facility -- you bought land there. Would that be ready to -- MR. EASTMAN: Hacienda Lakes is future elementary site that's in this particular area of the county. I don't believe it's -- in fact, I'm certain it's not in the five-year plan. But it's a school site that, when built, would provide relief to Manatee. We can't just build a new school because we have 11 portables at an elementary school site. We're very responsible in our facilities. Our facilities are exemplary. Any outside review of our facilities -- it's one the strongest things that the school district does. I think we all know that with the past hurricane and the use of over 27 school sites as shelters, facilities are one of the school district's strong suits, not weak suits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tom. Anybody else? Joe, did you finish? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm done. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm really struggling over this one. I'm going to assume, perhaps without justification -- we'll see -- that single-family dwelling uses should and would be the exclusive kind of housing that would be part of this and that the permitted uses that are listed in the ordinance would be trimmed way back to accommodate -- to allow for single-family only. Otherwise, I really have a very serious issue with it. I kind of do anyway. Also assuming that the 80 percent opacity of the preserves after one year is going to be -- is either already built in or is going to be built in to the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was added language. If this gets recommended for approval, it would be added language to the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And I agree with those who have spoken against deviation I believe it's No. 3, the trees. So having said all of that, my real problem and the thing that really stymies me on this has to do with Page 54 of 83 Packet Pg. 57 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 what we're supposed to be doing up here. And my attention was called, as it always is in these, to the straight rezone analysis and the PUD amendment analysis. And I see 10.02.08, which is the straight rezone. Section 10 says, "Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area." As long as I've been involved, which isn't that terribly long, but I've never seen staff weigh in on that, rather, an answer such as the, you know, property -- market value is a subjective assessment, et cetera, et cetera, which is probably true. In this particular presentation, I would have to take my hat off to those who arranged to supply evidence on the question of adjacent property values, because had there been no evidence forthcoming on that, I would feel more free to substitute my own personal judgment based upon what I had previously called my sense of common knowledge and common sense that really runs directly contrary. But I don't feel as though I can substitute my judgment when some evidence has been presented to support the lack of a negative effect, and there's been no evidence offered on the other side to contradict that. So, I guess, grudgingly, perhaps, I think your presentation was effective, at least with me, on that point. This will go to the County Commission as a -- not as a consent item. It will go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It will go with, again, the burden on the applicant to make a presentation. And the much greater question that needs to be addressed, and, of course, should be addressed by the County Commission, which has much greater latitude to look at these kinds of things than we do and to look at policy issues, the greater question is what is happening in East Naples with respect to property values as a result of the concentration of affordable housing in relatively -- a relatively small area. That is -- that's something where evidence needs to be brought forth. Other appraisers who have different points of view have put that in front of the County Commission, and they can make a judgment on it. But since there was no evidence other than the applicant's evidence, I don't feel like I can substitute my judgment for that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nick, I listened to you earlier, and in that same area you have 96 acres and 87 or, I'm just thinking, right in that area. So you have other big plots for this. To me, you showed pictures of single-family homes in this. So the only -- it would only be single-family that I would even consider this with. That's what you showed. That's what people are expecting. And you still have two other huge pieces of property in the area. And things -- you're right, you have had to change because of what happens to these communities after you leave. I feel that you are trying to attempt to do that with putting an agent in there to watch this because this has to be kept up. You don't drive in the other communities and see this. The biggest thing is keeping these areas up like the other communities are kept up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. C14AIlZMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So we don't have to approve the density bonus of 46. We can just approve the three units per acre? I mean, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There can be stipulations any direction you think it's pertinent to go. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, because for me -- I mean, there is a lot of workforce housing and low-income housing concentrated in East Naples. I've been through all of East Naples in the early -- I went through and found everything that was worth $125,000 or less at the beginning in the 2001,'2, or something that, and there were -- not including any Habitat, there was over 17,000 homes or whatever could be afforded for that amount of money. And then later on a few years later, somebody did it at 150,000, and it's basically the same amount. Because if you ride down, I mean, behind -- you can start at the triangle area and on each side and behind the commercial, even on the west side, there are communities in there that have been there -- I've been here for 30 years. They've been here longer than me. And they are workforce and low income. Page 55 of 83 Packet Pg. 58 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 So -- and Habitat is concentrating a lot of units in East Naples; there's no doubt. We've all looked at the map. So I don't -- I don't see adding more, but if it were single-family at three units an acre and only for moderate income, 61 percent to 80 percent, that might be something to consider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As I typically do, as comments are made during the meeting, I make notes. I put points down that either the applicant has agreed to or we've asked for, and I didn't get Karen's yet because she just said it. But I'll add that, and we can discuss the notes and see which way someone wants to make a motion to go forward or not. Limit density to three and moderate pricing. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: If you're going to limit the density -- if you're going to get rid of the affordable housing, I don't know that you'd also say "but it has to be moderate, too." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just following -- I'm -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Out of respect for her comments. But you understand what he's saying, if it's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I know. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What did you say? MR. KLATZKOW: If you're going to eliminate the affordable housing element of this, which is your prerogative to make that recommendation, then I don't know that you can put a conditional consideration on this that, well, you also have to sell it to moderate. At that point I'm just going straight marketplace housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It won't matter at that point. Yeah. Well, I'll read off what I've got written down. Again, it's for discussion. And then if someone wants to make a motion -- well, first of all, we had a few changes to the language in the PUD, clarifications mostly. This would have to come back on consent if it's recommended for approval because there's too many changes to do on the fly today. But in the -- I have 11 items that I added in addition to some of the comments in the PUD. Staffs -- support staff denial of Deviation 3. 1 think that's been discussed. Limit the preserve uses to that which we discussed on the record. Add the minimum width of the preserves in those two locations, one on the south and one in the narrowest point in the middle, and add that to the master plan. Add the 8 -foot wall locations to the master plan or provide that separate document that you guys produced, but it has to be part of the PUD. Staffs clarification that the buffers need to be -- I think Summer indicated, I think that was a good indication, that we need to have a landscaping subsection in the PUD describing the buffers and that that buffer exhibit needs to be attached. That you had agreed to put a security fence in. I suggest, because you've got the deviation, do a fence wall 8 -foot high, to go 8 -foot high. That would help prevent a lot of very limber, younger people than me jumping over a fence, and positioned along the back of the property lines between 25 -- between the remaining 20 -foot setback of the preserve, somewhere in that area there. The product will be fee simple single-family. No multifamily or condo. The rec area needs to be moved where the hammerhead location is. The traffic on Greenway, I'll leave it -- if this gets a recommendation of approval, I'll leave it to you to come back on consent with some consensus between you and transportation to language that could be worked out to further those traffic -calming improvements on Greenway. It's just not a matter of we'll try to do it. We need some kind of benchmark to say how it's going to get done. And then Karen added the idea to limit the density to three units per acre. So all those are up for discussion for this board, and someone needs to make a motion, and we can go from there. So with that in mind, does anybody want to weigh in on any of them individually, or do we have a motion? What would you like to do? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can I just ask for clarification on your -- when you're referencing Page 56 of 83 Packet Pg. 59 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 single-family, since the code, by definition, includes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said fee simple. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- duplexes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I said simple fee single-family. I thought -- because that's what they've got there now. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So it's detached single-family is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, fee simple doesn't have to be detached. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know. That's why I'm asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Duplex isn't multi. So if there's -- that's why I brought it up. So if there's any clarification needed -- I know Ned originally brought it up. And it really became a discussion on how they're going -- if it's an SDP, it's multifamily. If it's a plat, it's fee simple. Fee simple, then, is single-family, even if they're connected. Just like townhouses, you could have four in a row, but they still could be fee simple, and they'd still be considered single-family. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, do you have any -- is that -- you were the one that brought it up originally, and I think it was echoed by others, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think your list of issues that have been put on the table is comprehensive. And even though in my heart I would like to support Karen's, I think that that, perhaps, is a bit of a stretch to go back to the three dwelling units per acre. And so I would -- I'm prepared at this time to make a motion for all of the conditions that have been put forth, with the exception of limiting the bonus units, to approve the PUDA subject to those I think it was 11 conditions. Maybe 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten now. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's make a second first. Then you go to discussion. So do you want to second for discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll second for discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second. And then we go into discussion, and we can go from there. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My only concern is the -- this issue about single-family. And I understand single-family detached, fee simple, but what was presented at many of the meetings, what was presented today was, basically, I'll call it, artist's rendition of a single-family two-story home. I think to do anything different than that is simply not acceptable. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend my motion, then, in line with what Commissioner Schmitt has said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going from single-family fee simple meaning attached or detached -- attached and possibly duplex to strictly detached single-family; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. What they presented today in their drawings, I thought, was their intent. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's my motion. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: And I wasn't sure if that drawing reflected -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a wonderful product, quite honestly. It really looks like a great product. And I commend Habitat for stretching the envelope and developing something that attractive as compared to what -- there's been fairly typical is the duplex or the fee -simple adjoined structure. This is a step above, and I think it's a tremendous step to create that type of community. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, just going to the PUD itself, Commissioner Schmitt, you're saying that on the uses that are allowed in the PUD, which it's on Page 10 of the PUD, we've got C1, which is single-family detached dwelling units, and that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, to go with what they presented in their -- Page 57 of 83 Packet Pg. 60 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. KLATZKOW: So the remaining uses would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before we settle on that -- MR. KLATZKOW: -- would be eliminated. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm open for discussion on that, but I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just want a clarification. I don't know what he showed. So all I would like to see is what you showed us. Again, I remember the colors and everything; I remember what they look like. Could you put those back on? Because I wasn't sure they were -- I thought they looked like duplexes or detached -- or attached single-family. I just want to make sure we're right before we find on this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I may be wrong. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And I'd like to know why Nick looked perturbed when Joe said that. MR. KOULOHERAS: It's just a natural look I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That isn't the one. You had some close-ups. You showed a street scene with -- there you go. Now, those -- that's what we were -- that's what I think was portrayed to us. What kind of product is that? MR. KOULOHERAS: That is a single-family two-story detached. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I think we're describing. MR. KOULOHERAS: Yes. And if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. KOULOHERAS: Habitat for Humanity is committed to building this product. We've taken a lot of time, effort, and energy to lay this site out to get just that single-family detached product because we know that is preferred by community at large. However, what we're -- I'm okay with, obviously, the multifamily. We've already stated that. If this is approved and goes to the BCC for approval, if -- I'm just going to be point blank. If all of a sudden the Water Management District comes in and takes something, we get reduced on zoning and takes something, the project becomes --just like any other developer, it becomes economically impossible to build at an affordable price point. So we've done this trying to accomplish two things: A better design, what we feel is a better design, and affordability. And so we are committed to doing what you see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think with this product at the density that you asked for, it becomes more palatable for us. Now, if you have a problem and that does change, then, basically, the concept you presented to us is going to change, and I would suggest you need to come back and talk to us about it again. And so I would -- whatever you've got to do to get this through the agencies and keep with that product or as close to that as possible, I think you should do, is what I'm -- the read I'm getting from this board. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This product only. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what we're looking at. MR. KOULOHERAS: I took a lot of time, actually, individually putting those plants exactly where they go on this rendering, so... C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Well, we're going to measure every spot -- MR. KOULOHERAS: I'm sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and every plant. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, this complies with a sense of place, it complies with many of the -- a lot of type of structures, and it's compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods as single-family. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Point of order. Does my amended motion gain a second from the original seconder? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will. We're going to get there. I'm trying to wait for Mr. Schmitt to -- he's on a roll today. So I'm giving him pause there. So first of all, your amended motion was, as you read -- as we talked about the first 10, but instead of fee simple -- simple single-family being the only connotation, it was fee simple single-family detached only, Page 58 of 83 Packet Pg. 61 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 no multifamily or condos. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is that a second, Mr. Schmitt? Do you second that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, is there any more discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's going to look exactly like this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean -- again, this is the concept. It's going to be close to this -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Two years from now it's going to look exact -- after it's built -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As close as it can to that kind of configuration. Go ahead. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I just texted back to the school district to find out what the grade is for Manatee Elementary, and it's a B school. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Good. MR. EASTMAN: Yeah, it's good. Good by definition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane, did you have something you want to add? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. If this has to change because of the water district or something, then it should come back to this board again. But, you're right, I can approve it if it's what's on -- what you've shown everybody at your meetings. That is completely different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This is good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: One final comment. I think it's very useful for us and wise in the long run to be sure that applicants are held to the pictures that they show us, because it does create an impression and understanding in our minds that I think we have a right to rely on, so I'm glad we did that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that is there a -- let's call for the vote. All those in favor with the alternate motion made and seconded. You're standing up for a reason? MS. DeJOHN: May I ask a quick question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to snap the -- what is that, jaws of -- MS. DeJOHN: No. I just ask for you to clarify on your list of 11 items. You said move -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten. MS. DeJOHN: Ten. Move the rec area. I heard consider and look at the options of moving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the discussion. In the stipulation it was move it to that hammerhead area. MS. DeJOHN: Well, there would still have to be evaluation of what that does to the unit count. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Well, you better do it before consent or get -- I mean -- MS. DeJOHN: Well, why don't we come back to you with that evaluation so that you can see the pros and cons of moving -- CHAHZMAN STRAIN: Probably -- I don't know if we can make a motion today then or not. MR. KLATZKOW: You can come back -- you make your motion. They'll come back on consent. If they say they can't do it, you'll just make a different motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the reason for can't doing it may simply be they lose some units. That may not be a big issue with this board, so... MS. DeJOHN: It might be safety of the children as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what we'll do is you're going to come back on consent with a response to these 10, and we'll simply, at that point, acknowledge whether we accept the modifications of their rec area or not and, if we don't, we can say that we still stick with our stipulation to move it. Okay. With that clarification, and that on -- the motion's made and seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. Page 59 of 83 Packet Pg. 62 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 6-1 (sic). And this is going to come back for consent. We need a motion for that. Is there a motion for that? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion that it comes back on consent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Two weeks. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question. Rather, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Exactly what will be before us on consent? What will be in bounds and what will be out of bounds? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The in bounds will be the changes that were discussed to the language that we walked through on the PUD, the additions to the PUD that need clarification for buffers and things that staff had talked about, the addition to the PUD of the exhibits that they produced showing the wall and/or the buffers, and then any articulation needed for the 10 points that we made into the PUD and, at the same time, they'll address the issue of the -- they'll address to somehow solidify their efforts to look at calming improvements on Greenway Boulevard. And our latitude on that will be whether we accept all of that as it was the intent of this board on consent. Our motion to approve the project still stands, but we could have changes come back on consent that are unacceptable to us, and we just fall back on the language that is acceptable to us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think I understand. But ordinarily when -- in my limited experience, when things come back on consent, we look to see if the language was a faithful inscription of what we thought we'd done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But in this case the applicant is going to have the opportunity to propose rejection of one or more or all of the conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they're going to try to show us their alternative that works for them, and we canjust decide if that's acceptable to us or we want to stick with our original intent as strict as it is. And that seems to be what I got from the County Attorney's Office. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I mean, you get the same result if you want to continue it to the next meeting and they come back. It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only difference is the public input at the second meeting wouldn't be necessary because they -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if they're going to change it and somebody wants to show up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then they'd have to talk about the change, yeah. Well -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: We can do that. We can continue it. MR. KLATZKOW: We're just trying to get this right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am, too. That's why I don't want to mess up the process in trying to get it right. And if you're saying to come back, that all the issues we would open for discussion on consent could still include public comment but it would be limited to those? MR. KLATZKOW: The issue that was raised by the applicant that they're having difficulty with is the hammerhead. They may not be physically able to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they physically can be able to do it. It's how many units they might lose if they do it. MS. DeJOHN: And if moving the rec area is important to the Board, there may be an alternative to that hammerhead area where the rec area could move that better serves the neighborhood. We want to come Page 60 of 83 Packet Pg. 63 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 back to you and show you, this is the best solution we found for moving the rec area or not. MR. KLATZKOW: So is it my understanding the only issue you're coming back with on consent that there's still some open debate -- MS. DeJOHN: Moving the rec area. MR. KLATZKOW: -- with is the rec area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then when it comes back on consent, the only item that would be area remaining for public discussion and input would be that rec area, but that's the only debate we would have at that point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can you put up the plat again just for clarity for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Master plan, I think you mean. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Master plan, I'm sorry, and where the rec area will -- you're looking at moving now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's down on the south by that bottom circle. It would move up to the hammerhead right in the middle of the property. Right there. MS. DeJOHN: Which backs up to a lake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And backs up to open ag on the north side. So it's just ag fields. So there's -- I mean, actually, they're vegetated ag fields. So it's an area that is probably the least impactful to anybody around it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that still accessible for residents in Parcel A? MS. DeJOHN: No. The method of getting from A to that area would be around this loop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they use a vehicle, right? MS. DeJOHN: Or over a -- I mean, there's a lake. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you have a small rec area at the entrance of A, do you not? Yes, you do. MS. DeJOHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind the flexibility of coming back with an alternative as long as it's centrally located away from the properties so everybody's treated fairly. Because right now you have imposed on that mobile home park. And had they still acknowledged that and not had a problem with it and still had no objection, I wouldn't have had a concern. But when that gentleman came up and said he really hadn't bought into it and he's one of the affected parties, basically, that's a concern. Normally, we wouldn't have -- we wouldn't have -- we would always have questioned a rec area that close to another adjoining residential. Those are sensitive areas in every PUD we've reviewed on this board. So that's the basis. If you guys can find a better location, I don't mind that flexibility coming back on consent. Is that okay with the rest of you? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. I just want to be sure I understand. I think I agree with the County Attorney, but just to be sure that I understand what he said, we are closing the door on all other issues except location of the rec area? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then that's very agreeable with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, there's been a motion made and seconded. And now we're into consent. A consent motion was made and seconded. Now, is the second -- next meeting in September, will that -- be the 20th of September work for you guys? Can you get this done by then? MR. KOULOHERAS: We will do everything we can. We will get it done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because you can continue it to the 4th if you need to at that meeting, but the best is to try to get it done by that date. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's coming back for another vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, for the consent, not for this. We already voted on the project. Now we're coming back for consent. Okay. So -- Page 61 of 83 Packet Pg. 64 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which is going to be faithfulness of the language to what we agreed and location of recreation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. All those in favor of the consent requirement, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0 (sic). Thank you. And I do want to compliment the efforts of Habitat this time. We've had problems in the past, and I think you've tried to address them. I hope you're successful, because if your projects are starting to look like this, they'll be a little bit easier to work into our neighborhoods. So appreciate your efforts. MR. KOULOHERAS: Thank you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***That takes us to -- and we've -- again, we're going to be leaving at 4 today, so the next item up is PUDZ-PL20170004414. It's the Russell Square RPUD located east of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately a quarter mile south of Davis Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Disclosures. We'll start with Tom down at the end. LU-9W."RIML _V►f1►� COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Telephone call with Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I talked to the applicant and one other member of his team as well as Mr. Yovanovich, and I think Wayne was there, too, and I did have a staff meeting and went over this with them as well. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did speak with Mr. Green. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I tried to have a staff meeting with transportation staff, but they would not cooperate at the meeting, so I don't have any input from them in that regard. Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I, likewise, spoke to Mr. Yovanovich about the project. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move into presentation. Wayne, it's all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, certified planner. And with us today representing Neal Communities are Michael Greenberg, Jason Frost, and Dan Ciesielski. Rich Yovanovich is our land -use counsel, Tim Hall is the biologist on the project, Jim Banks prepared the traffic analysis. And any of the team members will be here to answer any questions that you might have. After such a lengthy discussion on the other, I think I'll try to make this fairly brief, and then we can get into questions and answers. I don't -- we may have a few people here who are interested, but I hope we don't have objectors. I certainly don't anticipate any. So the project is just under 33 acres located on Santa Barbara Boulevard just east of Santa Barbara Boulevard. It -- you know, if you read the NIM notices, there were some comments related to Cope Lane because we advertised it as sort of north of the extension of Cope Lane, because in the records Cope Lane is Page 62 of 83 Packet Pg. 65 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 specified continuing east, and that was a point of contention for some of the residents that attended. So we have worked with your addressing department. The project has been named Seychelles as -- and we would look to name the road that leads to the project that. And your addressing staff has committed that that's not an overused name, and we have the administrative ability to label it as that. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What was that name? MR. ARNOLD: Seychelles. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's not Arnold Place? MR. ARNOLD: It couldn't be that simple, no. It doesn't have the ring to it as a nice French name. So we're proposing 230 multifamily dwelling units at this location. Access would be off that east/west extended road. Staff has asked us to extend that to what is known as Sunset Lane, which we're prepared to do. And we had our neighborhood information meeting. There were some residents west of Cope Lane that attended. There were concerns over the street name; there were also several questions about drainage. We've been working with your stormwater staff. There is a stormwater pipe, and our engineer can answer the questions. I think I left out Mike Herrera from my office, actually, that's also on the team who's in attendance. But the county has designated where we would be crossing Santa Barbara Boulevard to get into the LASIP canal that runs on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, and that location is, essentially, just north of the retention pond that the county dug for the improvements for Santa Barbara Boulevard. So we will be discharging there. We have a low discharge rate. We're also being reviewed and approved through the Water Management District. So we feel very comfortable that what we're doing has no impact on the residents west of Santa Barbara Boulevard. I'm going to put up the master plan. MR. SABO: I'm pushing the button. I swear. MR. ARNOLD: Do you need to do it on the screen? Is there a way to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have trouble, Heidi will show you how to do it. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. There we go, Ray. That's perfect. Thank you. So this is the conceptual master plan that shows the internal street alignment. We're proposing this to be a gated community. It terminates in a cul-de-sac on the northern portion of the property, and then we'll have development around our water management lakes and adjacent to the preserves. There were deviations that have been supported by staff. They relate to some wall height along Santa Barbara Boulevard. We have two currently disconnected preserves. Staff has requested that we seek deviations where we don't have connected preserves on site. They don't naturally occur as connected preserves, so we've asked for that deviation, and they've supported it. Other deviations have related to signage. We, obviously, don't have our access point on Santa Barbara Boulevard, so we have asked for signage along Santa Barbara as well as at our entrance that will be off of the new extended roadway east of Santa Barbara Boulevard. We also have asked for a deviation on the northern buffer because your code technically would require us to potentially have a buffer adjacent to a preserve because we have a residential component of the Taormina Reserve project north of us, but it exceeds 800 feet from us through preserve, our preserve, so we don't feel that having an extra buffer between two preserves makes a lot of sense. So that's why we've asked for that, and staff has supported that. We asked for one deviation on sidewalks, and that's located on the extreme eastern side of the southeastern portion of the property. Sort of in that location. That area has a single -loaded side of the street. We didn't feel it necessary to construct a sidewalk that nobody would be walking on for that are short segment of roadway, and staff has suggested support of that. The only real bone of contention for the entire project has been your transportation staffs recommendation that's on Page 7 of your staff report. They've cited an LDC provision, 4.07.02.1.4, and suggested that we need to add a condition and a commitment on our -- in the PUD and then an Page 63 of 83 Packet Pg. 66 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 interconnection to the north and to Taormina Reserve, and part of their analysis goes on to cite that the Taormina Reserve project has a commitment. And they're correct; it does have a commitment. I'm going to put that on the visualizer. This is language from the Taormina project. But the distinction here is that the county had an obligation and five years in which to obtain public access rights across this project that we're talking about today. The county did not obtain those public access rights in that time period and, in fact, the only easement that exists is, essentially, a driveway easement that serves the two homes that exist on this property. There's no public access right. There's no public road across this property. And we believe it's not feasible, as expressed in that LDC provision, to make this connection. It doesn't enhance the capacity of your Santa Barbara roadway. There's a pedestrian pathway along Santa Barbara Boulevard leading to the north and to the south. There's really no benefit to the community and certainly not to this community that is intended to be gated to provide a full interconnection to a project that has over 200,000 square feet of commercial approved for it and several hundred residential developments. And, further, I don't really believe that commitment says what it is. If you take that literally, I shouldn't be taking the Taormina traffic through a residential community, and it doesn't connect into a series of connected streets. Mr. Greenberg, very familiar with the neighborhood. They developed Avalon. They're under construction with Marquesa on County Barn Road. And they know the community well. And Mr. Greenberg was driving the area and kind of created this Google map, and I think it really represents what's going on out there. You have a series of unpaved roads, which are shown in blue; you have a series of paved roads, which are shown in pink, but none of those roads connect south or north to anything, and there's no chance for those to connect to the south that would take you to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. So we don't understand the significance of trying to provide an interconnect when I don't know how many dozens of projects that I've represented before your planning commission, but I've never seen staff take a position that we need and are required to interconnect our project, and especially in this particular situation. There's no continuation of a street system. There's private easements. So what they're asking us to do serves absolutely no purpose, in my opinion. And we would hope that the Planning Commission would agree with us and not impose that condition on this project. It makes a very nonfeasible project if you're Neal Communities looking at their success of their other two projects in the area which is gated community. It's a major selling factor for those communities. So, Mr. Strain, I know you had a few other minor comments on the PUD. I'm assuming you're going to go page by page. I won't try to get into those at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think anything I have is minor, Wayne. I wouldn't waste your time with that. But, anyway, we're going to go as we normally do, and my few comments will be picked up with the others. And I'll turn to the Planning Commissioners first to see if there's any questions of the applicant at this time. And, Ned, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. First of all, I'm inclined to agree with you on the interconnection issue. I don't think it should be a necessary requirement in the case of this project. Next, I want to just be sure to verify some things on the record that resulted from my phone conversation with Mr. Yovanovich. The first one had to do with -- for some reason I perceived a lack of clarity on actual and zoned height, but I believe it is intended to be zoned 35, actual 45. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And so you've done Avalon already, which is an eight-plex, four units on each of two stories. That would probably fill in your 45 feet pretty closely, but whatever configure -- and I know you currently plan to go with the Avalon kind of a -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- look, but in any event you'd be constrained by the 35/45? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. Page 64 of 83 Packet Pg. 67 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 Do I need to identify myself for the record? Rich Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you she knows who you are. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He was sworn in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I was sworn in. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The issue -- the folks who spoke at the NIM were almost all, maybe all residents of Cope Lane. And one of the issues, primary issue that they raised had to do with water. I understand there are three lakes and there's going to be regulation of how the water is to be released, and an expectation, certainly a hope, that the resulting release of water will be less than it is now where it's completely uncontrolled. But I just want to throw up some questions here and be sure that this has been thought through and that it is really reasonable to expect that the water flow west over to Cope Lane will more than likely be less, and that is, you're going to -- any project is going to create more impervious surfaces than pervious ones. So there's less capability of water to be absorbed by the ground. And I believe it's also the developer's plan to route the water west under Santa Barbara. So the water that is discharged, I realize the discharge is going to be regulated, but it seems to me there's going to be quite a bit more water subject to regulation versus less water that is right now wide open not subject to regulation. Could you comment on that? MR. HERRERA: Yes. For the record, Michael Herrera, civil engineer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Can't hear you, sir. MR. HERRERA: Sorry. For the record, Michael Herrera, civil engineer on the project, with Grady Minor. Yeah, currently the site has unregulated discharge, so water's free to, as soon as it lands on property, to discharge off site without any form of water quality. And post conditions were governed by the South Florida Water Management District which -- in Collier County in terms of the allowable discharge rate for this basin. So -- and post condition, we are regulated in the amount of discharge rate and will be providing the required water quality. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you happen to have a measurement of current water discharge over to the Cope Road area? MR. HERRERA: No, not with me today, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it really more than just speculation that the water discharge will be less? MR. HERRERA: The water discharge would be less that the post -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. But we don't know what it is now. MR. HERRERA: No, but it's -- two applications have been submitted through Collier County for SDP approval. I just don't have those with me at this time. The calculations have been conducted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But you did forward all your calculations to the Water Management District as well. MR. HERRERA: We actually have a South Florida Water Management permit in hand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh. You do already, already approved. MR. HERRERA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I say something? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's noway to judge the discharge off this site because it doesn't have a berm and it doesn't have a discharge structure, right? MR. HERRERA: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You couldn't just -- there's no way to measure it, right? MR. HERRERA: That's correct. It's -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So it's like a presumptive criteria. You're presuming that for the certain shape of the site you're going to have a certain discharge for a certain area. Page 65 of 83 Packet Pg. 68 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 IU1►asII1C7C7D1C7:\(o M IT-= CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sure you aren't calculating a stormwater management fee? I mean, if the site doesn't have any need for it, then that's the reason to have it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll be home drinking wine when that happens, watching it on TV laughing. Well, not laughing, but probably just drinking wine. But that's -- to answer Ned's comment, it's the way all these things are designed. It's all presumptive up front, and after it's designed, then you can measure the discharge. But there's just no way to do it up front. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand that limitation. Currently the only -- the only limitation -- the only direction that comes to the water that's flowing off the current property is the slope of the land, I assume. MR. HERRERA: That's correct. And depending on the land, there could be multiple points of discharge. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Absolutely. But -- and correct me if I'm wrong on this, because I think this is important. The way I read the responses in the NIM, the developer's plan to route the water -- and I assume that means route all the water -- west under Santa Barbara. MR. HERRERA: That's correct. West under Santa Barbara at a regulated rate. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Regulated rate. But, of course, we don't have any point to measure that against to identify whether the folks on Cope are going to get more or less water. MR. HERRERA: Correct. But when we develop the property, Collier County has a basin study that allocates a certain allowable discharge per acreage for development, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: But from the standpoint of -- and I understand that, and that's a good thing that we have that. But from the residents' viewpoint, we can't really say that they can expect less water as a result of this, can we? MR. HERRERA: We didn't conduct the full study of the existing topography of where it goes. Eventually that water does go southerly. Where the location as it -- where it enters into the Santa Barbara system, that water does get there, but at what location. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, I won't belabor that any further. Again, confirming my conversation with Mr. Yovanovich, this is going to be a gated community, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. It's going to be a gated community, which is really what Collier County has developed as, and that's the market for Collier County and the reason why Collier County commands the prices it gets today, and that's what makes Collier County special. And why we would want to break a system that works so well, I don't know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I agree with your point. I was just tying it into the fact that as a gated community, even less reason why there should be points of interconnect, it seems to me. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, obviously, we agree with that, that there's no reason to provide for interconnection when we're not -- there's not a traffic concern on Santa Barbara. And Jim Banks can get into that. But that's what we talked about. There's no real reason, based upon the criteria, to force an interconnection between this project and an activity center through another residential community before we get to the activity center. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, Richard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll get to you. Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Richard, then it's in the Land Development Code that you do interconnect and everything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Am I correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER EBERT: If there is -- well, I remember another project which is on Livingston where they're supposed to interconnect, and that never happened either. They cut it off so you couldn't -- so Page 66 of 83 Packet Pg. 69 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 you had two things going in. This county has got to come up with a plan, which is fine, but you're fighting transportation all the time, because it talks about interconnect. It has to be taken in front of the BCC then and kind of get it straightened out. If we're going to -- that we take away all interconnects. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm not advocating that you take away all interconnects. I'm saying in this particular situation on this particular piece of property, based upon the language that's in both your Comprehensive Plan and in your Land Development Code, it talks about, wherever feasible, and it delegates to the Land Development Code the determination of feasibility. And we believe, under the reading of your Land Development Code, that we are not -- it is not feasible. And it also talks about -- it talks about -- I'll put the exact language up, but I'm going to probably have trouble reading it from that far away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it 4.07.02.J.4? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll read the language that you're probably referring to. It's called -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I was getting ready to read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Interconnection of local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic and not adversely impact local streets and neighboring residential areas. MR. YOVANOVICH: So when we talk about what's the purpose of interconnection, it isn't to funnel all kinds of traffic through a local small neighborhood. Actually, what they're suggesting, in my opinion, is contrary to the Land Development Code reading the language. And it also talks about us when you're looking at -- you're supposed to look at existing traffic patterns, you're supposed to be looking at the transportation network needs, and then they have these words, which I don't know what they mean, "or the like." So it isn't a pure and simple thou shalt always interconnect. You look at the individual circumstances. And the interpretation I've got -- and believe me, I've had some discussions with your staff about this. When you define feasible from the county's perspective, it's always feasible, because it's just a matter of money, and who cares about the impact upon the development that you're about to develop. It's always feasible from the county's perspective. Now, if you want to have a narrow definition of feasibility, that would be fine, but that is not what your Land Development Code talks about and, in fact, it specifically says, interconnection of local streets shall be designed to discourage through traffic. And they want to put through traffic through this project. So I think that they are incorrect in the reading of their language. There are circumstances in master planned communities where we have the proper street network where we can accommodate interconnections. This is not the circumstance where we can accommodate that, and we don't think we're contrary to the Land Development Code or the Growth Management Plan. There are appropriate times to interconnect. This is not one of them based upon the location of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Joe? Then, Stan, did you have some questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let Stan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had raised your hand before Diane. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Two things. Can you think of a project where there's an interconnection that doesn't allow through traffic? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pebblebrooke. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where it doesn't allow through traffic? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Doesn't allow through traffic, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, your community, Lakeside. We're about to build an interconnect. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And there will be through traffic? MR. YOVANOVICH: Give you an ability to come through -- you're not going through the development. You're going through a separate local road where developments are separated through. So you're not -- it's not coming through a neighborhood. It is allowing the connection of Lakeside to Orange Blossom through a local street that's not going through the middle of a neighborhood. Page 67 of 83 Packet Pg. 70 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So that's -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and Pebblebrooke has also an interconnection to that commercial piece, and that's the logical way interconnections apply. The people in Pebblebrooke get to use that access. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But it's not through a residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not through the residential neighborhood. Now, it's easy to do when you have larger -scale projects that have commercial as part of them to provide for the interconnectability, and I believe that provision was really intended for your bigger communities, not a small 32 -acre multifamily project that, you know, wants to have the security that every other community in Collier County has. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was trying to think of one that went through a residential neighborhood that wasn't through traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't think of one -- well, I can't think of one where we forced this type of traffic through a residential neighborhood. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe a mixed-use residential. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And the second thing, for Mike, how did you decide -- who decided which way you're going to send the water off this project? Did you? MR. HERRERA: Collier County staff directed us to where the discharge location would be. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two issues. First issue, I agree with Ned; I don't support the interconnect on this project. It's a residential community, and it's supposed to be designed as a residential community with some sense of security, as secure as that would be. But I don't agree with it in this case, unless it's an interconnect to some kind of commercial site to the north, which I don't believe it is. I have a second question in regards to Deviation No. 8. 1 am absolutely puzzled by staff s recommendation. The deviation appears reasonable, but the deviation -- what's it -- let me get my glasses on again. Deviation request presumes there will be ample parking for the amenity area. So I guess staff is saying we agree, but we really don't agree, but you make a decision because we really don't know what to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- and then staff, I think, is going to revise that. We talked about that yesterday, Joe. Good point. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we have done this numerous times in several other communities where it's walkable to some kind of an amenity. I really don't see a problem with this deviation unless somebody can't walk 300 feet or whatever the distance was going to be. So I guess if it appears reasonable, I support it because it appears reasonable to me. Even though staff doesn't want to make a commitment, I'll make a commitment and say I agree. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: I told you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Got you again. MR. SABO: I have strong beliefs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I told you. Anybody else have any questions of staff, I mean, of the applicant? I do have a couple. And I asked our staff architect to be here today because of Deviation No. 7. After I met with you -all, I expressed the concerns you had over another project to Peter, who's been on staff reviewing architectural, and he was of the opinion that I believe at the time that residential doesn't come under the architectural code; therefore, you don't have that issue, although this does happen to appear to the residential amenity centers. So, Peter, can you explain to us if this is needed or not. MR. S14AWINSKY: Good afternoon. For the record, Peter Shawinsky, county architect. And, yes, to classify your question, the architectural LDC standards apply when an amenity is within 300 feet of a residentially zoned area or an arterial or collector road. And from looking at the map that was presented here, it appears that that would be the case where they're indicating this amenity center to exist. Now, two things: When I review residential communities such as this, if the amenity building is further within the development and it exceeds that dimension, then there's no architectural review on it. It's Page 68 of 83 Packet Pg. 71 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 only in cases like this where the building is within those dimensions. Now, the proposed -- the justification for their deviation by proposing a 12 -foot wall along I believe it's Davis Boulevard -- no, I'm sorry -- Santa Barbara Boulevard, in lieu of providing additional architectural features on the building, which the Land Development Code would require for primary facades, again, facing right-of-ways, precedent has been set with other projects in the area where we've allowed walls of that nature to be put up where you're not going to have direct visual impact of a building behind that wall. I'm sure with the type of community that Neal is proposing here, we're not going to have any kind of design issues with the facility. So it's of my opinion that that 12 -foot wall would be adequate and serve the purpose for adding any additional embellishments to that building because of its proximity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so you would not require them, if they made that argument when the documents came in, then, to use those architectural embellishments because of the 12 -foot wall. So the deviation, then, is not needed. Is that what it boils down to? MR. SHAWINSKY: No. The deviation is required because -- well, let me step back for a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you just said other ones were done and allowed with the 12 -foot wall, and did they all have deviations, too? MR. SHAWINSKY: Yes. One was a commercial property, and they went through the alternate architectural process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they didn't come before this board in the PUD for a deviation. MR. SHAWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the piece I'm worried about. MR. SHAWINSKY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they could go through an alternative architectural process to get this resolved that wouldn't require a deviation to their PUD? MR. SHAWINSKY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. S14AWINSKY: But because they're asking for it in the PUD, that's another way of accomplishing that same fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the only difference is in this case this will become a standard now for a deviation for similar applications every time a PUD comes in. That's my only concern with starting a new deviation. Basically, you're saying it's not really needed. They have an alternative architectural design basis in which to apply for this. I'm just wondering why the concern is on behalf of their client that they have to do it this way. I do not like opening up ourselves to more deviations. We've gotten a plethora of those now. And I'd just as soon, if you've got another alternative, that's the route to go. So go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, please. MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold. For our client's sake, we would like the certainty that we actually obtain the deviation before we start the design process. We'd hate to get through the design of a building to find out that staff is not going to support a deviation which would then require and necessitate other design changes to the building. It really is one of -- the orientation of the primary facade, if you will, is internal to the community, so as a resident would drive into the amenity center or walk to the amenity center, and this becomes one of where do you put your service aspect and some electrical equipment or air-conditioning equipment. We don't want to be forced to put it in front of the building, and we believe that with the wall that we're proposing, a six -lane road, and part of a preserve that tucks in by that, we think the deviation should be accepted. I think staff s not not supportive of the deviation. I think we, for the client's sake, want the certainty that you support it and we have the deviation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Page 69 of 83 Packet Pg. 72 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 Peter, I appreciate you being here today. Thank you. MR. SHAWINSKY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like your clarifications. Further on, I -- let me see what else I have. There's not much on this one. I had the same concern, and James is going to clean it up on the one that Joe pointed out. And that's the only issues I have, so -- and I'm certainly in agreement the -- it's been a long-standing basis of this Planning Commission we haven't -- the interconnections on projects like this have not been necessary, and I see no reason to change that position. So I agree with the rest of the Planning Commission on that so far. I have nothing else. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you have any comments on the PUD document itself? I remember talking, I think it was yesterday, on Exhibit B, which was the Development Standards Table. We were going to -- you would like us to add a footnote about the LME. The landscape maintenance easements and the landscape buffer easements shall be separate tracts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I found where that was already included. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's already in there. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wanted to make sure I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good with that. Thank you for reminding me, but I did find where -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You found it, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only other thing there was -- I think that was it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think that was it, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that was all that we had left. I think everything else I understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: I wanted to make sure we didn't miss something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we'll move to staff report. Go ahead, James. MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, principal planner. All right. So I am relenting on Deviation No. 8, and you can put that -- put a period after the "deviation appears reasonable" and disregard the remainder of the sentence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, James. MR. SABO: All right. So the recommendation is approval; however, it does contain the interconnection condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And -- MR. SABO: And you'll talk about that, I'm sure. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: -- we can handle that when we make stipulations. So that's -- okay. Anybody else have any questions of James before we go to Thaddeus? Okay. Thaddeus, it's all yours. MR. COHEN: Good afternoon. Thaddeus Cohen, department head, Growth Management. It looks like we have a heavy lift today talking about interconnections. And what I'm going to do is kind of talk about the broad aspect of it. What I've heard here is why do we do it, and I think that you're going to hear from our staff as to why we believe it's an important principle. Why would we do it in existing neighborhoods? Because there is opportunities for us to be able to create multiple methods of people being able to get through the community. Why would we shove it through an existing community? We don't believe that's going to be the case. We hear that this project will be gated, and I think we'll be able to show you that the fact that it may be gated does not prevent for interconnectivity. And I think one of the larger issues that we're grappling with as a community is how it is that we have an opportunity to relieve traffic off of our major arterials. The applicant indicates that there's capacity on Santa Barbara. I think what we'll show you today is, yes, that's true, but what does that do to our overall network when we drive the traffic to the main county arterials when there is an alternative opportunity to Page 70 of 83 Packet Pg. 73 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 have interconnection within a neighborhood? And we think those things are important. You hear ofttimes he says that, well, we have a model of development that has worked well for Collier County, and that's true. We've done an excellent job. We're a magnet for the entire nation to come here and live. But there's some tweaks that we can do, I think, to the development patterns that can help people particularly as they age or folks who are younger to be able to work more easily, to be able to get where they want to go more quickly, and to be less burdensome on our traffic network. And that's what we think interconnectivity provides for us is those opportunities for choices. So as we walk you through the process and as the applicant has already indicated, from the county's standpoint, most of the time interconnectivity is possible. And he says, well, it's only a matter of dollars. And I think what we'll be able to show you with how people need to get around the community, that those dollars that the developer will spend is well deserved and is also well taken into consideration. And as you look at 4.07.0214, and that's a mouthful, that it says -- and I kind paraphrase here, the County Manager or designee where -- excuse me. County manager or designee, that an interconnection is not feasible or warranted due to existing development patterns, transportation network needs, or the like. So it's very constricted as to who makes that decision as to whether or not interconnectivity is even available or whether it's feasible. And I think that as we show you, we think as the county, we'll be able to demonstrate that, yes, it is feasible, it does make sense in this existing project, and also as a principle going forward for a lot of other developments that we're working on. And with that, I'd like to have Trinity Scott start our presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you start presentation, we're on a difficult time frame today. We have another project. We have to leave at 4 o'clock. MR. COHEN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is opening a door on an issue that we've discussed many times over the years. And I don't know how prolonged your -- let me finish. I don't know how prolonged your presentation is, but yesterday I met with your people. I tried to get them to talk about this, and I was told, no, we're going to discuss it today. Now, I go to the effort for 18 years to have pre-CCPC meetings with your staff purposely to get this stuff on the table so when they have a position I can have time myself to understand it and at the same time they can understand my position. I stated that at yesterday's meeting, and I got, "no, we'll discuss it tomorrow." So right now I don't care what your staffs going to say at this point. There is no need for an interconnection. So we can spend the time right now going through this at the sacrifice of another project, but I think you're a day late and a dollar short as far as I'm concerned. I gave everybody the courtesy to start this yesterday so that I could have at least understood and been prepared to do research myself. I wasn't given the respect to get that -- to get that time frame from your people. So I'm in no mood to listen to it today. Now, if the rest of the panel wants to hear it, more power to them. But it isn't going to change my mind, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't care to hear it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: When you meet with them, what does it take for me to get in there? Is it public notification? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You've got to be in this room to do it, so. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. C14AHZMAN STRAIN: That's why -- I meet with them to save all of us a lot of time here and so we have better answers and question here, and yesterday I couldn't get that out of them. So I'm a little disappointed. But I don't know -- I've heard from this end there's no need to for -- you guys? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I have no -- I've already voiced my opinion. I don't think it's necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Shakes head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'm going to ask that we decline your presentation. If you Page 71 of 83 Packet Pg. 74 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 have anything more you want to say about it specifically, but we don't need a formal presentation on it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But I would like to hear about it some day in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind you coming back on an agenda item. We can entertain it under new business as just a presentation by staff, but I don't think it's necessary under a time crunch we're at today, so... MR. COHEN: Then I suspect that you'll vote on the matter then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will. MR. COHEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there any members of the public here to speak, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is any member of the public here to speak who has not -- who has not registered? Sir, you'll have to come up and be sworn in and identify yourself for the record. MR. C14ASSE: Richard Chasse. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please spell your last name for the record, sir. MR. CHASSE: C -h -a -s -s -e. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CHASSE: I'm a resident on Sandy Lane, 2497. It's the last house north on Sandy Lane. And I'm just wondering what their plans are. I don't ever see any -- our property abuts the back on the west side. If you show the other satellite view -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that the view you wanted, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See the yellow outline? That's the property in question. You can go to the one over there. Are you to the right or the left of those white lines? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right there. MR. C14ASSE: Right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CHASSE: I want to know what's going to happen between our property and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, do you want to show the master plan, and can you kind of point out in the master plan where the location is? MR. ARNOLD: Thanks, James. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly. For the record, Wayne Arnold. I'm not sure exactly where your home aligns with our proposed project, but you can see that on the northeastern side of the property we have our water management and preserve area, and then we have our road network that provides for a residential series of dwelling units that will be facing the lake. And the area where there's a separation, in that area, those would be single loaded to the lake, and there would be no building east of the roadway. COMMISSIONER EBERT: They're putting a wall there. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Don't you have your property superimposed on an aerial somewhere? MR. ARNOLD: I probably do have one, Stan. If you can give me a moment, I'll look in my exhibit file. I think it's in my other binder here. If you'll excuse me for one moment to get it from the back desk. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here it is, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: I know that's a little difficult to see, but in the -black -and -white image -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, rotate 90 degrees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there you go. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There you go. MR. ACKERMAN: So that's a superimposed image of the conceptual site plan. Page 72 of 83 Packet Pg. 75 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Show where your first building is. The closest building then to that property would be right there, and that's separated by a buffer and a road system; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the microphone, sir. MR. CHASSE: Yes. I'm trying to understand what the buffer is actually going to be. What's it going to look like? Right now there's a wooded area there between the existing property that's there now and our property. MR. ARNOLD: The buffer that's specified on our master plan is a 15 -foot -wide Type B buffer, and the B buffer is one that requires a hedge or some other opaque -- either a hedge or an opaque fence or something to that effect within the 15 -feet width as well as canopy trees planted every 30 feet on center on average. So that's a buffer that would be between multifamily and single-family typically per the Land Development Code. I know that's hard to envision, but it requires the opacity, and then it has to be maintained at minimum 6 -foot in height after one year. MR. CHASSE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did that answer your question, sir? MR. CHASSE: Somewhat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know how to better answer it until the site plan's -- MR. CHASSE: It's hard to visualize. There's no pictures of it or artist conceptions of what they're trying to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- we don't -- at this stage we won't have more details until they go in for their Site Development Plan, and that's a different step, so... MR. C14ASSE: Okay. Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. You might want to leave your name and address with this gentleman before you leave today, because they can keep you in the loop as to what's being built so you could comment on it. MR. C14ASSE: Great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that is the only member of the public here to speak. Do you have anything you want to address, Wayne, further? MR. ARNOLD: I don't think so, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion? And, by the way, the motion or discussion, I would suggest we not support transportation's recommendation for an interconnect due to health, safety, and welfare for -- involving that connection. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we approve the PUD for Russell Square as presented with the amendments as discussed, that is we do not approve the interconnect for health and safety reasons and, of course, the issue on parking which we approved, which was Deviation No. -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Eight. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- 8. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: We approved all the deviations. That was the one we had clarified. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was the one we clarified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second for the motion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 73 of 83 Packet Pg. 76 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0 (sic). Well, we have one hour to finish up the next one, everybody. So let's move into the next case. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Shouldn't Terri get a break? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can I just clarify the vote, because it actually was 6-0 and -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Patrick's gone. I'm sorry. It was 6-0. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just for clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Terri, we have one more case. Do you think you can pull through it, or do you want a break? You want a break? Well, let's take a five-minute break. We'll resume at 2:55. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We're all back online. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wayne, we're through with you. MR. ARNOLD: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He wishes. ***The next item up is No -- Item 9E. It's PL20180000049. It's the 1-75 Alligator Alley CPDD. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, we'll start with you. Disclosures again. MR. EASTMAN: None. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just Mr. Yovanovich again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when Ned gets back -- he had to step out for a moment. We'll get his. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And me, I did talk to Rich and Wayne yesterday. I'm not sure -- yeah, I'm not -- he was -- you were there. What was your name again? MR. HOUGHTALEN: Jesse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jesse. Okay. I'm sorry, Jesse. And I had a meeting with staff. On this one I did communicate with staff. So go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I spoke to Rich Yovanovich about it. C14ARUV AN STRAIN: Okay. Wayne, it's all yours. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor & Associates, certified planner, here representing Watermark Communities who are under contract to purchase a portion of the existing 1-75 Alligator Alley PUD. Jesse Houghtalen with Watermark Communities is in the audience. We have Rich Yovanovich, our land -use counsel; Bethany Brosious with Passarella & Associates, the ecologist on the project; and Jim Banks, our traffic engineer. So this is a fairly straightforward project. I think we're all aware of the location. It's located just west of Collier Boulevard, south of 1-75, and on the north side of Davis Boulevard. It's partially developed with a hotel and two restaurants and some of the site infrastructure, and a portion of the water management system has been installed. It permits today 265,000 square feet of office in addition to the hotel, or I'm sorry, not office, but commercial uses, I should say, in addition to the hotel. And the essence of our amendment will be to create a second optional master plan that will provide for an area where the 425 multifamily apartments could be located on the site. Page 74 of 83 Packet Pg. 77 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 This is that optional plan. It's denoted as a C/R area on this master plan. I drew the little blue arrow so you could see where probably two points of ingress and egress will be to the apartment area. And I guess the only real twist in this from any of the discussion -- and we had no objectors at our neighborhood information meeting. In fact, it was a very short meeting. We don't really have any immediate residential neighbors to speak of. We are adjacent to the East Gateway PUD, which is under construction. We have met with the developers and owners of that project, and they've offered no objection to what we're proposing. But the only real change from anything that's in your packet -- and, again, I apologize for the late change. But when we were meeting with Mr. Strain, the question came up is this all residential and/or is it all commercial on this tract. And we said, you know what, we think there could be an opportunity to develop some commercial on this tract. So we crafted some language that got sent to the County Attorney's Office and staff yesterday afternoon that contemplates that if the C/R tract is developed with residential, that a limited number and type of commercial uses could be developed on that tract as well. And I'm going to put that on the visualizer that identifies those uses. Primarily, there's an interest -- these are all uses that currently exist within the commercial areas for the PUD. So we've taken that list and identified some uses. General warehousing is one I would point out, and physical fitness facilities I would point out are a couple of uses that we think are possible uses. The other major groups that are specified as two digit SIC groups are primarily office -type uses. And then I need to point out that where it says Group 7011 in the middle of the page and then hotels and motels, we need to remove that from the list of uses. There's currently a limitation on the number of hotel rooms. It's been achieved in the PUD, and it's not our intent to increase that number of hotel units. So I would propose to eliminate that Group 7011 and the reference to hotels and motels from this tract's ability to have that use. So that's the only change I would offer. There was a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you scroll that up so we can see the whole page, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. And subsequent to doing that discussion, the master plan that I put on the screen also has a notation that was modified that references people back to this section of the PUD. I've underlined the language, and it's really difficult to read, so I'm going to pick it up and read it to you. It's just a simple note. The note was amended, and it currently said maximum development is 265,000 square feet of office or retail gross leasable area and 425 multifamily residential dwelling units. So after the word "retail gross leasable area," it's now going to say "as limited by Section 4.2 of the PUD," and that's the section that I had on the visualizer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Section 4.2. MR. ARNOLD: That is Section 4.2. So that's where that reference on the master plan will take you back to. But that's really the change from what you've seen in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you go commercial, all the uses that are currently existing in the PUD could be used there. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you put any residential on this project, then the uses drop down to this page right here. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: And we're still subject to the trip cap that's been established for the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Is that your presentation? MR. ARNOLD: It certainly can be. I know that there's a little bit of anxiety -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was told there might be people coming in at 4:00, so I -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, I certainly don't want to cut anybody short. I mean, that really -- it's a fairly simple amendment, because the essence was to add a residential component to this project. There's no Page 75 of 83 Packet Pg. 78 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 level -of -service issues. The environmental issue that was there, there's a recreated preserve that will be established on all of our preserves area. That's one of the twists, I guess. We had a preserve requirement as an entirely all commercial project. We have an increased preservation requirement, so there's deviations related to the recreated preserve because there are already some established berms and things in that. So that was related to that. I think staff is in full support of what we're doing here. It's going to, essentially, be 100 percent recreated preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One question then. In regards to your preserve, how will that be impacted with the interchange improvements that's being proposed for the 1-75/951? Will that encroach in any way? MR. ARNOLD: I don't have those plans in front of me. I've seen them, but I don't believe there's any impact to this parcel. I talked to, recently, one of the appraisers working for FDOT, and he indicated that the impacts where there's required right-of-way taking will occur on the southwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that -- MR. ARNOLD: -- of Davis and I-75. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So that turn off of 75 onto 951, there's no -- I know there's going to be a cloverleaf at some time, but there's not -- that will not be moved further south into your preserve that you know of? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. I don't believe that's the intent of that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe that's correct as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I suppose I have to wait for the staff report before I move to approve? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some questions, so if you could just wait till I ask a few. And, Ned, do you have any? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. I apologize for missing the first part of this. Maybe it was covered. But -- so the intensity is limited only by the traffic trip count, which I admit is a robust limitation, but I just want to be sure that that's the case. MR. ARNOLD: That is the case. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And the displacement factor of 83,000 square feet in relation to the 425 multiunit, I gather you backed into that from the basis of your traffic analysis. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Jim Banks actually came up with that number. And while the current owners of the property are not allowing us to reduce the overall square footage for the project, the reality is, if we develop this C/R tract with residential, it will take up at least the 83,000 square feet of commercial that could not be developed elsewhere in the project which, essentially, would be three outparcels. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The SIC codes that are referenced in the materials, I realize a lot of this presentation is carried forward from the previous presentation on permitted uses. I have the same problem that I've had before, particularly with SIC code 7299, but also at 5932. Pawn shops, I believe, are included in 5932. And in 7299, escort services, dating services, palmists, body piercing, marriage brokers, singles organizations, and tanning salons are all permitted under 7299. Now, I doubt that anybody intends to employ those uses. And so I'm going to ask a question of the County Attorney, and I warned Heidi that I was going to raise this. In the past I have asked for language to be included that sexually oriented goods and services, the purveyance of them is -- will be prohibited, and that is kind of a blanket way of covering a lot of some of these things. My question for the County Attorney is, is it necessary to put that in, or is that already adequately covered in the county ordinances? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As you know, we have a sexually oriented business ordinance, and that Page 76 of 83 Packet Pg. 79 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 defines certain types of businesses like some of the escort services, and on some of the other PUDs, we have prohibited businesses that qualify or fall under the definition of the sexually oriented businesses. As far as the details of the locational requirements in the sexually oriented business ordinance, I don't recall them off the top of my head. I don't know if Mr. Bellows is aware of -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We have an ordinance that has locational standards, and it's been my experience that there are not a lot of locations that qualify. But as the County Attorney's Office has indicated, it probably would be prudent to put it in the PUD, because I don't know for sure that this wouldn't be one of those sites that could qualify. MR. KLATZKOW: If not here, where? If you're not going to put it here, where? MR. BELLOWS: That's true, too. MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, if it's a lawful -- you can't prohibit what would normally else be a lawful business. You have to have them be able to go somewhere. And I understand certain neighborhoods, you know, especially if there are a lot of children in those neighborhood, you don't want these types of businesses here. But where this place is located, if not there, where? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some dark corner of the industrial park. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's going on anyway. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's my observation on that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Marijuana centers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess then, Ned, maybe the best way to leave it is let the LDC limit it to whatever extent it can. Maybe -- would that work? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm okay with that. I see that this is to be market -rate housing, not affordable, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it's going to be affordable to somebody, but it's not an affordable housing project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: As defined by the county's definition of affordable housing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Oh, do you have a better idea of the product details yet? And this is -- Rich, this has to do with what we talked about on the telephone and what was said about before the Planning Commission you'll have more details. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm going to admit my age. I forgot to ask for those details from Jesse after we talked yesterday. Have we defined our product details yet? The answer is we don't have -- and remind me again, Mr. Fryer, about the product details. Are you talking about height, or are we talking about level of finishes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. On Page 1930 -- and this is in the NEV -- Wayne said, but we think staff is okay with the concept of having the residential as an option, so I guess that's the other thing. The master plan stays intact. This is an optional development plan for Watermark to do the residential. You know, hopefully by Planning Commission we'll have a better idea of the product mix and how many buildings are going to be four-story, two-story, three-story. If that's what they end up being. And they'll probably try to land on more of an architectural style, too, as we move along. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that brings me back. I didn't follow-up. We do not have -- our hope was to have our Site Development Plan in prior to the Planning Commission meeting where those level of details would be identified. We're not as far along in that process as we had -- as we had said at the NIM. That was our goal. We're a little bit behind where we had hoped to be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: I did confirm that we don't have our site plan in yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Then there's a zoned height max of 55 and actual height max of 65. How many stories would that allow for? MR. YOVANOVICH: Four stories. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let's see. We talked also about short-term rentals and, typically, when one thinks of long-term rentals, or other than short-term rentals, one thinks of 12 months or Page 77 of 83 Packet Pg. 80 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 more. That would be -- that would be my preference to tie that down, if we could, but perhaps we could have some conversation about that. What would the developer be willing to do, if anything, with regard to limiting to long-term rentals and how long-term rentals would be defined? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I mean -- let's put it this way. Most of the projects that have come through, I think, your floor has been seven months is the lowest you've gone for rentals. Our common plan is 12 months, but we do want to be able to be competitive with other projects. And I thought seven months has been what you would consider long-term or longer. And we certainly can agree with that. We have no intentions, you know, for monthly rentals or anything shorter. So I think seven months has been the floor, if you will. MR. BELLOWS: Six. MR. YOVANOVICH: Six. Oh. I'll take six. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Six months. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Let's keep talking about seven. MR. YOVANOVICH: All right. Seven it is. We did talk about seven, because that's what I thought the floor was yesterday. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So you'd be willing to put that in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. My last comment is just with regard to -- and this came up in our Habitat discussions how, you know, pictures are used and people are influenced by what they see on pictures, and they are led to believe that certain things are going to be a certain way, then you look at some language, and it's not to be that way. There was a fair amount of, I would call it, gratuitous puffing at the NIM, and I don't think it was to mislead. I think it was just enthusiasm on the part of the advocates. But I think care should be taken when using expressions like nice apartments, beautiful granite countertops, nice finishes. I'm sure that that was an expression of enthusiasm and not trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes. But, you know, we're always looking for commitments that are being made in these NIMs and so just a friendly word there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that, and especially the gratuitous puffing from the old days of law school. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, right. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do like that phraseology. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Old UCC, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do like that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I think that's all I had, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: When I first came on this committee, we at least had the Site Development Plan. Over the years, it's getting less and less and less, and now we're just kind of getting squares. I prefer showing like Habitat for Humanity did. You have to show something; otherwise, it just -- the Site Development Plans are getting less and less each time. I would rather like to see something fit on that Site Development Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think what she's referring to is master plans, not Site Development. We have never seen Site Development Plans. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We only see master plans. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Master plans. You're right, Mark. It's master plan. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that, but it becomes -- it becomes difficult to -- there are multiple permutations that can happen as you're going through your site -fit studies that you do as a potential purchaser of the property. You might initially think you want four-story buildings, you might go down to three-story buildings, and things change. And the last thing we want to do is be locked in at either a NIM Page 78 of 83 Packet Pg. 81 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 meeting or a public hearing because we've shown one thing and then take away the flexibility. And we think that, frankly, from a development standards standpoint, it let's people know exactly where we are. And if you prefer us to put, like, a building envelope on there or something that would show you how the development standards are, but to lock down specific buildings at this stage when you don't even know if you're going to get approval. It's a very costly process to start this site development process for the engineering standpoint and what can fit. A lot of -- some developers are doing that, and some are saying that that risk is just too great to sink that kind of money into it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. The developers are doing that. They just don't want to really commit. And we used to see the master plans where there was something, and now we're getting -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And the issue is, is -- and, again, it comes down to exactly what happened to Habitat; if you show a building in one specific location, how much can I move it without having to come back through this process again. And like James, we have a fear of commitment at times, and we just want to -- we just want to hopefully show you where the development will be and give you the development standards instead of being stuck with, okay, I showed you a building in exactly this location, and then we get to argue about did I move it too far. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just for Diane's sake, I've been here a long time, and I've seen it cycle to where you get too much information, and then it's too hard to change it to where you get too little information and everybody says we don't have enough information. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: And we're just going through another cycle of that. And I -- you know, I see both sides of it. And I prefer less information so that they don't have to come back for something minor. But hey, whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a few comments. First of all, can you note in here appropriately, probably under the development standards table, that will be separately platted for LBEs and LMEs. And the paragraph on Page 19 of the document, which is 5.3A, there's the middle of the paragraph. This is the one on the utilities where it says, "Language shall be added to the CUE instrument restricting the District's rights within the preserve to trenchless pipeline installation; e.g., horizontal directional drilling." That's an extremely costly measure to do, and I know you didn't ask for this language to be added. But I would like to add in front of "the District's rights within the preserve," to -- for the trenchless pipe installation, "unless the pipe is installed before the plantings occur in that preserve area." That way the county has a right to save the taxpayers money. If they really need that pipe in, they can put it in before you guys plant the preserve, and then that means the mature -- the preserve can mature out without being disrupted again. If it can't and they have to do it afterwards, then it has to be jack -and -bore. Do you have a problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. We don't have a problem with that. Can I go back to the note, though, on the LME and LBEs. Can we make sure that that's under the residential development standard table? I can't -- as the contract purchaser, I'm not allowed to change anything related to the commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. Yes, that's fine. I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll verify whether it's there or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the uses, it was interesting when I met with you -all, I had to kind of convince you you might want to consider the commercial, and you were thinking, well, I might want to do mini warehouses. Now you've got about 150 uses. So it's changed a bit -- probably there would be several hundred uses here, because those groups are only two digits, and they all go to four, and under the fours they've got multiples. So it's quite a bit of uses. I think most of them are okay as a mix, but the 4225 shouldn't -- general warehouses and storage, that's a heavy use. I would suggest that it change to general warehouse and storage only air-conditioned mini Page 79 of 83 Packet Pg. 82 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 warehouses. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I think we're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the kind of office type warehouses we see. So that change needs to be made. And then one more on there that I was concerned about is communication services. You said, "including towers." Well, towers have a fall radius that become problematic when you put them around residential. Did you really intend to do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll have to meet whatever the code talks about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the problem is the code is not written for the current way they build towers, because we did have a fall radius in the code, but the new towers are self -collapsing. So they have different elements in which to deal with. And probably the person most knowledgable about this is Mike Bosi. I just don't want -- I want to make sure that you don't just march in there with a tower that's going to cause safety concerns to people living in the community. And, you know -- so unless we can get further input. Mike, is there something you can help us with here? I don't have the code in front of me for towers, so I don't know what would apply here. And, by the way, with this many uses, it would have been nice to get this ahead of time. I just didn't get a chance to see it, so... MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. When you have a PUD of over eight units per acre -- over six units per acre, which this PUD will allow for from a residential component, it will only need to be separated from the height of the tower from the boundary of any residential zoned district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's already in the LDC as a fallback? MR. BOSI: That's the LDC fallback. And I would think that maybe the suggestion would be -- well, the communication tower language, if there's no other alternate language that dictates how the communication tower would work within the PUD, it would fall back to the LDC and, therefore, the height of the tower would need to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As long as I know there's something there to address that issue. Okay. That's the last comment I have, so that's what -- we have possibly four stipulations or cleanup issues. And we'll go to staff. Any -- that wraps up with presentation. Is there a staff report? MR. FINN: Yeah. For the record, my name is Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and the rezoning criteria within the LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're moving right along. Is there any public speakers registered? Since no one's here -- oh, there's two people in the back, yes. MR. BELLOWS: They're not registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any member of the public wish to speak on this matter? (No response.) C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Okay. No one's coming forward. So with that, you, obviously, wouldn't have any rebuttal, so unless there's more to ask, I'll close the public hearing, and I'll read the four stipulations that we have. One is that we would separately -- the tracts will be separately platted for the C/R location; that the jack -and -bore reference will be amended to indicate that it -- except if done before plantings. So if you do -- if you put the line in and direct bury before they plant the preserve, that's okay. And if you can't do it before they plant the preserve, then it's jack -and -bore. The mini -- the reference, mini self -storage is the only use under 4225, air-conditioned mini self -storage; and the rentals will be no less than seven months. Page 80 of 83 Packet Pg. 83 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 And then we need a vote for both the EAC and the Planning Commission on this one. So we'll start with the EAC. From an environment perspective, I think it's all been addressed and answered. Are there any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve as the EAC? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve as the EAC with the stipulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll move to approve the item with the stipulations as stated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) C14ARZMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask a procedural question? C14AHZMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now that you're done. Did staff agree with the revision on the jack -and -bore language? Because I don't really want to get pulled off -- C14ARUV AN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. It's an option. If they don't want to do it, they don't -- if they don't want to save taxpayers money, that's fine. They don't have to do it. We can't demand them to do it. They may not be ready to put the line in within the period of time that it takes to plant the preserve. MR. YOVANOVICH: I only did that selfishly to make sure that maybe I can stay on summary agenda since I had unanimous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know why they would object to a possibility of finding a way to save money to get it done that way. And I did talk with Matt this morning about it. I think he's on the same page. Aren't you, Matt? Page 81 of 83 Packet Pg. 84 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 MR. McLEAN: For the record, Matt McLean, Development Review director. Yes, we have no issue with that proposed change today as long as, again, the -- if the -- as long as they put the pipe in ahead of the plantings, no problem doing it by direct burial; otherwise, directional bore if the plants (sic) happen to come first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And I think that wraps it up for today. There's no new business. There's -- Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question. What does the 20th of October look like? COMMISSIONER EBERT: September. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: September, you mean? This month or next month? COMMISSIONER FRYER: September. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: September. Two weeks from now. Well, we've got a continuance -- oh, we've got a consent for Habitat. That will be first up. And then what else do we have, Ray; do you know? MR. BELLOWS: Not offhand. I'm trying to look it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe he could contact you by email afterwards. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Perfect. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: We've got the church. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Maybe we could all know. MR. BELLOWS: I don't know what's on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He'll have to get -- he can -- Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could we get an update from staff at their leisure on the latest on sea level rise and how it affects projects in Collier County? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem if staff can make a point to schedule that. I guess it's Mike Bosi's forte anyways. So maybe, Ray, you can get with Mike, and you guys could add it to our new business section as kind of an update from staff on sea level rise. MR. BOSI: There probably won't be much, but we will most certainly -- we'll provide updates towards what there is. And I was going to come give you an overview of what we currently have on for the September 20th meeting. Grace Romanian, the small-scale GMP amendment and the conditional use is coming back based upon the change within the number of uses and things I think we all described, as well as Collier Tract 21 with a GMP amendment as well to reconfigure the activity center within Activity Center No. 2. So you have two petitions. Both of them have -- both of them will have a GMP associated with it, and I believe there was a continuance as well. So three petitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cleanup of Habitat and then two new conditions -- new petitions that happen to be small-scale plan amendments or regular plan amendments. MR. BOSI: That's the agenda for the 20th. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 20th will take us a good part of the day to get through that much. With that, is there any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? Anybody in the public here wish to comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seeing and hearing none, motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Diane, seconded by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 82 of 83 Packet Pg. 85 5.A.1 September 6, 2018 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. We're out of here. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:25 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN FEN 06:kV CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 83 of 83 Packet Pg. 86 9.A 10/04/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A Item Summary: PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-2 - A Resolution relating to the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, providing for the annual update to the schedule of capital improvement projects, within the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan based on the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities (AUIR), and including updates to the 5 -year schedule of capital projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element (for fiscal years 2019 — 2023) and the schedule of capital projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element for the future 5 -year period (for fiscal years 2024 — 2028), providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 10/04/2018 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior — Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 09/19/2018 3:13 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning — Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 09/19/2018 3:13 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Marcia R Kendall Review Item Zoning Marcia R Kendall Review Item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Growth Management Department Zoning Planning Commission James C French Review Item Michael Bosi Review Item Mark Strain Meeting Pending Skipped 09/17/2018 11:08 AM Skipped 09/17/2018 11:08 AM Completed 09/19/2018 4:05 PM Review Item Completed Completed 09/20/2018 11:21 AM Completed 09/21/2018 10:58 AM 10/04/2018 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 87 9.A.1 P L20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 Staff Report Presentation to the Collier County Planning Commission of the 2018 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities and Schedule of Capital Improvements as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code and Section 163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes OBJECTIVE: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) review the combined 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR)/Capital Improvement Element (CIE) on public facilities and provide recommendations to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board) on specific projects and associated funding sources for inclusion in the Schedule of Capital Improvements within the CIE during the FY18/19 annual update (only Category "A" public facilities are included in the CIE). The AUIR identifies capital needs for new facilities to serve population growth projected for the five- year AUIR period. As with past AUIR, this year's AUIR presents additional information related to individual Division/Department operational data. This additional data is provided to evaluate the year-to-year change in demand experienced by each AUIR component and to assist the CCPC in making recommendations upon the appropriateness of the County's current Level of Service (LOS) Standards and timing/necessity of proposed projects. The AUIR constitutes the process of evaluating budgetary priorities, as well as determining appropriateness of the County's currently adopted LOS Standards. BACKGROUND: Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, requires the County to adopt certain Land Development Regulations (LDR) to implement its Growth Management Plan adopted on January 10, 1989. Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6.02.00 requires the County to, "Provide that public facilities and services meet or exceed the standards established in the CIE required by Section 763.3777 and are available when needed for the development..." This Section of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes is commonly known as the concurrency requirement. Accordingly, on March 21, 1990, the Board adopted the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance No. 90-24. This Ordinance was subsequently codified in LDC Section 6.02.02. Statutory changes initiated by HB7207 in 2011 [which is now Chapter 2011-139, Laws of Florida] only require from each local government that they maintain concurrency management for its Stormwater Management System, Potable Water System, Wastewater Treatment Systems and Solid Waste Disposal services and facilities. During the 2011 AUIR/CIE process, the County decided to maintain concurrency for the optional facilities of Schools, Arterial and Collector Roads and Bridges, and Parks and Recreation facilities, based upon the perspective that maintaining concurrency management for the optional facilities is necessary to sustain the currently identified levels of service for the respective facilities and to ensure that the demands of new development are provided for by system expansion corresponding to those demands. As noted, LDC Section 6.02.02 establishes the management and monitoring program for public facilities, which provides for an annual determination of LOS Standard concurrency for Category "A" public facilities and identification of need for additional facilities. Category "A" facilities are arterial and collector roads, drainage system and stormwater management, potable water supply and distribution, wastewater treatment systems, solid waste disposal, public schools, and parks. The AUIR 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 1 Packet Pg. 88 9.A.1 P L20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 also provides analysis and recommendations on Category "B" facilities for which the County has adopted LOS Standards and collects impact fees. Category "B" facilities are jail and correctional facilities, law enforcement, library buildings and collections, emergency medical services, and government buildings. Adoption of LOS Standards for Category "B" facilities legally validate impact fees for these facilities. At the direction of the County Manager in 2013, Coastal Zone beach re -nourishment and inlet management projects were added to the AUIR, within a new Category "C". This addition allows the Board to formally and predictably evaluate the condition of each project for their respective capital programming. Category "C" areas (coastal zone beaches and inlets) are not subject to concurrency management or coupled to impact fee funding. The quality and usability of these features are sustained through periodic surveys, and maintenance and management programs, funded with tourist development taxes and other revenue sources. Under the provisions of LDC Section 6.02.02, the Board's options in response to the needs identified in the AUIR include, but are not limited to, the following: Establishment of Areas of Significant Influence (ASI) surrounding deficient road segments which are not in a Traffic Congestion Management Area (TCMA) or Traffic Congestion Exception Area (TCEA). 2. In response to the needs identified in the AUIR, Public Facility projects can be added to the financially feasible Schedule of Capital Improvements in the CIE. Road projects must be in the first or second year of the next adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements to be factored as available capacity in the real-time Transportation Concurrency Management System database. 3. Deferral of development order issuance will occur for development not vested by statute in areas affected by deficient Category "A" public facilities. This applies to necessary improvements both pending and not financially feasible, or not in the five-year CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements. Both circumstances could result in the following remedial action: a. Modification of levels of service via Growth Management Plan amendment; b. Subsequent direction to staff to include the necessary Category "A" public facility projects in a future annual CIE update and amendment to be adopted by the Board; c. Future approval of new or increased revenue sources for needed Public Facility projects, by the Board of County Commissioners, the State Legislature or the County voters; or d. Developer constructed improvements guaranteed by an enforceable development agreement. The options identified above are crafted under the design of attaining a fiscally feasible CIE based on the concurrency management system. The requirement for financial feasibility is a local requirement, no longer a statutory requirement. The Board, through Objective 2 of the CIE, provides direction to maintain an annual financially feasible Schedule of Capital Improvements. CIE — OBJECTIVE 2: (FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY) Provide public facilities, as described in Policy 7.7 above, to maintain adopted level of service standards that are within the ability of the County to fund... 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 2 Packet Pg. 89 9.A.1 P L20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 Policies 1.1 through 1.5 of the CIE establish the standards for levels of service for Category "A" public facilities. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Preparation and presentation of the AUIR to the CCPC and Board meets the requirements of LDC Section 6.02.02 for an annual determination of the status of public facilities. Board direction to include the projects identified in the AUIR in a financially feasible Schedule of Capital Improvements will establish and maintain concurrency for Category "A" public facilities, except roads, for the next twelve months. Road projects needed to remedy levels of service deficiencies must be in the first or second year of the Schedule of Capital Improvements. Based upon statutory changes initiated in 2011, the CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements is no longer required to be sent to the State Land Planning agency and requires only a single public hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission (sitting in its official role as the County's land planning agency) and a single public hearing before the governing board (Board) as an adoption hearing. This single hearing process allows for concurrent hearings of the AUIR and CIE. Level of Service Appropriateness: As indicated within the Objective portion of this report, the AUIR provides the platform for the CCPC to make evaluations and recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the County's current Levels of Service Standards. The process of capital improvement programming for the County is a linear equation for most components of the AUIR; (New Population x Level of Service Standard = Capital Improvement). This equation is the only justification required of the proposed capital improvement. While Public Utilities, Stormwater Management and Transportation have developed a more complex formula and system for maintaining Level of Service Standards which dictates capital expansion, the basic premise of additional demand requiring new improvements remains the underlying fundamental of the equation. The AUIR provides an opportunity on an annual basis for the CCPC to evaluate and provide recommendations on the appropriateness of currently adopted Level of Service Standards. Within each individual section, the year—to—year demand for service or demands upon the system are included to assist the advisory boards and the Board in this determination. Level of Service Standards and Impact Fees: Impact fee studies and methodologies in and of themselves do not establish Level of Service Standards. They serve at a minimum, to establish a base line where levels of service cannot fall below without invalidating the impact fee. A level of service that is established by an impact fee study represents the standard that has been achieved for a facility, but does not dictate that a local government cannot adopt a Level of Service Standard that is higher than the achieved level of service. However, the difference between the achieved level of service and the adopted Level of Service Standard will require supplemental funding from a source other than impact fees to fund the cost of the improvement. EMS is an AUIR component in which the impact fee level of service is below the AUIR adopted Level of Service Standards. As indicated, this discrepancy is resulting in a higher level of necessary supplemental general governmental funding. The established Level of Service Standards for most AUIR components are currently satisfied based upon the levels of service and current population levels, but steadily -increasing population growth 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 3 Packet Pg. 90 9.A.1 P L20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 [or other factors, e.g. access to new technology, in the example of Library materials] continue to reduce the available capacity of the respective infrastructure and service providers. Based upon this diminishing capacity, the due diligence process to bring about the next generation of system expansion has begun and will require continued revenue growth needed to maintain the Level of Service Standards for the system providers. Population: The population projections utilized with the 2018 AUIR are based upon prior Board policy direction and acceptance from the State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The population method utilizes the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) medium range projections for the entire projection period with a twenty percent (20%) seasonal adjustment factor applied to permanent population projections. The table below presents a comparison of the past six years of projected permanent population growth figures. AUIR Year BEBR Estimate Permanent Population Following 5 -Year BEBR Growth Projections 5 Year Growth Percent Growth Percent Annualized 2013 338,230 343,928 350,296 357,359 364,564 371,914 9.96% 1.99% 2014 341,914 348,373 354,982 361,717 368,579 375,571 9.84% 1.97% 2015 346,371 352,771 359,289 365,927 372,688 379,084 9.44% 1.89% 2016 353,936 360,846 367,892 375,074 381,722 387,814 9.57% 1.91% 2017 360,825 368,073 375,467 382,465 389,053 395,753 9.68% 1.93% 2018 368,534 376,086 383,166 389,754 394,004 400,292 9.60% 1.92% The above table illustrates 2018 as another successive year in which the annualized growth rate is projected at under two percent of the total population. This outlook reinforces the contemporary growth reality for the County. The projected population increase totals 31,758 for the five-year period or, 6,352 per year. Utilizing the County's 2.38 persons per household (PPH) rate, these projected 6,352 new people per year, translate to an average of 2,669 new dwelling units (presuming new population is housed only by new units and not existing inventory) constructed each year. The recalibration of Collier County's population through the 2010 Census had provided additional capacity to each of the AUIR/CIE population -based systems; but, the population added since continues to consume this capacity. As such, each of the AUIR providers continue the due diligence process for their next system expansion. The following table provides Certificate of Occupancy (CO) figures issued per year since 2010. 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT - Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 4 Packet Pg. 91 9.A.1 PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-1 Compilation Year * Single Family COs Multi -Family COs Single & Multi Family 2010-2011 582 692 1,280 2011-2012 747 480 1,227 2012-2013 806 454 1,260 2013-2014 1,436 286 1,722 2014-2015 2,065 1,010 3,075 2015-2016 2,548 777 3,325 2016-2017 2,776 980 3,756 2017-2018 2,424 442 2,866 * Based upon April 2017 through March 2018 CO data, compiled annually by the Growth Management Department. Approximately 2,424 single-family dwellings and 442 multi -family units were constructed (and certified for occupancy, in this compilation year*) —for a total of 2,866 units. These figures represent a decrease over the previous year's residential construction, when 2,776 single-family dwellings and 980 multi -family units — for a total of 3,756 units, were constructed. These figures are provided to better evaluate the market's response to fluctuations in demand for new housing units. In addition, the Board directed that population projections for Golden Gate City be prepared beginning with fiscal year 2018/19. ** This direction is based on the, then expectation for the County to serve all portions of the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) franchise utility service area east of Santa Barbara Blvd. within the 10 -year AUIR planning window. The future service area is approximately four square miles in size, and can be more specifically described as all of Sections 21, 22, 23, and 28 and portions of Sections 15 and 16 in Township 49 S, Range 26 E, as bounded on the north by Green Blvd., on the east by Collier Blvd., on the south by Golden Gate Canal, and on the west by Santa Barbara Blvd. The population figures for this area — along with information regarding treatment capacity, acquisition and implementation planning are included herein. These are provided under the Level of Service Standards (LOSS) Assessments, and illustrated in the LOSS charts, within the Potable Water System and Wastewater Treatment Systems' reports in the AUIR/CIE booklet. ** Adopted by Resolution 2017-123, on June 27, 2017. Schools: The Schools section of the AUIR stands as a unique component. A summary of the School District Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan is provided for review by the CCPC. But when the AUIR is reviewed, the School District's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will already have been approved by the School Board, as required by the Florida Department of Education. The proposed School CIP has been reviewed by County staff in conjunction with School District staff to ensure no inconsistencies exist with the timing of new facilities and required infrastructure. The District's five- year CIP includes the construction of an addition to the existing Immokalee High School ('22) and the planning, engineering and construction phases for opening of a new high school ('23) to accommodate growth. While the School District hasn't committed to the new school's location, the County is aware of these locations and have plans to provide access to the one selected. 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 5 Packet Pg. 92 9.A.1 P L20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 While the Schools component is included as part of the Category "A" facilities which dictate the concurrency management system for the County, concurrency management for schools is administered by the School District. Requirements changed for referencing School District documents when the County amended the CIE in 2017. Each year, the County now adopts, by reference, into its CIE, the School District's annually updated financially feasible Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan and the District Facilities Work Program to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards for Public School Facilities. The School District Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan identifies the financially feasible school facility capacity projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and future needs based on achieving and maintaining adopted LOS standards for schools. The District Facilities Work Program, prepared by the School District pursuant to Section 1013.35(1)(b), F.S., is adopted as part of the data and analysis in support of the School District's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. Adoption by the County, of the School District's Capital Improvement Plan and the District Facilities Work Program now occurs, without requiring separate action, with approval of the annual update to the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The recommendation sought from the CCPC related to the School District's proposed Capital Improvement Plan is to find that no inconsistencies are contained within the District's Capital Improvement Plan compared to the other planned capital improvement projects within the County's AUIR or CIE. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenues are required to fund the Capital Improvement projects proposed in the 2018 AUIR/CIE for the FY18/19 thru FY22/23 planning period to maintain financial feasibility of scheduled Category "A" facility improvements. These funds must be made available by the Board of County Commissioners or fall within the Board's statutory general governmental taxing authority. Current and proposed revenues needed to fund public facility construction/expansion for FY18/19 thru FY22/23 planning period are set forth in each respective capital facilities section of the 2018 AUIR/CIE update. Project expenditures more than estimated impact fee, gas tax, and user fee revenue receipts and funded bonds are reflected as being augmented by general governmental sources in the body of the AUIR document. General governmental sources are those existing sales tax revenues and other state shared revenues, or ad valorem allocations at the Board's discretion. Note that all projects identified within the Category "A" facilities have identified funding for the improvement. When funding sources are not identified, the Board is provided five options to address the situation by CIE Policy 2.9. 1. Remove through a plan amendment facility improvements or new facilities from the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements that exceed the adopted level of service for the growth during the next five (5) fiscal years; 2. Remove from the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements through a plan amendment facility improvements or new facilities that reduce the operating cost of providing a service or facility but do not provide additional facility capacity; 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 6 Packet Pg. 93 9.A.1 P L20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 3. Where feasible, transfer funds from a funded non -CIE capital project to fund an identified deficient CIE public facility. The resulting revisions shall be reflected in the required annual update; 4. Lower the adopted level of service standard through a plan amendment for the facility for which funding cannot be obtained; and, 5. Do not issue development orders that would continue to cause a deficiency based on the facility's adopted level of service standard. All of Category "B" facility improvements require loans from general governmental sources to meet the necessary revenue (option 3 above). Additionally, to fund the proposed five-year improvements contained within this year's CIE update will require the Board to utilize Debt Service, or to initiate options 4 and/or 5 (identified above). The informational tables detailing the revenue and debt service for the AUIR Divisions/Departments for the five-year capital improvement planning period, as well as the long-term debt financing schedules, are provided within Appendix I of the AUIR/CIE booklet. RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission in the form of recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners: 1. To accept and approve the attached document as the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities. 2. To accept and approve by separate motion and vote the Category "A", "B" and "C" facilities relative to projects and revenue sources, with Category "A" facilities set forth for inclusion in the Schedule of Capital Improvements of the annual CIE update and amendment. 3. To find that no inconsistencies are contained within the School District's Capital Improvement Plan compared to the other planned capital improvements within the AUIR or CIE. 4. To consider alternative levels of service for individual components of the AUIR, where deemed appropriate. 5. To adopt the CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements update, and by reference, the School District's Capital Improvement Plan and the District Facilities Work Program. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 7 Packet Pg. 94 PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-1 ?! 20130000271;'; PSP -?016- 1 PREPARED BY: DATE; CORBY SCHMIDT, AICD, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY= I— I DATE= l i, VIKE 30SI, A1CP, D RECTOR. ZONING DIV. SION APPROVED BY: FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD OROW7H MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PETITION No.: PL2C180000Z71/CPSP-2018-1 Staff Report forthe October 4, 2018, CCPC meeting NOTE= This petition has been scheduled for the Novernber 13, 2018, BCC meetino. 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT – Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 8 Packet Pg. 95 9.A.2 ANNUAL UPDATE & INVENTORY REPORT/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT SCHEDULE UPDATE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES 2018 AUIR/CIE i Collier Countv B.C.C. District 1 — Donna Fiala District 2 — Andy Solis, Chairman District 3 — Burt L. Saunders District 4 — Penny Taylor District 5 — William L. McDaniel, Jr., Vice Chairman IE _ COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 04, 2018 Prepared by - Comprehensive -Comprehensive Planning Section Zoning Division Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Packet Pg. 96 9.A.2 P L 20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 Staff Report Presentation to the Collier County Planning Commission of the 2018 combined Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities and Schedule of Capital Improvements as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code and Section 163.3177(3)(b), Florida Statutes OBJECTIVE: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) review the combined 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR)/Capital Improvement Element (CIE) on public facilities and provide recommendations to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board) on specific projects and associated funding sources for inclusion in the Schedule of Capital Improvements within the CIE during the FY18/19 annual update (only Category "A" public facilities are included in the CIE). The AUIR identifies capital needs for new facilities to serve population growth projected for the five- year AUIR period. As with past AUIR, this year's AUIR presents additional information related to individual Division/Department operational data. This additional data is provided to evaluate the year-to-year change in demand experienced by each AUIR component and to assist the CCPC in making recommendations upon the appropriateness of the County's current Level of Service (LOS) Standards and timing/necessity of proposed projects. The AUIR constitutes the process of evaluating budgetary priorities, as well as determining appropriateness of the County's currently adopted LOS Standards. BACKGROUND: Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, requires the County to adopt certain Land Development Regulations (LDR) to implement its Growth Management Plan adopted on January 10, 1989. Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6.02.00 requires the County to, "Provide that public facilities and services meet or exceed the standards established in the CIE required by Section 763.3777 and are available when needed for the development..." This Section of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes is commonly known as the concurrency requirement. Accordingly, on March 21, 1990, the Board adopted the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance No. 90-24. This Ordinance was subsequently codified in LDC Section 6.02.02. Statutory changes initiated by HB7207 in 2011 [which is now Chapter 2011-139, Laws of Florida] only require from each local government that they maintain concurrency management for its Stormwater Management System, Potable Water System, Wastewater Treatment Systems and Solid Waste Disposal services and facilities. During the 2011 AUIR/CIE process, the County decided to maintain concurrency for the optional facilities of Schools, Arterial and Collector Roads and Bridges, and Parks and Recreation facilities, based upon the perspective that maintaining concurrency management for the optional facilities is necessary to sustain the currently identified levels of service for the respective facilities and to ensure that the demands of new development are provided for by system expansion corresponding to those demands. As noted, LDC Section 6.02.02 establishes the management and monitoring program for public facilities, which provides for an annual determination of LOS Standard concurrency for Category "A" public facilities and identification of need for additional facilities. Category "A" facilities are arterial and collector roads, drainage system and stormwater management, potable water supply and distribution, wastewater treatment systems, solid waste disposal, public schools, and parks. The AUIR 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 1 3 of 148 Packet Pg. 97 9.A.2 P L 20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 also provides analysis and recommendations on Category "B" facilities for which the County has adopted LOS Standards and collects impact fees. Category "B" facilities are jail and correctional facilities, law enforcement, library buildings and collections, emergency medical services, and government buildings. Adoption of LOS Standards for Category "B" facilities legally validate impact fees for these facilities. At the direction of the County Manager in 2013, Coastal Zone beach re -nourishment and inlet management projects were added to the AUIR, within a new Category "C". This addition allows the Board to formally and predictably evaluate the condition of each project for their respective capital programming. Category "C" areas (coastal zone beaches and inlets) are not subject to concurrency management or coupled to impact fee funding. The quality and usability of these features are sustained through periodic surveys, and maintenance and management programs, funded with tourist development taxes and other revenue sources. Under the provisions of LDC Section 6.02.02, the Board's options in response to the needs identified in the AUIR include, but are not limited to, the following: Establishment of Areas of Significant Influence (ASI) surrounding deficient road segments which are not in a Traffic Congestion Management Area (TCMA) or Traffic Congestion Exception Area (TCEA). 2. In response to the needs identified in the AUIR, Public Facility projects can be added to the financially feasible Schedule of Capital Improvements in the CIE. Road projects must be in the first or second year of the next adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements to be factored as available capacity in the real-time Transportation Concurrency Management System database. 3. Deferral of development order issuance will occur for development not vested by statute in areas affected by deficient Category "A" public facilities. This applies to necessary improvements both pending and not financially feasible, or not in the five-year CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements. Both circumstances could result in the following remedial action: a. Modification of levels of service via Growth Management Plan amendment; b. Subsequent direction to staff to include the necessary Category "A" public facility projects in a future annual CIE update and amendment to be adopted by the Board; c. Future approval of new or increased revenue sources for needed Public Facility projects, by the Board of County Commissioners, the State Legislature or the County voters; or d. Developer constructed improvements guaranteed by an enforceable development agreement. The options identified above are crafted under the design of attaining a fiscally feasible CIE based on the concurrency management system. The requirement for financial feasibility is a local requirement, no longer a statutory requirement. The Board, through Objective 2 of the CIE, provides direction to maintain an annual financially feasible Schedule of Capital Improvements. CIE — OBJECTIVE 2: (FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY) Provide public facilities, as described in Policy 1.1 above, to maintain adopted level of service standards that are within the ability of the County to fund... 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 2 4 of 148 Packet Pg. 98 9.A.2 P L 20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 Policies 1.1 through 1.5 of the CIE establish the standards for levels of service for Category "A" public facilities. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Preparation and presentation of the AUIR to the CCPC and Board meets the requirements of LDC Section 6.02.02 for an annual determination of the status of public facilities. Board direction to include the projects identified in the AUIR in a financially feasible Schedule of Capital Improvements will establish and maintain concurrency for Category "A" public facilities, except roads, for the next twelve months. Road projects needed to remedy levels of service deficiencies must be in the first or second year of the Schedule of Capital Improvements. Based upon statutory changes initiated in 2011, the CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements is no longer required to be sent to the State Land Planning agency and requires only a single public hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission (sitting in its official role as the County's land planning agency) and a single public hearing before the governing board (Board) as an adoption hearing. This single hearing process allows for concurrent hearings of the AUIR and CIE. Level of Service Appropriateness: As indicated within the Objective portion of this report, the AUIR provides the platform for the CCPC to make evaluations and recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the County's current Levels of Service Standards. The process of capital improvement programming for the County is a linear equation for most components of the AUIR; (New Population x Level of Service Standard = Capital Improvement). This equation is the only justification required of the proposed capital improvement. While Public Utilities, Stormwater Management and Transportation have developed a more complex formula and system for maintaining Level of Service Standards which dictates capital expansion, the basic premise of additional demand requiring new improvements remains the underlying fundamental of the equation. The AUIR provides an opportunity on an annual basis for the CCPC to evaluate and provide recommendations on the appropriateness of currently adopted Level of Service Standards. Within each individual section, the year—to—year demand for service or demands upon the system are included to assist the advisory boards and the Board in this determination. Level of Service Standards and Impact Fees: Impact fee studies and methodologies in and of themselves do not establish Level of Service Standards. They serve at a minimum, to establish a base line where levels of service cannot fall below without invalidating the impact fee. A level of service that is established by an impact fee study represents the standard that has been achieved for a facility, but does not dictate that a local government cannot adopt a Level of Service Standard that is higher than the achieved level of service. However, the difference between the achieved level of service and the adopted Level of Service Standard will require supplemental funding from a source other than impact fees to fund the cost of the improvement. EMS is an AUIR component in which the impact fee level of service is below the AUIR adopted Level of Service Standards. As indicated, this discrepancy is resulting in a higher level of necessary supplemental general governmental funding. The established Level of Service Standards for most AUIR components are currently satisfied based upon the levels of service and current population levels, but steadily -increasing population growth 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 3 5 of 148 Packet Pg. 99 9.A.2 P L20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 [or other factors, e.g. access to new technology, in the example of Library materials] continue to reduce the available capacity of the respective infrastructure and service providers. Based upon this diminishing capacity, the due diligence process to bring about the next generation of system expansion has begun and will require continued revenue growth needed to maintain the Level of Service Standards for the system providers. Population: The population projections utilized with the 2018 AUIR are based upon prior Board policy direction and acceptance from the State of Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The population method utilizes the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) medium range projections for the entire projection period with a twenty percent (20%) seasonal adjustment factor applied to permanent population projections. The table below presents a comparison of the past six years of projected permanent population growth figures. AUIR Year BEBR Estimate Permanent Population Following 5 -Year BEBR Growth Projections 5 Year Growth Percent Growth Percent Annualized 2013 338,230 343,928 350,296 357,359 364,564 371,914 9.96% 1.99% 2014 341,914 348,373 354,982 361,717 368,579 375,571 9.84% 1.97% 2015 346,371 352,771 359,289 365,927 372,688 379,084 9.44% 1.89% 2016 353,936 360,846 367,892 375,074 381,722 387,814 9.57% 1.91% 2017 360,825 368,073 375,467 382,465 389,053 395,753 9.68% 1.93% 2018 368,534 376,086 383,166 389,754 394,004 400,292 9.60% 1.92% The above table illustrates 2018 as another successive year in which the annualized growth rate is projected at under two percent of the total population. This outlook reinforces the contemporary growth reality for the County. The projected population increase totals 31,758 for the five-year period or, 6,352 per year. Utilizing the County's 2.38 persons per household (PPH) rate, these projected 6,352 new people per year, translate to an average of 2,669 new dwelling units (presuming new population is housed only by new units and not existing inventory) constructed each year. The recalibration of Collier County's population through the 2010 Census had provided additional capacity to each of the AUIR/CIE population -based systems; but, the population added since continues to consume this capacity. As such, each of the AUIR providers continue the due diligence process for their next system expansion. The following table provides Certificate of Occupancy (CO) figures issued per year since 2010. 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT - Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 4 6 of 148 Packet Pg. 100 9.A.2 PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-1 Compilation Year * Single Family COs Multi -Family COs Single & Multi Family 2010-2011 582 692 1,280 2011-2012 747 480 1,227 2012-2013 806 454 1,260 2013-2014 1,436 286 1,722 2014-2015 2,065 1,010 3,075 2015-2016 2,548 777 3,325 2016-2017 2,776 980 3,756 2017-2018 2,424 442 2,866 * Based upon April 2077 through March 2078 CO data, compiled annually by the Growth Management Department. Approximately 2,424 single-family dwellings and 442 multi -family units were constructed (and certified for occupancy, in this compilation year *) — for a total of 2,866 units. These figures represent a decrease over the previous year's residential construction, when 2,776 single-family dwellings and 980 multi -family units — for a total of 3,756 units, were constructed. These figures are provided to better evaluate the market's response to fluctuations in demand for new housing units. In addition, the Board directed that population projections for Golden Gate City be prepared beginning with fiscal year 2018/19. ** This direction is based on the, then expectation for the County to serve all portions of the Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) franchise utility service area east of Santa Barbara Blvd. within the 10 -year AUIR planning window. The future service area is approximately four square miles in size, and can be more specifically described as all of Sections 21, 22, 23, and 28 and portions of Sections 15 and 16 in Township 49 S, Range 26 E, as bounded on the north by Green Blvd., on the east by Collier Blvd., on the south by Golden Gate Canal, and on the west by Santa Barbara Blvd. The population figures for this area — along with information regarding treatment capacity, acquisition and implementation planning are included herein. These are provided under the Level of Service Standards (LOSS) Assessments, and illustrated in the LOSS charts, within the Potable Water System and Wastewater Treatment Systems' reports in the AUIR/CIE booklet. ** Adopted by Resolution 2077-123, on June 27, 2017 Schools: The Schools section of the AUIR stands as a unique component. A summary of the School District Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan is provided for review by the CCPC. But when the AUIR is reviewed, the School District's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will already have been approved by the School Board, as required by the Florida Department of Education. The proposed School CIP has been reviewed by County staff in conjunction with School District staff to ensure no inconsistencies exist with the timing of new facilities and required infrastructure. The District's five- year CIP includes the construction of an addition to the existing Immokalee High School ('22) and the planning, engineering and construction phases for opening of a new high school ('23) to accommodate growth. While the School District hasn't committed to the new school's location, the County is aware of these locations and have plans to provide access to the one selected. 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 5 7 of 148 Packet Pg. 101 9.A.2 P L 20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 While the Schools component is included as part of the Category "A" facilities which dictate the concurrency management system for the County, concurrency management for schools is administered by the School District. Requirements changed for referencing School District documents when the County amended the CIE in 2017. Each year, the County now adopts, by reference, into its CIE, the School District's annually updated financially feasible Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan and the District Facilities Work Program to achieve and maintain the adopted level of service standards for Public School Facilities. The School District Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan identifies the financially feasible school facility capacity projects necessary to address existing deficiencies and future needs based on achieving and maintaining adopted LOS standards for schools. The District Facilities Work Program, prepared by the School District pursuant to Section 1013.35(1)(b), F.S., is adopted as part of the data and analysis in support of the School District's Five -Year Capital Improvement Plan. Adoption by the County, of the School District's Capital Improvement Plan and the District Facilities Work Program now occurs, without requiring separate action, with approval of the annual update to the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The recommendation sought from the CCPC related to the School District's proposed Capital Improvement Plan is to find that no inconsistencies are contained within the District's Capital Improvement Plan compared to the other planned capital improvement projects within the County's AUIR or CIE. FISCAL IMPACT: Revenues are required to fund the Capital Improvement projects proposed in the 2018 AUIR/CIE for the FY18/19 thru FY22/23 planning period to maintain financial feasibility of scheduled Category "A" facility improvements. These funds must be made available by the Board of County Commissioners or fall within the Board's statutory general governmental taxing authority. Current and proposed revenues needed to fund public facility construction/expansion for FY18/19 thru FY22/23 planning period are set forth in each respective capital facilities section of the 2018 AUIR/CIE update. Project expenditures more than estimated impact fee, gas tax, and user fee revenue receipts and funded bonds are reflected as being augmented by general governmental sources in the body of the AUIR document. General governmental sources are those existing sales tax revenues and other state shared revenues, or ad valorem allocations at the Board's discretion. Note that all projects identified within the Category "A" facilities have identified funding for the improvement. When funding sources are not identified, the Board is provided five options to address the situation by CIE Policy 2.9. 1. Remove through a plan amendment facility improvements or new facilities from the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements that exceed the adopted level of service for the growth during the next five (5) fiscal years; 2. Remove from the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements through a plan amendment facility improvements or new facilities that reduce the operating cost of providing a service or facility but do not provide additional facility capacity; 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 6 8 of 148 Packet Pg. 102 9.A.2 P L 20180000271/C P S P-2018-1 3. Where feasible, transfer funds from a funded non -CIE capital project to fund an identified deficient CIE public facility. The resulting revisions shall be reflected in the required annual update; 4. Lower the adopted level of service standard through a plan amendment for the facility for which funding cannot be obtained; and, 5. Do not issue development orders that would continue to cause a deficiency based on the facility's adopted level of service standard. All of Category "B" facility improvements require loans from general governmental sources to meet the necessary revenue (option 3 above). Additionally, to fund the proposed five-year improvements contained within this year's CIE update will require the Board to utilize Debt Service, or to initiate options 4 and/or 5 (identified above). The informational tables detailing the revenue and debt service for the AUIR Divisions/Departments for the five-year capital improvement planning period, as well as the long-term debt financing schedules, are provided within Appendix I of the AUIR/CIE booklet. RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission in the form of recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners: 1. To accept and approve the attached document as the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities. 2. To accept and approve by separate motion and vote the Category "A", "B" and "C" facilities relative to projects and revenue sources, with Category "A" facilities set forth for inclusion in the Schedule of Capital Improvements of the annual CIE update and amendment. 3. To find that no inconsistencies are contained within the School District's Capital Improvement Plan compared to the other planned capital improvements within the AUIR or CIE. 4. To consider alternative levels of service for individual components of the AUIR, where deemed appropriate. 5. To adopt the CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements update, and by reference, the School District's Capital Improvement Plan and the District Facilities Work Program. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT — Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 7 9 of 148 Packet Pg. 103 PREPARED BY: C -- CORBY SCHMIDT, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: S FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 9.A.2 PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-1 DATE:. I. DATE: <' - (I '1d DATE: f—/7—/? LO ti PETITION No.: PL20180000271/CPSP-2018-1 Staff Report for the October 4, 2018, CCPC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the November 13, 2018, BCC meeting. 2018 AUIR/CIE STAFF REPORT - Collier County Planning Commission Hearing of October 04 pg. 8 10 of 148 Packet Pg. 104 TABLE OF CONTENTS INDIVIDUAL FACILITY REPORTS: CATEGORY "A" FACILITIES 1. Arterial & Collector Roads & Bridge Facilities 17 2. Stormwater Management System — Canals & Structures 33 3. Potable Water System — County Water -Sewer District 59 Wastewater Collection & Treatment Systems — County Water -Sewer District 173 - South County (SCWRF) 78 - North County (NCWRF) 81 5. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 97 6. Collier County Schools — Capital Improvement Plan 111 7. Parks and Recreation Facilities - Community Park Land 119 - Regional Park Land 124 8. CIE Amendment Submittals for Category A Facilities - Exhibit "A", Schedule of Capital Improvements (Years 1 — 5) 135 - Appendix "H", Schedule of Capital Improvements (Future Years 6 — 10) 142 INDIVIDUAL FACILITY REPORTS: CATEGORY `B" FACILITIES 1. Jail & Correctional Facilities 153 2. Law Enforcement Facilities 161 3. Libraries - Library Buildings 173 - Library Materials/Collections 178 4. Emergency Medical Services 191 5. Government Buildings 203 INDIVIDUAL FACILITY REPORTS: CATEGORY "C" AREAS County Coastal Zone Areas Management 215 APPENDICES I. Population Estimates & Projections; Impact Fee Fund & Debt Service 221 Expense Table; Countywide Population Data J. Additional Support Materials, Inc. Parks & Recreation Facility 243 Inventory & Operational Data Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities Packet Pg. 105 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES 2018 CATEGORY "A" FACILITIES (Concurrency Regulated) 1. County Arterial & Collector Roads & Bridges 2. Stormwater Management System 3. Potable Water System 4. Wastewater Collection & Treatment Systems 5. Solid Waste Disposal 6. Collier County Schools — Capital Improvement Plar. 7. Parks and Recreation Facilities — Community Park Land — Regional Park Land 8. CIE Amendment Submittals for Category A Facilitic — Exhibit "A", Capital Improvements (Next 5 Year — Appendix "H", Capital Improvements (Future Years 6 — 10) Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 106 COUNTY ROADS & BRIDGE FACILITIES CONTENTS • COUNTY ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADS & BRID SUMMARY • ATTACHMENT A: FIVE YEAR REVENUES - PREVIOUS CURRENT AUIR • ATTACHMENT B: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM EXISTII CONDITIONS REPORT • ATTACHMENT C: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN PEAK H( DIRECTIONAL VOLUME FROM PREVIOUS YEAR - MA • ATTACHMENT D: PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION 5 -YE WORK PROGRAM • ATTACHMENT E: ROAD FINANCING PLAN UPDATE • ATTACHMENT F: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DATA TABLE • ATTACHMENT G: DEFICIENT ROADS REPORT UPDAT • ATTACHMENT H: PROJECTED DEFICIENT ROADS - N • ATTACHMENT L• TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREA REPORT - EAST CENTRAL TCM, NORTHWEST TCMA • ATTACHMENT J: ACTIVITY REPORT ON CONTINUIN( PROJECTS UNDER CONTRACT Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 107 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARY Facility Type: County Arterial and Collector Roads (Category A) Level of Service Standard: Variable - "D" or "E" Unit Cost: Variable (Average = $4,844,907/ lane mile) Per Current Approved Transportation Impact Fee Recommended Work Program FY 19-23 Recommended Revenues FY19-23 Five -Year Surplus or (Deficit) 1. Existing Revenue Sources: A. Current Revenues CIE FY 19-23 Impact Fees / COA Gas Taxes General Fund 001/111 G ra nts/Rei m bu rsements/DCAs/I nte rest Unfunded Needs Carry Forward Less 5% Required by Law 2. Supplemental Revenue Sources: A. Alternative I None Required B. Alternative II None Required $385,605,000 $385,605,000 $0 $72,600,000 $110,075,000 $67,006,000 $10,450,000 $106,398,000 SUB TOTAL $366,529,000 $28,144,000 ($9,068,000) TOTAL $385,605,000 Recommended Action: That the BCC direct the County Manager or his designee to include County road projects appearing on "Proposed Transportation Five -Year Work Program," (Attachment D), as detailed in the "Collier County Transportation Planning Database" (Attachment F), in the next Annual CIE Update and Amendment with the application of revenues outlined on the Road Financing Plan (Attachment E) to establish statutorily required financial feasibility of the CIE. * Carry Forward includes the budgeted FY19 Carry forward and does not include project funding encumbered in prior fiscal years. The actual Carry Forward number that includes the roll of encumbrances is not available until after October 1, 2018. Attachment J provides a snapshot of prior year FY18 project activity as of June 30, 2018 for continuing projects. Project costs are generally paid out over the following schedule for phases (average time for payout): 5 YEAR PROJECT DURATION AFTER 2 YEAR PLANNING CYCLE IS COMPLETE 1. Design - 25 months Z 2. Right -of -Way - 4 years RIGHT-OF-WAY 3. Construction - 30-36 month CONSTRUCTION Note: FY 2018 Revenues based on current adopted Impact Fee Schedule, projected gas tax revenues, budgeted general fund transfer, and approved grants and developer contribution agreements. Expenditures are based on current unit cost. 9.A.2 17 of 148 Packet Pg. 108 2018 - 2022 (Total $363,665,000) $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 Ai Impact Fees Gas Taxes Attachment "A" 9.A.2 2019 - 2023 (Total $376,701,000) Impact Fees 72,600,000 20% 106,398,000 J Gas Taxes 29% General Fund 40 110,075,000 10,450,000 30% MJ Grants / Reimb / 3% 67,006,000 Interest 18% Unfunded needs Funding Source Trends: Five Year Projections 'Charts do not include a Carry Forward or negative Revenue Reserve of $9,068,000. General Fund �I Grants / Reimb / Interest Unfunded needs V 2017-2021 ■ 2018-2022 J 2019-2023 Packet Pg. 109 Impact Fees 70,000,000 105,107,000 19% Gas Taxes 29% General Fund 3,758,000 1% 77,850,000 106,950,000 M Grants / Reimb / 21% 30% . Interest Unfunded needs $140,000,000 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 Ai Impact Fees Gas Taxes Attachment "A" 9.A.2 2019 - 2023 (Total $376,701,000) Impact Fees 72,600,000 20% 106,398,000 J Gas Taxes 29% General Fund 40 110,075,000 10,450,000 30% MJ Grants / Reimb / 3% 67,006,000 Interest 18% Unfunded needs Funding Source Trends: Five Year Projections 'Charts do not include a Carry Forward or negative Revenue Reserve of $9,068,000. General Fund �I Grants / Reimb / Interest Unfunded needs V 2017-2021 ■ 2018-2022 J 2019-2023 Packet Pg. 109 9.A.2 Attachment `B" TRANSPORTATION EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT — 2018 Obiective To provide the Board of County Commissioners with an "existing conditions" analysis of the transportation system in Collier County. Purpose This analysis is provided to assist in the preparation of the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), and more specifically to assist in the determination of adequate (transportation) public facilities and to guide budgeting and project programming in the CIE. Considerations: ■ The traffic counts are collected on an annual, seasonal, or quarterly basis, and are factored as needed to determine a peak hour peak directional volume. The factors used include a directional factor and a seasonal factor that varies depending on the week that the traffic count was conducted. ■ The Level of Service (LOS) threshold volumes are calculated using ARTPLAN and HIGHPLAN software. Measured volume is based on the 250' highest hour, which essentially equates to the 100' highest hour after omitting February and March data, consistent with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code provisions. The remaining capacity is based on the difference between the LOS threshold volume and the calculated existing plus trip bank volume. The LOS for each roadway segment is identified in Attachment "F" for the current year. Q Additionally, traffic volumes are forecasted for future years which yields an estimated "Year °r° Expected Deficient" that is used in the planning and programming of future improvements. The N Existing LOS and the forecasted LOS are expressions of operating conditions during the peak hours of the peak seasonal day, which corresponds to the same time period as the adopted minimum ti acceptable LOS Standards in the Growth Management Plan. While the adopted LOS standard and evaluated condition must be expressed for the peak period, it is important to recognize that the roadway's LOS will be better during most other portions of the day, and especially during non -peak season periods. Q The AUIR deals with system capacity and maintaining the established LOS through our Concurrency Management System. As the system expands, there is a growing need to focus our attention on the condition of existing facilities and the demand for Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding. Our bridges and culverts are approaching, or are at their 50 -year life -cycle. Over 250 additional lane miles of urban and rural, arterial, and local roads have been added to the county system for maintenance since 2000. Historical funding for O&M has not addressed industry standards for anticipated life -cycles which are 6 to 8 years for urban roadways and 12 to 15 years for rural roadways. Gas taxes are already at the maximum allowed by statute. Complicating this issue is the reliance on impact fees as directed by our "growth pays for growth" policy which can only be used to add additional capacity or new lane miles to the system. The prior aggressive program to add capacity allowed existing system mileage to be rebuilt and the mileage to be maintained throughout the construction cycle by the contractor. Volatile impact fee rates and revenues alone cannot sustain a multi-year capital program that provides improvements concurrent with the impacts of development. Capacity expansion projects require a multi-year funding plan to meet the 7 -year construction cycle that includes: planning, design, ROW acquisition, permitting and construction. LOS standards already set at the lowest acceptable levels of "D" or "E". Attachment B - 2018 Transportation Existing Conditions Report (x -ref 061918).docx 19 of 148 Packet Pg. 110 9.A.2 Observations Of the 129 stations (covering 141 unique Segment ID's) collecting traffic counts in the 2017/2018 program, the average increase in measured overall volume between 2017 and 2018 was 3.66% system -wide. By comparison, the average increase between 2016 and 2017 reported in last year's AUIR was 5.26%. When reviewing only higher capacity, multi -lane roadway segments in the County's network (only those with capacity over 1,000 vehicles per hour in the peak direction during the peak period) an average increase of 3.90% was experienced over 2017. For the 2017/2018 traffic counts, 20 segments reflected a decrease, and 53 segments reflected an increase over the previous year, and 68 remained unchanged (+/-5%). Listed below are the numbers and corresponding percentages for the count stations, including the percentage changes between 2017/2018: ■ 6.4% (9 segments) show an increase greater than 20% compared to 2017 ■ 8.5% (12 segments) show an increase of 10-20% compared to 2017 ■ 22.7% (32 segments) show an increase of up to 5-10% compared to 2017 ■ 48.2% (68 segments) show an insignificant change of -5% to 5% compared to 2017 ■ 6.4% (9 segments) show a decrease of 5-10% compared to 2017 ■ 6.4% (9 segment) show a decrease of 10-20% compared to 2017 ■ 1.4% (2 segments) show a decrease of greater than 20% compared to 2017 Note: 1. Some count stations experienced significant year-to-year fluctuations due to construction avoidance 2. Stations and segment ID's may not correspond as some count stations serve multiple segments. Although traffic data collected by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on the segments of I-75 between each interchange is not needed for the AUIR, because the change in mainline volumes correlates with changes in interchange ramp volumes, the mainline volumes are monitored/evaluated each year for informational purposes. A review of the most recent average annual growth rates for the last 2 and 5 -year timeframes depicts an increase in traffic along all mainline segments of I-75 in the urban area as shown in Table 1. A cumulative growth since 2010 is also shown. TABLE 1: I-75 Historical Annual Average Daily (AADT) Traffic Volumes (2 -Way) Source: Florida Department of Transportation Attachment B - 2018 Transportation Existing Conditions Report (x -ref 061918).docx ti m 20 of 148 Packet Pg. 111 North of Immokalee Road North of Pine Ridge Road North of Golden Gate Pkwy West of Collier Blvd West of Everglades Blvd 2017 97,387 82,348 79,000 43,500 24,968 2016 97,041 80,453 72,500 39,500 24,597 2015 92,399 76,809 70,000 40,500 23,127 2014 85,506 70,332 64,000 36,500 21,320 2013 79,834 65,423 58,000 34,500 20,221 2012 75,022 62,897 55,000 31,000 19,444 2011 74,500 61,224 55,000 31,500 19,204 2010 75,500 59,784 55,000 32,500 19,484 2009 77,000 58,578 32,500 34,000 19,114 Total % Increase 7 -Year 2010-2017 29.0% 37.7% 43.6% 33.8% 28.1% Avg Annual % Increase 5 -Year 2012-2017 5.4% 5.5% 7.5% 7.00/o; 5.1% Avg Annual % Increase 2 -Year 2015-2017 2.7% 3.5% 6.2% 3.6% 3.9% Source: Florida Department of Transportation Attachment B - 2018 Transportation Existing Conditions Report (x -ref 061918).docx ti m 20 of 148 Packet Pg. 111 9.A.2 ATTACHMENT C O O 06 Q Oo T- CD O N Q Packet Pg. 112 Attachment D FY19 - FY23 5 YEAR WORK PROGRAM/CIE (TIED TO FY19 ADOPTED BUDGET) ** (Dollars shown in Thousands) Project Name Project # SUMMARY OF PROJECTS 60168 Vanderbilt Beach Rd/Collier Blvd -8th Street 60201 Pine Ridge Rd (Livingston Intersection Improvement) 60211 Orange Blossom (Airport to Livingston) 60198 Veterans Memorial 60199 Vanderbilt Beach Rd (US41 to E of Goodlette) 60200 ****Goodland Road (CR 92A) Roadway Improvements TBD 16th Street Bridge 60212 47th Ave NE Bridge TBD Airport Rd Vanderbilt Bch Rd to Immokalee Rd 60219 Whippoorwill 60129 Wilson Benfield Ext (Lord's Way to City Gate N) 65061 Ruston Pointe 60214 Immokalee/Woodcrest Imp 60215 Triangle Blvd/Price St 60044C Oil Well (Immk - Everglades) 60144 Oil Well (Everglades to Oil Well Grade) 60147 Randall/Immokalee Road Intersection 68057 Collier Blvd (Green to GG Main Canal) TBD Goodlette Rd (VBR to Immokalee Rd) TBD Green Blvd (Santa Barbara Blvd to Sunshine Blvd) 33563 Tiger Reserve Contingency Total Operations Improvements/Programs 66066 Bridge Repairs/Improvements 60131 Road Resurfacing 101/111 60128 Limerock Road Conversion 111 60077 Striping and Marking 60130 Wall/Barrier Replacement 60016 Intersection Safety/Capacity/Enhancements 60146 TMC Relocation Fund 310 60197 RM Facility Fund 310 60172 Traffic Ops Upgrades/Enhancements 60189 LED Replacement Program 60163 Traffic Studies/Advanced Planning 60118 Countywide Pathways/Sidewalks Non PIL /LAP 60037 Asset Mgmt Subtotal Operations Improvements/Programs 60109 Planning Consultants Impact Fee Refunds Debt Service Payments Total Funding Request All Funds REVENUES Impact Fees Gas Tax Revenue G rants/Reimbursements DCA/Interlocal 62014 Transfer 001 to 313 Transfer 001 to 310 Transfer 111 to 310 Interest Fund 313 Gas Tax Interest Impact Fees Carry Forward 313 Carry Forward 310 Carry Forward Impact Fee Potential Debt Funding/Unfunded Needs Revenue Reduction (Less 5% Required by Law) Total 5 Year Revenues Beginning Carry Forward GRANT FUNDING SUMMARY 9.A.2 FY19 A = Advanced Construction FY20 I = Inspection FY21 AM = Access Management FY22 400 FY23 400 400 Amount 13,326 Amount 13,134 Amount 13,136 Amount 75,558 Amount 119,684 Amour 16,000 R 14,770 R 55,600 C - 86,: 500 D 250 D/M 5,000 A 2,450 C 72,1 Q 21,575 8,: - 22,250 600 D 4,000 R/A 2,450 C - 5,: G 7,1 2,000 2,900 A/R 2,000 A 2,500 A 9,300 9,300 7,, 300 D - 8,900 C 4,250 4,250 4,250 4,250 9,: 21, _ 200 6,100 C 200 200 1,1 250 250 250 6,' 250 1, to Il - - 8,000 D/C - 7,1 (1,705) 8,1 (1,; r 22,783 200 R 8,800 C 22,1 r- 9,1 69,509 10,594 106,: t 3,000 D/M/ 10,000 D/M/A 7,839 C 20,1 300 D 3,000 D/C - - 3,: 1,000 R 1,000 R 1,000 R 3,1 140 C 200 C : 200 R . j 900 A 300 A 300 A 300 A 300 A 2,' Q 650 D 500 R 6,000 A 2,000 A 9,' r 2,000 D/R/A 2,1 O 5,500 D/R/A 5,! d 500 S 2,800 C 2,1 25,174 25,' O 46,514 28,570 88,500 33,500 19,139 216,: 0) 2,800 24,500 6,000 6,000 6,000 45,: C 5,500 4,000 6,500 6,000 6,000 28,1 - 1,000 200 - 1,: 06 800 950 950 950 950 4,1 r 100 500 250 250 250 1,: M 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 10,1 Q 400 750 750 500 400 400 2,i 300 600 700 700 700 3,1 500 C 300 300 300 300 300 1,: O 500 250 350 250 750 2,' Q 00 200 100 100 100 100 1 r 15,150 34,150 17,650 16,950 17,450 101,: N 200 A = Advanced Construction = Design I = Inspection = Mitigation AM = Access Management 368 400 400 400 400 1,S Ln 1,- 13,326 13,137 13,134 13,131 13,136 65,2 75,558 76,257 119,684 63,981 50,125 385,1 13,600 14,000 14,500 15,000 15,500 72,1 Q 21,575 21,750 22,000 22,250 22,500 110,1 pp - 1,500 4,000 - 5,: G 700 2,000 - - 2,1 N 9,300 9,300 9,300 9,300 37,: = 8,556 - - - 8,.O 4,250 4,250 4,250 4,250 4,250 21, _ 200 200 200 200 200 1,1 250 250 250 250 250 1, to Il 7,066 - - - 7,1 (1,705) (1,; r 22,783 - - 22,1 r- 26,295 69,509 10,594 106,: t (1,717) (1,788) (1,825) (1,863) (1,875) (9,( 75,558 76,257 119,684 63,981 50,125 385,( R M r Q FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 landerbilt 1,500 4,000 Total Grants 0 0 1,500 4,000 Notes: 1) Expenditures: Based on current cost estimates. 2) Revenues: Based on current adopted Impact Fee Schedule, projected gas tax revenues, budgeted general fund transfer, and approved grants and developer contribution agreements. **Debt Service and Gas Tax revenue are not tied to budget. "Highlighted projects are subject to debt scenarios to be discussed during upcoming budget workshops" 5 cent fuel tax being used on bridges and intersection improvements 22 of 148 ****Goodland (CR92A) in FY20 will recieve a transfer from Marco Project 60114 for $2M = Study A = Advanced Construction = Design I = Inspection = Mitigation AM = Access Management = Construction LP = SIB Loan Repayment to = ROW CBO = Constructed By Other = Litigation DBO = Designed By Others Packet Pg. 113 Attachment "E" Road Financing Plan Update FY 19 1 FY 20 1 FY 21 1 FY 22 1 FY 23 15 Year Total Project/Program Commitments 61,864,000 62,720,000 106,150,000 50,450,000 36,589,000 317,773,000 Existing Debt Service 13,326,000 13,137,000 13,134,000 13,131,000 13,136,000 65,864,000 Impact Fee Refunds 368,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 1,968,000 Total Expenses 75,558,000 76,257,000 119,684,000 63,981,000 50,125,000 385,605,000 9.A.2 Impact Fee Revenue / COA Revenue 13,600,000 14,000,000 14,500,000 15,000,000 15,500,000 72,600,000 DCA 700,000 2,000,000 - - - 2,700,000 Gas Tax Revenue 21,575,000 21,750,000 22,000,000 22,250,000 22,500,000 110,075,000 Debt Svc General Fund Transfer 8,556,000 9,300,000 9,300,000 9,300,000 9,300,000 45,756,000 TrRpsfer in from Fund 111 4,250,000 4,250,000 4,250,000 4,250,000 4,250,000 21,250,000 Int#rest Gas Tax/Impact Fee 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,250,000 GrAnts/Reimbursements * - 1,500,000 4,000,000 - 5,500,000 Unfunded needs 26,295,000 69,509,000 10,594,000 - 106,398,000 Revenue Reserve ( 5% Budgeted by Statue; (1,717,000) (1,788,000) (1,825,000) (1,863,000) (1,875,000) (9,068,000) Total Revenues Carry Forward (Surplus or Shortfall) ** Additional Roll Forward Fiscal Year Balance (Surplus or Shortfall) Cumulative Fiscal Year Balance (Surplus or Shortfall) * Includes programmed FDOT Grants and Naples Reserve DCA 47,414,000 76,257,000 119,684,000 28,144, 000 ** Carry Forward includes the budgeted FY19 Carry forward and does not include project funding encumbered (roll over) in prior fiscal years to be paid out over the following schedule for phases (average time for payout): This Carry Forward number that includes the roll of encumbrances will not be available until after October 1, 2018 but attachment J provides a listing of major projects previously budgeted with carry forward funding anticipated to complete the project/phases. Revenues based on current adopted Impact Fee Schedule, projected gas tax revenues, budgeted general fund transfer, and approved grants and developer contribution agreements. 63,981,000 50,125,000 357,461,000 28,144,000 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment nP„ Critier County 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Based on Adopted LOS, Trip Bank and Traffic Counts 2016 2017 2018 2017 2017 2017 2018 Traffic 1/7th Trip Peak Hour Peak Peak Peak 2018 2018 2017 1/7th Ver.B 2018 1/7th 1/7th TB Count Bank Peak Dir Hour Hour Hour Actual Percent 2017 1/7th Total 1/7th TB 2018 1/7th Total 1/7th TB 2018 L Year 1 Exist Cot Min Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir Peak Dir Variation Variation Trip Trip Trip 2017 Trip Trip Trip 2018 Remain. 1/7th TTI O Expected Exp 2016 2017 2018 2017 2017 2017 2018 Peak Hour P Peak Peak 2018 2018 2017 1/7thWe.B 2018 1/7th 1/7th TB Peak Dir Hour Hour HPercent IT... Actual 2017 1/7th Total 1/7th TB 2018 1/7th Total 1/7th TB 2018 L Year Year Exist Car. Min Peak Service Peak Dir Peak Dir Peak Dir Variation Variation Trip Trip Trip 2017 Trip Trip Trip 2018 Remain. 1/7th TB O Expelled Expelled ID# CIE# Proi# Road# Link From To Road Sta. Std Dir Volume Volume Volume Volume To Volume To Volume Bank Bank Bank Volume Bank Bank Bank Volume Caoaeite V/C S Deficient D. -- t O Q N� O i 06 Q D cc 7 C a co r 0 N r �f! a 00 0 N O ca a w C CD E s e� Packet Pg. 116 MASTER Attachment F-2018 (071218)..1— 9.A.2 Attachment "G" 2018 AUIR Update Deficiencies Report _ Listed below are the roadway links that are currently deficient or are projected to be deficient under the concurrency system within the next five years and the programmed and proposed solutions to solve these deficiencies Drooped from the lists 123.1 Golden Gate Boulevard 2018 Existing Deficiencies Based on Traffic Counts 2018 Last Last eag r Trip Bank Remaining TCMA Year Expected Map Year Roadway From TO (1/7th) Capacity V/C TCEA Expected Def. last Solutions ;67.2 Deficient Year Old US 41 Lee County Line US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 0 -110 111.0% No Existing Existing Within the Northwest TCMA; Widen to 4 -Lanes; PD&E Study Programmed by FDOT; Pursue Federal Funding Pine Ridge Road Livingston Road 1-75 0 -142 104.7% No Existing Existing Within the East Central TCMA; Congestion Corridor Study Complete, PE & CST for Pine Ridge Road @ Livingston programmed in CIE; Pursue state or federal funding for remainder of the corridor. ojected Deficiencies 2019.2023 (Traffic Counts + Trip Bank & 1/7th Vested Trips) Last Trip Bank Remaining TCMA Year Expected ID# Map year Roadway From To (1/7th) Capacity V/C TCEA Expected Def. last Solutions Deficient Year 22.0 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 8 139 92.3% Yes 2023 2023 Within the East Central TCMA - Continue to Monitor and Review with Future 1-75 Interchange Operation Analysis Report; Green Blvd. east of Logan beingstudied FY2023 as a potential reliever. 26.0 Goodlette-Frank Road Golden Gate Parkway US 41 (Tamiami Trail) 0 220 91.9% Yes 2023 Continue to monitor; Pursue Detailed Operational Analysis if Warranted 41.2 Immokalee Road Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road 0 425 86.3% Yes 2023 2022 Within the Northwest TCMA - Continue to Monitor & Pursue Detailed Capacity/Operational Analysis as warranted; Pursue parallel Roadway (Veteran's Memorial Blvd 42.1 Immokalee Road Airport Road Livingston Road 0 193 93.8% Yes 2022 2023 Within the Northwest TCMA - Continue to Monitor & Pursue Detailed Capacity/Operational Analysis as warranted; Pursue parallel Roadway (Veteran's Memorial Blvd 43.2 Immokalee Road Logan Boulevard Collier Boulevard 251 188 94.1% Yes 2021 2027 Pursue Detailed Capacity/Operational Analysis. Anticipate Future VBR Extension to Reduce Volumes 49.0 Logan Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Green Boulevard 0 290 84.7% Yes 2023 2023 Within the East Central TCMA; Continue to Monitor 88.0 SR 82 Lee County Line SR 29 17 2 99.8% Yes 2019 2027 Widen to 4 -Ln; State Funded for CST 2019 & 2023 92.0 Tamiami Trail East Airport Road Rattlesnake Hammock Road 92 67 97.7% Yes 2020 2024 Within the South US 41 TCEA; Continue to Monitor; Pursue Detailed Operational Analysis if Warranted 95.3Tamiami Trail East Greenway Road San Marco Drive 1 0 100.0% Yes 2019 2024 Greenway Rd to 6-L Farms Rd is funded thru CST in the MPO CFP (2031-2040); East of 6-L Farms RD is not expected to be deficient within the same time frame; Continue to Monitor 99.0 Tamiami Trail North Wiggins Pass Road Immokalee Road 8 66 97.9% Yes 2020 2020 Within the Northwest TCMA; Proposed Veterans Memorial Blvd. will provide a connection to Livingston North/South that should provide additional relief; Continue to Monitor 132.0 Randall Boulevard Immokalee Road Everglades Boulevard 16 40 95.6% Yes 2021 Exist Immokalee Rd @ Randall Blvd Intersection Improvement PD&E Underway; Randall Blvd. Corridor Study Underway Projected Deficiencies 2024.2028 (Traffic Counts + Trip Bank & 1/7th Vested Trips) Last Trip Bank Remaining TCMA Year Expected ID# Map year Roadway From TO (1/7th) Capacity V/C TCEA Expected Def. last Solutions Deficient Year 4.0 Airport Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 0 468 83.3% No 2028 2027 Continue to Monitor & Pursue Detailed Capacity/Operational Analysis as warranted; 14.0 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 0 269 86.6% No 2026 2027 Within the East Central TCMA; Improvement is with a longer segment that is partially funded (R/W - 2031-40) in the MPO Cost Feasible Plan; Construction anticipated beyond 2040 CST 2041-50); Continue to Monitor 19.0 Golden Gate Parkway Goodlette-Frank Road Airport Road 0 365 88.9% No 2024 2027 Continue to Monitor & Pursue Detailed Capacity/Operational Analysis as warranted; 23.0 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0 134 86.6% No 2026 2019 Within the Northwest TCMA- Design/ROW/AdvCST/CST Programmed FY2023 33.0 Collier Boulevard 1-75 Davis Boulevard 277 350 90.3% Yes 2024 2025 Continue to Monitor; Interchange Improvements Scheduled by FDOT 2020/21 36.2 Collier Boulevard Wal-Mart Driveway Manatee Road 104 243 87.9% No 2026 2020 Widen to 6 -Ln; PD&E completed; State Funded Improvement Proposed in MPO Cost Feasible Plan 2026-2030 37.0 Collier Boulevard Manatee Road Mainsail Drive 103 259 88.2% No 2024 Continue to Monitor & Pursue Detailed Capacity/Operational Analysis as warranted; 38.0 Collier Boulevard Mainsail Drive Marco Island Bridge 31 399 81.9% No 2028 Continue to Monitor & Pursue Detailed Capacity/Operational Analysis as warranted; 43.1 Immokalee Road 1-75 Logan Boulevard 170 530 84.9% No 2026 2026 Continue to Monitor; Interchange Improvements Proposed in MPO Cost Feasible Plan 2021-2025, Anticipate Future VBR Extension to Reduce Volumes 66.0 Pine Ridge Road Shirley Street Airport Road 0 306 89.1% Yes 2024 2025 Within the Northwest TCMA; Continue to Monitor; Pursue Detailed Operational Analysis if Warranted 67.1 Pine Ridge Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0 361 88.0% Yes 2025 2025 Within the East Central TCMA - Pursue Detailed Capacity/Operational Analysis and Alternative Corridors Drooped from the lists 123.1 Golden Gate Boulevard 18th Street NE/SE Everglades Boulevard 5 1105 52.0% No Existin programmed for CST in the CIE Last eag r 20.2 Golden Gate Parkway Livingston Road 1-75 0 1 690 1 79.1% 1 No 2026 last Within the East Central TCMA - Continue to Monitor; Interchange Improvements Proposed in MPO Cost Feasible ear Plan 2021-2025 r_ C CL d 0 i d i C 06 G) w+ CL cc 7 i i Q tb r O N MASTER Attachment F-2018(071218).1.xlsm Packet Pg. 117 ATTACHMENT H 9 A 2 IMMOKALEE RD E Veterans Memorial Blvd INSET MAP 1 New 2 -Lane Roadway to - _ Relieve Immokalee Rd. Oil Well Road — Bridge at 47th Ave. NE - PD&E Programmed Congestion Construction: FY 2022 Year Expected Deficient 2022 Northwest TCMA Adv.Construction: ROW: FY2018 Design &Mitigation: FY2020 (FY2019) 2020-2023 Construction: FY2022 Q� Pursue State Funding ONITA BEACH RD Year Expected Logan Blvd N. Year Expected Deficient 2026 (By Others) _ Intersection Improvements cP O Deficient 2020 v,l Design: FY2019 Northwest TCMA 0 Immokalee/951 ' ROW: FY2020 Year Expected Deficient 2019 d Year Expected Year Expected Intersection (2015/16) Adv. Construction: FY2022 & 2023 Widen to 4 -Ln; Deficient 2023 ~ O VETERANS ME O IAL ,n Deficient 2021 OIL WELL RD State SIS Funding :CST 2019 & 2023 i Northwest TCMA >� _ BLVD Tree Farm/Woodcrest O — (By Others) O _ _ wESTCLOx ST i Year Expected ;a 'ems IMMOKA E RO D m LAKE_TRAFFORD RD Deficient 2026 Immokalee Rd & �" �;� > Northwest TCMARANDALL �.. Airport -Pulling Rd. BLVD g Randall Intersection PD & E Underway w ain; C Design: FY2023 Bridge at 8th St. NE O Corridor Study Underway Otj Vanderbilt Beach Rd. ROW: FY2023 w Year Expected Deficient: 2021 d Widen to 6 -Lanes Adv. CST: FY2023 VANDERBILT - — - w p Construction: FY2021 z CST: FY2023 —4 V DER BI T BEACH o BEACH RD EXT. p — m N CL Orange Blossom g Green Blvd. Widen to 4 0 — E Co Widen to 4 -Lanes a r lanes GOLDEN GATE BLVD N 019 4W� C Study: FY2018 O o Y — Study: FY2023 w Y w 1 f>S r Design: FY2019 R' z Year ExpectedDefcient 2023 Collier Blvd. - Widen to 6 -lanes - - O T ROW: FY2021 — J z N RID Continue to Monitor Design: FY2023 Design/Build: Under Construction O Construction: 2022 O w East Central TCMA ROW: FY2023 Q T a — EN Adv. CST: FY2023 Year N Deficient Expected 2024 c7 O O z p to BLVD O V Rl Northwest TCMA O ? `° Whippoorwill Ln/Marbella O 0 �( — Lakes Blvd. Interconnection Vanderbilt Beach Rd. Ext. N (� Year Expected -- Construction: 2020 New 3 -Lane (of future 6 -Lane) A pp 0 Deficient 2025 GOL GATE PKWY IY Roadway to Relieve Congestion on East Central TCMA _Immokalee Rd and Golden Gate Blvd. LCA RADIO R F 1-75 Design: FY2018 ti ROW & Mitigation: FY2019 Intersection Study Improvements & ROW: FY2019 0 DAVIS BLVD City Gate Blvd. N - Construction: FY2021 Construction: 2022 B (y Others) Wilson/Blackburn W o (By Others) East Central TCMA; Expected Deficient: 2023 a Wilson Benfield INSET MAP 2 Q Congestion Corridor Study Study/PE: FY2018 • ` 00 r Complete, PE & CST for Pine Adv. ROW: Intersection Improvements (FDOT) y '�.m O Ridge Road @ Livingston LESNAKE w FY2021 & 2022 & 2023 Design: FY2021 N programmed in CIE; Pursue y HA MOCK RD ROW: FY2018-2020 Manatee Rdm Malndai1Dr Year state or federal funding for l� Year Expected Deficient 2024 !y O Year Expected Deficient 2024 Construction: FY2021 Expected Defcient 2024 remainder of the corridor. /y iT U Mitigation: FY2018, FY2020-2021 w O Year Expected Deficient 2028! 'P� Year Expected Deficient �� _ _ Continue to Monitor F 2023 / East Central TCMA Year Expected Deficient 2026 IL Intersection Improvements Continue to Monitor Mainsail W. m Marco iaiand Bddaa - Legend ROW &Construction: FY2018 YearE Pe etl Deficient 2028Q 41IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICapacily Enhancement Project Year Expected Deficient 2020 Year Expected Deficient 2026 Widen to 6 -Ln; PD&E On -Going e 1 T g d E Existing Deficiency WU South US 41 TCEA c Pursue State Funding For Construction g` t Projected Deficiency < 5 Years t fai��,> sa �` II 1 4IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiProjected Deficiency5to 10 Years Manatee Rd to Mainsail Dr.Deficient �Tii •'• TCMA(TCEA Boundary Year Expected Deficient 2024 ,� 'moo-, TR�� Year Continuee to Monitor2019 Q o 2 a s PROJECTED COL COUNTY DEFICIENT ROA DS _ Co er Coxnty FY 2018 - FY 2028 ,,n.�.,.._, -••= Packet Pg. 118 Attachment I TCMA Report Collier County Transportation Concurrency Management System AUIR ID Street Name From To PkHr-PkDir(') V/C Ratio Length #Lanes Lane Miles Lane Miles @ VC <= 1.00 East Central TCMA 31.1 Collier Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Green Boulevard 0.62 1.04 6 6.24 6.24 32.2 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Pwky Golden Gate Main Canal 0.69 1.01 4 4.04 4.04 32.3 Collier Boulevard Golden Gate Main Canal 1-75 0.47 0.65 8 5.20 5.20 33.0 Collier Boulevard 1-75 Davis Boulevard 0.90 0.56 8 4.47 4.47 14.0 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard County Barn Road 0.87 1.71 4 6.83 6.83 15.0 Davis Boulevard County Barn Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 0.75 0.75 4 3.02 3.02 16.1 Davis Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Rd. 0.29 2.62 6 15.71 15.71 16.2 Davis Boulevard Radio Rd. Collier Boulevard 0.43 2.32 6 13.93 13.93 20.2 Golden Gate Parkway Livingston Rd. 1-75 0.79 1.97 6 11.8 11.82 21.0 Golden Gate Parkway 1-75 Santa Barbara Boulevard 0.65 1.01 6 6.07 6.07 22.0 Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 0.92 2.21 4 8.84 8.84 27.0 Green Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard Collier Boulevard 0.76 1.99 2 3.99 3.99 54.0 Livingston Road Pine Ridge Road Golden Gate Parkway 0.51 2.60 6 15.59 15.59 55.0 Livingston Road Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 0.45 1.41 6 8.49 8.49 49.0 Logan Boulevard Pine Ridge Road Green Boulevard 0.85 0.88 4 3.53 3.53 67.2 Pine Ridge Road Livingston Rd. 1-75 1.05 2.20 6 13.20 0.00 68.0 Pine Ridge Road 1-75 Logan Boulevard 0.78 0.99 6 5.97 5.97 125.0 Pine Ridge Road Logan Boulevard Collier Boulevard 0.56 1.88 4 7.53 7.53 70.0 Radio Road Livingston Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 0.65 2.00 4 7.98 7.98 71.0 Radio Road Santa Barbara Boulevard Davis Boulevard 1 0.43 1.34 4 5.36 5.36 76.0 Santa Barbara Boulevard Green Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway 0.59 1.70 4 6.81 6.81 77.0 Santa Barbara Boulevard Golden Gate Parkway Radio Road 0.62 1.40 6 8.43 8.43 78.0 Santa Barbara Boulevard Radio Road Davis Boulevard 0.54 1.05 6 6.32 6.32 35.32 179.37 166.17 Total Lane Miles: 179.37 Lane Miles <=1.00 V/C: 166.17 V/C Ratio based upon Total Traffic, including Traffic Counts + Trip Bank + 1/7th Vested Trips Percent Lane Miles Meeting Standard: 92.6% MASTER Attachment F-2018 (071218).xlsm 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 119 TCMA Report Collier County Transportation Concurrency Management System AUIR ID Street Name From To PkHr-PkDir(l� V/C Ratio Length #Lanes Lane Miles Lane Miles @ VC <= 1.00 Northwest TCMA 98.0 Tamiami Trail North Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 0.75 1.67 6 10.0 10.02 99.0 Tamiami Trail North Wiggins Pass Road Immokalee Road 0.98 1.52 6 9.1 9.11 100.0 Tamiami Trail North Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.62 1.51 6 9.1 9.06 101.0 Tamiami Trail North Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulf Park Drive 0.79 1.26 6 7.6 7.58 102.0 Tamiami Trail North Gulf Park Drive Pine Ridge Road 0.65 1.44 6 8.6 8.64 109.0 Vanderbilt Beach Road Gulfshore Drive Tamiami Trail 0.71 1.34 2 2.7 2.68 110.1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Road 0.75 1.87 4 7.5 7.50 111.1 Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.65 3.22 6 19.3 19.30 114.0 Vanderbilt Drive Lee County Line Wiggins Pass Road 0.48 2.52 2 5.0 5.03 115.0 Vanderbilt Drive Wiggins Pass Road 111th Avenue 0.47 1.49 2 3.0 2.99 117.0 Wiggins Pass Road Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail 0.47 1.05 2 2.1 2.10 1.0 Airport Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.57 1.97 4 7.9 7.89 2.1 Airport Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 0.63 1.53 6 9.2 9.18 23.0 Goodlette-Frank Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.87 1.80 2 3.6 3.60 24.1 Goodlette-Frank Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Orange Blossom Dr. 0.60 0.88 4 3.5 3.52 24.2 Goodlette-Frank Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Road 0.70 1.53 6 9.2 9.18 39.0 111th Avenue N. Gulfshore Drive Vanderbilt Drive 0.44 0.51 2 1.0 1.01 40.0 111th Avenue N. Vanderbilt Drive Tamiami Trail 0.49 1.00 2 2.0 2.01 41.1 Immokalee Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Rd. 0.73 1.47 6 8.8 8.84 42.1 Immokalee Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.94 1.96 6 11.8 11.79 51.0 Livingston Road Imperial Street Immokalee Road 0.44 3.31 6 19.8 19.85 52.0 Livingston Road Immokalee Road Vanderbilt Beach Road 0.54 1.99 6 12.0 11.96 53.0 Livingston Road Vanderbilt Beach Road Pine Ridge Road 0.48 2.21 6 13.3 13.26 63.0 Seagate Drive Crayton Road Tamiami Trail 0.62 0.48 4 1.9 1.93 64.0 Pine Ridge Road Tamiami Trail Goodlette-Frank Road 0.71 0.50 6 3.0 3.02 65.0 Pine Ridge Road Goodlette-Frank Road Shirley Street 0.71 0.67 6 4.0 4.05 66.0 Pine Ridge Road Shirley Street Airport Road 0.89 0.81 6 4.9 4.88 67.1 Pine Ridge Road Airport Road Livingston Rd. 0.88 2.09 6 12.56 12.56 2.2 Airport Road Orange Blossom Dr. Pine Ridge Rd. 0.61 2.92 6 17.5 17.51 41.2 Immokalee Road Goodlette-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0.86 2.47 6 14.8 14.81 42.2 Immokalee Road Livingston Rd. 1-75 0.75 1.78 7 12.5 12.48 62.0 Old US 41 US 41 (Tamiami Trail) Lee County line 1.11 1 1.57 2 3.1 0.00 110.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Goodlette-Frank Rd. Airport Road 0.70 2.40 4 9.6 1 9.58 111.2 Vanderbilt Beach Road Livingston Rd. Logan Blvd. 0.71 3.11 6 18.7 1 18.68 57.88 288.72 1 285.58 Total Lane Miles: 288.7 Lane Miles <=1.0 V/C: 285.6 V/C Ratio based upon Total Traffic, including Traffic Counts + Trip Bank + 1/7th Vested Trips Percent Lane Miles Meeting Standard: 98.9% MASTER Attachment F-2018 (071218).xlsm 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment J FYI Activity Report on continuing Projects under Contract/DCA/Advanced Construction (Dollars shown in Thousands) Project FYI Number SUMMARY OF PROJECTS BY NAME Amount 60145 Golden Gate Blvd 20th to Everglades 23,983 60168 Vanderbilt Beach Rd Coller Blvd to 8th St 11,490 61001 Tree Farm/Woodcrest 1,843 60132 Immokalee Road/CR 951 2,114 60129 Wilson Benfield 3,560 33464 Logan Blvd 2,155 Total 45,145 **As of 6/30/18 9.A.2 30 of 148 Packet Pg. 121 COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTENTS • COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - SUMMARY • EXISTING CANAL SYSTEMS AND CONTROL STRUCTURES OVERVIEW • COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER CANAL SYSTEM - MAP • COUNTYWIDE STORMWATER CONTROL STRUCTURES - MAP • PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 5 -YEAR WORK PROGRAM • STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS • STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT LOCATION MAP • ATTACHMENT A: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS • ATTACHMENT B: SYSTEM INVENTORY AND GIS DATABAS REPORT • ATTACHMENT "C": TABLES TABLE 2 - CURRENT CANAL SYSTEM INVENTORY TABLE 3 - CANAL AND DITCH CONDITION RATING SYS' TABLE 4 - CURRENT CONTROL STRUCTURE INVENTOI TABLE 5 - CONTROL STRUCTURE INSPECTION RATING SYSTEM • ATTACHMENT "D": BASINS AND SUBBASINS REPORT: FIGURE 4- COLLIER COUNTY BASINS MAP FIGURE 5- COLLIER COUNTY DISCHARGE RATE MAP TABLE 5- COLLIER COUNTY BASINS Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 122 2018 AUIR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FACILITIES SUMMARY Facility Type: County Maintained System of Stormwater Management Canals & Structures (Category A) Level of Service (LOS) Standard: Varies by individual watershed Existing System within Collier County: Based on current Collier County GIS Database Existing Major Canals System Maintained by Collier County: Based on current Collier County GIS Database Existing Major Canals Proposed Reconstruction/Additions within 5 -Year Planning Period Existing Water Control Structures Proposed Replacement/Additional Structures within 5 -Year Planning Period Stormwater Program Summary FY 2019 thru FY 2023 Recommended Work Program Recommended Revenues Five -Year Surplus or (Deficit) 454 Miles 125 Miles 1.2 Miles 65 3 $ 64,133,000 $ 30,661,000 $ (33,472,000) Based on projected funding availability and does not reflect the entirety of unmet stormwater needs. FY2019 outlays actual proposed budget, subsequent years are proposed/estimated and are subject to change. 1. Existing Revenue Sources FY 19-23 Roll Forward $ 141,000 General Fund (001) $ 12,500,000 General Fund (111) $ 15,000,000 Anticipated Grants $ 2,500,000 Naples Park Debt Service $ 48,000 Interest $ 497,000 Neg 5% Revenue Reserve $ (25,000) Total $ 30,661,000 2. Supplemental Revenue Sources None Required 9.A.2 33 of 148 Packet Pg. 123 9.A.2 Recommended Action That the BCC direct the County Manager or his designee to include County stormwater projects appearing on the proposed "Stormwater Five - Year Work Program," (Table 1) as detailed in the attached Project Descriptions and prioritized by the Stormwater Project Prioritization Process in the next Annual CIE Update and Amendment with the application of revenues as outlined in the Program Revenue section of Table 1; and that it approves the proposed 2018 Stormwater Management System AUIR and adopt the CIE Update for FY2018/19 — FY2022/23. EXISTING MAJOR CANAL SYSTEMS AND CONTROL STRUCTURES Currently, the County maintains 125 miles of canal (including ditches) and 65 stormwater control structures. Figures 1 and 2 show the locations for all major canals (including ditches) and stormwater control structures maintained by the County, respectively. Table 2 shown in Attachment C, identifies all canals and ditches within Collier County. The County, working collaboratively with South Florida Water Management District, provides easements over the primary and secondary watercourses, in accordance with the Cooperative Agreement between Collier County and South Florida Water Management District, dated October 13, 2000, as amended. Table 3 identifies control structures maintained by Collier County. In 2012, CH2MHill completed a structural evaluation of all county water control structure. Each control structure (Table 3) has an overall condition rating based on two types of inspections: Q Structural and Civil. The overall condition rating ranks from C-1 (no action needed) to C-5 (critical co repair or replacement needed immediately). The ratings are based on identified deficiencies and N the potential resulting impact. Table 4 explains each rating. The County is currently in the process of completing an updated structural evaluation of all county stormwater control structures with CH2M. One structure was replaced this year (Haldeman Creek Weir Replacement P/N 60103), one new structure design is complete and scheduled for construction in 2018 (Lely Branch Weir Replacement P/N 60202), one structure rehabilitation was completed in 2017 (Eagle Creek Weir Replacement P/N 60124), and one structure replacement design is currently underway (Pine Ridge Canal Weir Replacement PN 60119). 34 of 148 Packet Pg. 124 W 0 0000 9.A.2 Collier County Major Stormwater Conveyance System Figure 1: Collier County Major Stormwater Canal System Packet Pg. 125 W M O A W C, cr C anty Collier County Major Stormwater Structures r9 F3 a Figure 2: Collier County Major Stormwater Control Structures Legend County Maintained Commissioner Coutrol Structures Districts Amil Gates e f i Flashboard Weir -1 District 1 ■ 0 Slide Gate Weirs Tide Valve- Flap Gate �L -J District 2 u District 3 I] Fixed Stage Weir District 4 -° Spre aderwaterwey r� u Districts 4- i Proposed New Control structures 4 3 Figure 2: Collier County Major Stormwater Control Structures 9.A.2 O CL 0 ca 7 a Go O N r LO ti tD a 00 0 N 4- 0 ca d c E U R a+ a Packet Pg. 126 Legend County Maintained Commissioner Coutrol Structures Districts Amil Gates Boundaries = Flashboard Weir -1 District 1 ■ 0 Slide Gate Weirs Tide Valve- Flap Gate �L -J District 2 u District 3 I] Fixed Stage Weir District 4 -° Spre aderwaterwey r� u Districts Proposed New Control structures 9.A.2 O CL 0 ca 7 a Go O N r LO ti tD a 00 0 N 4- 0 ca d c E U R a+ a Packet Pg. 126 9.A.2 2018 AUIR FACILITY 5 -YEAR WORK PROGRAM - Stormwater Management Facility Name: Maintained System of Stormwater Management Canals & Structures (Category A) Table 1: FY 19 - FY 23 Plan Year 1 1 3 2 5 3 Fiscal Year 4 FY 20 5 FY 22 5-Yeai Fiscal Year Roll forward FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 11 FY 22 2,500 FY 23 2,500 Totals Pro'. No. Countywide Programs, Planning & Maintenance New Budget from 111 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,01 Add'I OMB Funding from Fund 111 51144 Stormwater Feasibility and Preliminary Design 300 P 400 P 400 P 400 P 400 P 1,91 60121 NPDES MS4 Program 75 P 150 P 150 P 150 P 100 P 6: 60194 Stormwater Maintenance 100 M 200 M 250 M 300 M 350 M 1,21 5,733 6,107 6,607 6,607 5,607 30,61 Pro'. No. Infrastructure & Capacity Projects 51029 GG City Outfall Replacements 4,200 DC 4,200 DC 4,200 DC 4,200 DC 16,81 51803 Gateway Triangle Improvements * 20 DC 60124 Eagle Creek Weir Replacement * 60126 Pine Ridge Stormwater Improvements 150 DC 150 DC 150 DRC 150 DRC 61 60103 Haldeman Creek Weir Replacement * 60119 Pine Ridge Canal Weir 1 Replacement * 900 C 91 60122 Vanderbilt Drive Swale Rehabilitation * 60143 Immokalee Stormwater Improvements 15 DR 1,500 DRC 1,500 DRC 2,000 DRC 4,500 DRC 9,5- 60139 Naples Park SW Improvement 3,200 DC 2,600 DC 2,600 DC 2,600 DC 2,600 DC 13,61 60142 W. Goodlette-Frank Area Stormwater Improvements 438 C 1,500 C 1,500 C 3,4: 60195 Harbor Lane Brookside 500 C 500 C 1,01 60202 Lely Branch New Weir 60127 North Golden Gate Estates Flowway 100 PA 100 PR 200 DC 200 DC 61 60102 Upper Gordon River 135 D 1,000 RA 1,000 1,000 DRC 1,000 C 4,1; 60196 Griffin Road Area Stormwater Improvements 500 DRA 500 500 C 1,51 51101 LASIP dDC TBD RESTORE" 500 PD 1,000 1,000 PD 1,000 PD 3,51 TBD Weir Automation / Regional Control Center 50 DC 500 PD 750 750 C 750 C 2,81 TBD I-75 Coco Interconnect 500 D 500 DA 1,000 C 2,01 Total Program Cost*** 5,733 14,300 15,600 13,250 15,250 64,1; Denotes FY18 funded projects anticipated to be active through FY19. ** Funding reflected in FY20, FY21, & FY22 is only the initial portion of a multi-year, large scale, RESTORE project *** Denotes current funding availability and does not reflect the entirety of unmet stormwater needs. P = Planning, D = Design & Permitting, R = Right -of -Way Acquisition, C = Construction, M = Maintenance/Monitoring, A = Advance Funding Notes: 1. All numbers are in thousands of dollars. 2. 2019 outlay actual budget proposed, subsequent years proposed/estimated & subject to change. Program Revenue (Fund 325) Plan Year 1 2 3 4 5 Fiscal Year FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 5 - Yea Totals Roll forward 141 11 New Budget from 101 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 12,51 New Budget from 111 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,01 Add'I OMB Funding from Fund 111 Anticipated Grants 500 1,000 1,000 2,51 BP/RESTORE Act Transfer from Naples Park Debt Svc 12 12 12 12 Interest 97 100 100 100 100 41 Revenue Reserve 5 5 2 Total Program Revenue 5,733 6,107 6,607 6,607 5,607 30,61 r_ O IZ d O r C d C N O. 7 C C Q 00 O N r Ln ti Q 00 T_ O N O O a r C d E t V O a 37 of 148 Packet Pg. 127 9.A.2 FY 19 — 23 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Countywide Programs, Planning & Maintenance Stormwater Feasibility and Preliminary Design (P/N 51144) This project includes funding for long range strategic planning for future program progression, capital improvement project identification and prioritization, specific basin issue evaluation and funding appropriation analysis. Individual Project Feasibility Studies will be funded from this Project and guided by the project ranking criteria established in the Planning process identified in Attachment A. 2. NPDES MS4 Program (P/N 60121) Funding within this project covers continued development of and compliance with the federally mandated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program for the County operated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). 3. Stormwater Maintenance (P/N 60194) This project includes funding of various maintenance activities associated with certain existing county stormwater management assets such as the Freedom Park water quality treatment system, Serenity Park's surface water management area, and the Wiggins Pass Road area surface water flow way. Infrastructure & Capacity Projects 4. Golden Gate City Outfall Replacements (P/N 51029) Q This project includes improvements to the collection, treatment and conveyance of urban CO stormwater runoff by restoring and upgrading an antiquated system installed in early 1960s N within the four -square -mile area known as Golden Gate City (GGC). The GGC canal system flows into Naples Bay via the Main Golden Gate Canal. The project includes replacement and LO improvements to the existing aging infrastructure such as the removal of old catch basins S replaced with ditch bottom inlets with grates to catch debris, the addition of sumps at catch basin locations to act as sediment traps, re -grading and sodding of swales to prevent erosion, a and provide water quality improvement. 00 5. Gateway Triangle Improvements (P/N 51803) Construction of the pond and pump station has been completed. The pumping station is designed to discharge treated stormwater runoff to two different locations: one south of US 41, and one into a new stormwater system along the west side of Brookside Drive north of Davis Blvd (north outfall). Currently, the north outfall is closed (Brookside). A study has been completed demonstrating that utilization of the Brookside outfall will have no adverse impacts to the adjacent homes or streets in the neighborhood. A multiyear water quality testing program was instituted in 2016 to analyze the quality of both the surface water in the Gateway area stormwater pond and the Brookside canal. Brookside Homeowners Association coordination continues, as well as planning for water level sensor installation and pump station control upgrades. 6. Eagle Creek Weir (P/N 60124) Due to documented structural and mechanical deficiencies as well as operational and maintenance issues (2012 CH2MHill Report), this project was initiated to rehabilitate and enhance an existing water control structure. Three (3) spillway gates have been replaced in the first phase of work. A second phase is scheduled to construct a safe maintenance access 38 of 148 Packet Pg. 128 9.A.2 area. The phase two cost is covered by existing FY 18 funds. No additional funding is anticipated or indicated in this AUIR. 7. Pine Ridge Stormwater Management Improvements (P/N 60126) A feasibility study/master plan was completed in 2017 to serve as a guide for this area's future projects. Improvements in the Pine Ridge Estates Area include replacement of existing aging infrastructure such as catch basins, culverts and re -grading and sodding of roadside swales. Current work includes design of outfall improvements in Basin 6. 8. Haldeman Creek Weir Replacement (P/N 60103) The Haldeman Creek Weir Replacement project is complete. Work included a full replacement of an existing surface water management control structure located at the freshwater/saltwater interface of Haldeman Creek just north of US 41 in East Naples. The previous structure reached the end of its useable life cycle as noted in the 2012 CH2MHill Report. The replacement structure includes a modern, state-of-the-art water control gate adaptable to fluctuating tidal conditions and can be retrofitted with automation technology, as a future phase of this project. 9. Pine Ridge Canal Weir Replacement (P/N 60119) The Pine Ridge Canal Weir has current documented structural and mechanical deficiencies as well as operational and maintenance issues (2012 CH2MHill Report). The new replacement weir is currently under design. Construction schedule has been delayed approximately one year to coordinate with planned private redevelopment of the adjacent area. The construction cost is covered by existing FY 18 funds. 10. Vanderbilt Drive Area Stormwater Improvements (P/N 60122) N This project is a multi -phased project that includes reconstruction of the roadside swale along the east side of Vanderbilt Drive adjacent to Naples Park, and reconstruction of the roadside LO rl- stormwater management system of the Conner's Sub -division (west of Vanderbilt Drive). Construction commenced on October 2016 with expected completion date of April 2019. W 11. Immokalee Stormwater Improvements (P/N 60143) This project includes an update to the Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan, future stormwater treatment pond sighting feasibility analysis, coordination with the Lake Trafford Management Group, and the Immokalee Water and Sewer District. Future stormwater management improvement projects, as prioritized by the master plan update, will be fully coordinated and vetted with the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency. 12. Naples Park Area Stormwater Improvements (P/N 60139) In coordination with the Public Utilities Division, this project includes water main and sanitary sewer collection system replacements, as well as roadside stormwater management system improvements. Roadside stormwater improvements are occurring in conjunction with utility replacement work on all east -west streets in the Naples Park Subdivision. This is a multi- year, multi -phase project. 13. W. Goodlette-Frank Rd Area Stormwater Improvements (FKA Ridge St.) (P/N 60142) In coordination with the City of Naples Wastewater Collection System improvements project, project planning and design is currently complete to address stormwater (flooding) problems and existing septic system failures during periods of high rainfall on several streets between Goodlette-Frank Road and US -41. Stormwater runoff from the area flows east into the upper 39 of 148 Packet Pg. 129 9.A.2 Gordon River then to Naples Bay, both sensitive impaired bodies of water. Work will include water quality improvements designed to decrease stormwater runoff nutrient concentrations. 14. Harbor Lane Brookside (P/N 60195) Harbor Lane is a street in the Brookside neighborhood which needs surface and possibly base refurbishment. The street's stormwater management system has reached the end of its life span and needs reconstruction as well. A new stormwater management system is currently under design. The design includes new culverts and catch basins as well as necessary water quality improvements. The Brookside neighborhood discharges stormwater into Naples Bay, an impaired waterbody. Construction is currently planned for FY 20 pending availability of funds. Contingent upon successful completion of the Harbor Lane improvements, the few remaining streets in the Brookside neighborhood will be considered for future work when funds become available. Vetting of all work within the Brookside HOA is beginning now during the design phase. City of Naples watermain replacement is also being considered as part of this project. 15. Lely Branch Canal Weir (P/N TBD) This project will include the construction of a new weir just north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road to maintain historic dry season water levels in the area without reducing the conveyance capacity of the newly improved system — Lely Branch Canal. The structure design and permitting is complete. Construction is currently scheduled for FY 19, with FY18 appropriated funds. 16. North Golden Gate Estates Flowway (AKA GGWIP) (P/N 60127) Effort includes developing strategies to redirect stormwater runoff in the North Golden Gate Q Estates (NGGE) area. The goal of this initiative is to consider the feasibility of utilizing CO surrounding low-lying wetland areas for wet season surface water storage. Increasing water N storage at the source could decrease the rate and volume of stormwater runoff currently conveyed to the roadside swale and ditch system and ultimately into the canal system. The LO work includes analysis of potential linking of areas by multiple culvert installations under estates roads. Project benefits include City and County potable water well field recharge, W reduction of fresh water flows into Naples Bay via the Golden Gate Main Canal, dep... and a hydrologic restoration of the existing wetlands in Golden Gate Estates. 00 17. Upper Gordon River Stormwater Improvements (P/N 60102) The focus of this project is on the northern -most portion of the Gordon River north of Golden Gate Parkway, upstream of the natural section of the Gordon River and Naples Bay. Work may include partnership with several surrounding golf courses, one or two water control structure replacements, exotic vegetation removal with possible supplemental native vegetation plantings to improve water quality, channel conveyance improvements and aquifer recharge and storage components. 18. Griffin Road Area Stormwater Improvements (P/N 60196) The Griffin Road Area Stormwater Improvement Project is located near the southwestern terminus of Griffin Road in the East Naples area of Collier County off of US41 (Tamiami Trail) and Barefoot Williams Road. The project includes construction of a water quality treatment area on Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve property. The focus of the project is to provide water quality treatment facilities and an adequate stormwater outfall for the area to reduce frequency of flooding. 40 of 148 Packet Pg. 130 9.A.2 19. LASIP (P/N 51101) The Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) is a large master planned project involving major improvements to the Lely Canal, Lely Branch Canal, and Lely -Manor Canal systems in the East Naples area. After over 25 years of planning and construction the effort is essentially complete. Current activities consist of project permitting close out, maintenance and monitoring, and curing outstanding orders of taking through mediation and legal proceedings stemming from acquisition of necessary drainage, maintenance and access easements. The cost of these activities is covered by existing FY 18 funds. No additional funding is anticipated or indicated in this AUIR. 20. RESTORE (P/N TBD) This is a new, large, comprehensive watershed improvement initiative currently in a conceptual planning stage. The initiative includes development of a suite of projects to be competed in phases, all with the goal of rehydrating and restoring historic, wet season surface water overland flow principally within the Belle Meade region of Collier County. Project concepts and a multiyear plan have been submitted to the state and the US Department of the Treasury to gain authorization for use of RESTORE Act funds to further the initiative. 21. Weir Automation (P/N TBD) This is one of many future initiatives being programmed as resources and funding becomes available. Current projects involving work on several water flow and level control structures (weirs) are in various stages of implementation. "Work" includes planning and design of powered weir gate operations and remote operation capability. All new and rehabilitated weirs with manually adjustable control gates are being considered for this potential future automation upgrade. 22.1-75 Interconnect (P/N TBD) N Feasibility and preliminary design for a potential joint project with the Big Cypress Basin/South Florida Water Management District to better manage flows within the Immokalee Road / LO rl- Cocohatchee Canal and the 1-75 canal during storms, times of peak flows, etc 41 of 148 Packet Pg. 131 Figure 3: 2018 AUIR Project Location Map 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 132 }L Legend CauntywMe Programs, Pianning and Maintenance {Hot Shawn} r Slormwater Feasipilrty and Preliminary Design NI'fh RrA tri RP O } NP DES MS4 Pragrarn _- — Secondary System Repair c - � = ell WELL R9 Ori WEIi RD 1 1nire5tructure and Ca pa catty Projects gra rnCi 164 off R❑ s R7�HFlkli. B4 P Y LASIP ' j a ` 1 GG City Outtall Replacements c VAN ERR isf :u R. m - — 0 Gateway Triangle Improvements a GOLDlN GMkE hl.Vn W ['IDLDEr� alE pLY6 E 0 Pine Ridge Startnwater Management Improvements g } Pi E NI GE RD .. _ 0 HWdeman Creek weir Replacement _ QLEENBLVD Pone Ridge Canal Weir Replacement Vanderbilt Drive Area SW Improvements T (D ImmoKalee Stormwater Improvements — nlaoia BD E¢x.swo - (E)Kepler, Park $tomtwater Improvements oAOSOLVO (D West Good Iette Frank ROW Area SW Imp rovemeni5 Lely Branch canal Weir i2 Harbor Lane rn Brooksade Gordon River sw Im p rovernent s Griffin Rota Area SW Improvements ifitrJrq Q North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration iN 'r Commissions?- District Boundaries �ti r Disinct I r Dlstnct 2 Ristdct 3 /� y 1 5 3 nprna Fay 9twrnwrtx Plrrrnrnp SrcrlOn Onlllert�011ntyl^a9cwmeat Dlslrlct4 Miles - -- -- - �mtiR[D`M) I Last R &We" 0712011 P } r1u craw OO cwftm Calllrrco" GIB 6rhlBr*o DlStrict 5 Figure 3: 2018 AUIR Project Location Map 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 132 9.A.2 Attachment "A" COLLIER COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS Objective: To adequately identify and prioritize stormwater management projects to include in the County's AUIR/5-year Plan and Budgeting process. Purpose: To provide the Board County Commissioners with a general outline of the ongoing Project Planning and Prioritization Process. Considerations: The Stormwater Management Project Planning Process identifies and prioritizes potential projects for advancement into the AUIR/5-year Plan and annual Stormwater Management budget process. Typically, project feasibility studies are completed first. Studies are then being used to rank the projects for eventual funding and construction within the County's AUIR/5-year Plan and annual budget process. The feasibility studies will also provide staff with better project cost estimates for preparing budget requests. Input from external stakeholders will also be used to recommend projects for the AUIR/5-year Plan. Plan Elements: ➢ Potential Project Database Staff has developed a Comprehensive Stormwater Needs database that contains all potential future stormwater improvement projects. Projects are provided from three main sources: customer complaint database, staff knowledge and Planning Studies. This database is periodically updated to reflect new information as projects are implemented and sources provide new potential projects. ➢ Project Profiles LO Staff selects potential projects from the database to gather detailed information to develop Project Profiles. Project Profiles are based by first determining the Objective of the Project, Benefit Area and Preliminary Conceptual Cost. Once those three basic components are defined, staff can provide information regarding affected acreage and population, per parcel a cost, per acre cost, per capita cost, and per $1,000 of assessed value cost. A narrative 00 explaining the objective, purpose and needs of the project is also provided in the Project Profile. N ➢ Scoring Committee and Project Ranking Criteria A Stormwater Planning Process Committee has been established to review and score the Project Profiles. The seven (7) committee members, all county staff, come from different departments such as Stormwater, Comprehensive and Floodplain Management Planning, Engineering, Road Maintenance, and Pollution Control. Scoring is based on four major aspects: Health and Safety, Project Feasibility, Project Support, and Environmental Benefits. ➢ Feasibility Studies Top ranked Project Profiles are selected for Feasibility Studies which provide more detailed and secured information regarding the project's cost, life, and stages. Project Profiles are updated with information from the feasibility studies. The Scoring Committee has ranked ten (10) projects; some current and ongoing, and some conceptual projects. The ranking and evaluation process and input from the committee has been deemed extremely useful and valid. As such, ranking information is considered and utilized in this current AUIR/5-year Plan. 43 of 148 Packet Pg. 133 9.A.2 Attachment "B" SYSTEM INVENTORY AND GIS DATABASE REPORT Objective: To maintain a complete and current inventory of all existing county maintained stormwater and surface water management system assets. Purpose: To provide the Board of County Commissioners with an update on progress made to date with establishment of the Stormwater Management System Inventory GIS Database Considerations: For the past several years staff has been identifying existing stormwater management assets and sequentially building the stormwater management system geodatabase. The database currently includes the main canals and ditches, water level, and flow control structures and arterial roadway drainage infrastructure. Several hundred miles of collector and minor roadway swales, culverts and inlets are yet to be added to the dataset. They represent the majority of stormwater assets maintained on a day to day basis. All of the water control structures are field verified and have conditional ratings. Field verification is ongoing for the arterial roadway stormwater management infrastructure. Current data collection is being coordinated with Operation and Maintenance staff (O&M) activities to the greatest extent possible. When data collection technicians log entries associated a with geodatabase objects in advance of a scheduled O&M activity, subsequent O&M activity entries can then be connected to geodatabase objects. In this way, a work history for each asset is created that is now associated to geodatabase objects. Creating a work history for each asset can result in high level reporting such as required by the state for the County National Pollutant Q Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (NPDES MS4) Permit, c Permit # FLR04E037. Some examples are pesticide sprayers accounting for chemical usage N including location and acreage and sediment removal tied to asset type (inlet, culvert, and swale). LOti Other information being collected and added to the database includes information collected during the right-of-way permitting process, roadside assets in neighborhoods, roadside improvements completed as part of neighborhood stormwater improvements, remedial work or existing condition a assessments (surveys), roadway outfalls to canals or tidal waters, secondary county roadway o swales, culverts, inlets and manholes including all Golden Gate Estates roads and the urban N county roads, and outfalls from private developments discharging into the County maintained ,- system. ° The existing Stormwater Management System Inventory GIS Database is substantial, functioning, and has become an important tool used daily by O&M staff as well as Stormwater Planning staff. All the data, maps and asset tables produced for this AUIR were generated using the database. The database is being used to capture information that is essential for mandated reporting to the state as part of the County's NPDES MS4 Permit requirements, as well as reporting for the County's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System (NFIP CRS). 44 of 148 Packet Pg. 134 9.A.2 Attachment "C" Table 2 - Current Collier County Canal System 45 of 148 Packet Pg. 135 Branch ID Facility Name Length (MI) 1 9CC-00 & 9C -00 951 Canal 6.94 2 ARN-00 Airport Road North Canal 1.84 3 ARN-00:ARN 02 Four Seasons Perimeter Ditch 2.83 4 ARN-01- 22 Four Seasons Lateral Ditches 1.52 5 ARS -00 Airport Road South Canal 4.92 6 BRC -00 SR 29 Canal 33.62 7 BRC-01:BRC-04 Alligator Alley Canal 5.40 8 BRN-00 SR 29 Canal 13.93 9 BRN-01 Immokalee Airport Perimeter Canal 5.40 10 BRN-04 BRN-04 0.24 11 BRN-05 BRN-05 0.12 12 C4C-00 Eagle Creek Canal 1.38 13 C4C-01 Wing South 1.45 14 C4C-02 Skyway Drive 0.72 15 C4C-03 C4C-03 0.28 16 CCB -00 Corkscrew Canal 5.57 17 CCB -01 CCB -01 1.26 18 CCB -01 Twin Eagles Ditch 2.10 19 CCB -01 CCB -01 0.61 20 CCB -02 CCB -02 1.02 21 CCB -03 CCB -03 0.37 22 CCB -04 CCB -04 0.04 23 CCB-05:CCB-07 Corkscrew Sanctuary Ditch 2.87 24 CRB-00 Cocohatchee Canal 12.31 25 CRB-01 Horse Creek 0.34 26 CRB-02 CRB-02 0.21 27 CRB-03 CRB-03 0.05 28 CRB-04 CRB-04 2.18 29 CRB-05 CRB-05 0.03 30 CRB-06 Encore Way Outfall 0.45 31 CSB -04 CSB -04 0.40 32 CSB -05 Fish Branch Creek 6.32 33 CYC -00 Cypress Canal 8.17 34 CYC -01 Curry Canal 2.00 35 D1C-00 Harvey Canal 3.01 36 D1C-00 Lambert Canal 0.13 37 D1C-01 D1C-01 0.92 38 D2C-00 1-75 Canal 7.29 39 D2C-03 Napa Ditch 0.59 40 D2C-02 Oaks/ Vanderbilt Canal 0.98 41 D2C-03 Wyndemere south outfall 0.81 42 D2C-04 Livingston Woods Outfall 0.92 43 D2C-05 Kensington Canal 1.13 44 D2C-06 Oaks/ Vanderbilt Canal 1.92 45 D2C-07 D2C-07 1.35 46 D2C-08 D2C-08 0.88 47 D2C-09 D2C-09 0.01 48 Davis Davis 0.11 49 EBC-00 Coco East Outfall 0.24 50 EMC -00 Merritt Canal 6.05 51 EMC-02:EMC-13 Alligator Alley Canal 7.99 52 FKC-00 Faka Union Canal 33.48 53 FKC-00:FKC-02 Alligator Alley Canal 1.61 54 FKC-03 FKC-03 1.29 55 FKC-04 Desoto Ditch 1.02 56 FPC -00 Prairie Canal 3.03 45 of 148 Packet Pg. 135 57 GCB -00 Sunrise Canal 0.73 58 GCB -00 Green Canal 2.89 59 GCB -01 Neptune Canal 0.59 60 GCB -02 Hunter Canal 0.90 61 GCB -03 Tahiti Canal 0.19 62 GCB -04 Lucerne Canal 0.21 63 GCB -05 Sunset Canal 0.18 64 GCB -06 Sunshine Canal 0.75 65 GCB -07 Serenade Canal 0.12 66 GRE -00 Gordon River 1.45 67 GRE -00 Gordon River Extension 2.70 68 GRE -00 Forest Lakes West Side 1.04 69 GRE -00 Taylor Rd Canal 0.76 70 GRE -01 Goodlette Rd. Pine Ridge to GG Blvd. 2.75 71 GRE -02 GRE -02 0.21 72 GRE -03 Wilderness Ditch 0.41 73 GRE-04:GRE-05 Poinciana Village 2.22 74 GRE -07 GRE -07 0.19 75 GRE -08 Forest Lakes South Side 0.49 76 GRE-09:GRE-12 Pine Ridge I.P. Ditches 0.83 77 GRE -13 Yahl Street Canal 0.24 78 GRE-14:GRE-37 Pine Ridge I.P. Ditches 2.48 79 GRE -51 Baily Lane Ditch 0.12 80 GRE -52 Baily Lane Ditch 0.16 81 GTB-05 Manorca Street Swale 0.18 82 GTB-14 Village Plaza Ditch 0.11 83 HCB-00 Haldeman Creek 1.48 84 HCB-01 Lake Kelly Outfall 0.90 85 HCB-02 United Telephone Ditch 0.04 86 HCB-02 Sugden Park (Lake Avalon) 0.03 87 HCB-07 Guilford Rd. 0.43 88 HCB-08 Guilford Rd. 0.30 89 HCB-09 HCB-09 0.25 90 HCB-10 HCB-10 0.13 91 HCB-17 HCB-17 0.09 92 HCB-18 HCB-18 0.10 93 HCB-19 HCB-19 0.09 94 HCB-20 HCB-20 0.06 95 HEC -00 Henderson Canal 9.42 96 HEC -03 Triple X Canal 0.98 97 HEC -05 Tamiami Canal 1.58 98 HEC -06 Alligator Alley Canal 6.00 99 HEC -07 Roost Rd 0.89 100 IDO-00 Horse Creek 1.11 101 IDO-00 Palm River Eastwood Ditched 0.27 102 IWO-00:IWO-01 Imperial/FPL Ditch 0.29 103 L28-00 L-28 Tieback 9.67 104 L28-00128-11 Alligator Alley Canal 33.05 105 LCB -00 Lely Canal Branch 0.28 106 LCB -00 Lely Main Canal East-West 0.87 107 LCB -00 Lely Canal Branch 0.96 108 LCB -00 Lely Main Canal North-South 0.33 109 LCB -00 Naples Mobile Estates Ditch 0.02 110 LCB -00 Santa Barbara Ext Canal 0.82 111 LCB -01 Lely Main Canal North-South 0.08 112 LCB -01 Riviera Power line Canal 0.98 113 LCB -01 Davis Blvd. ditch 1.90 114 LCB -01 Riviera Golf Estates Ditch 0.05 115 LCB -02 Boca Ciega Ditch 0.49 116 LCB -02 Hawaii Blvd Ditches 0.09 117 LCB -03 Boca Ciega Ditch 0.06 118 LCB -04 Saint Peters Swales 0.22 r- 0 CL d O r C d C N 7 C C Q 00 T- CD 0 N T - LO I - c0 Q 00 T- CD N O O IL r C d E t V to a 46 of 148 Packet Pg. 136 9.A.2 119 LCB -05 Hawaii Blvd Ditches 0.19 120 LCB -06 Queens Park North 0.05 121 LCB -07 Hawaii Blvd Ditches 0.18 122 LCB -08 Colony Pines Ditch 0.18 123 LCB -09 County Barn Rd 1.73 124 LCB -10 Riviera Golf Estates Ditch 0.93 125 LCB -11 Naples Mobile Estates Ditch 0.71 126 LCB -12 Lely Canal Branch 0.25 127 LCB -13 Lake Lenore Ditch 0.37 128 LCB -13 Lely Main Canal East-West 0.06 129 LCB -15 Naples Mobile Estates Ditch 0.01 130 LCB -17 Lely Main Canal North-South 0.02 131 LCB -19 LCB -19 0.13 132 LCB -20 LCB -20 0.01 133 LMB -00 Lely Manor Outfall South Section 0.77 134 LMB -00 Lely Manor Outfall Canal 0.82 135 LMB -00 Naples Manor North Canal 1.29 136 LMB -01 Myrtle Cove West 0.53 137 LMB -01 Naples Manor Perimeter Ditch 0.69 138 LMB -03 Myrtle Cove East 0.48 139 LMB-03:LMB-13 Naples Manor Ditches 2.33 140 LMB -07 Treviso Canal East 1.35 141 LMB -14 Four Fountains Ditch 0.09 142 LMB -06 Lely Manor Canal 0.71 143 LMB -11 Lely Manor Canal 0.23 144 LMB -15 Lely Manor Canal 0.17 145 LMB -11 Saint Andrews Daycare Ditch 0.03 146 MCB-00 Cocohatchee River 1.54 147 MCB-01 MCB-01 0.22 148 MCB-06 MCB-06 0.13 149 MCB-07 MCB-07 0.75 150 MCB-09 MCB-09 1.14 151 MCB-09 Benson/Porter Ditch 0.70 152 MCB-10 Benson/Porter Ditch 0.69 153 MCB-12 Trail Acres 0.73 154 MCB-13 MCB-13 1.94 155 MCB-14 MCB-14 0.16 156 MCB-15 Lake Park Rd 0.34 157 MCB-17 MCB-17 0.20 158 MGG -00 Main Golden Gate Canal 27.67 159 MGG -01 Sunflower Canal 0.30 160 MGG -02 Tropicana Canal 0.01 161 MGG -02 Shell Canal 0.17 162 MGG -02 Tropicana Canal 1.19 163 MGG -03 Sunfish Canal 0.31 164 MGG -04 Santa Barbara Canal 0.20 165 MGG -04 Coronado Canal 1.07 166 MGG -05 Ibis Canal 0.20 167 MGG -06 Coronado Canal 0.13 168 MGG -09 C-2 North/South canal 1.90 169 MGG -10 C-2 East/West Canal 2.06 170 MGG -12 Fairgrounds Canal 1.98 171 MGG -13 Golden Gate Side Branch Cana 2.01 172 MGG -14 MGG -14 0.46 173 MGG -15 Palm Springs Outfall 0.50 174 MGG -15 MGG -15 0.36 175 MGG -16 MGG -16 0.33 176 MGG -16 Radio Rd outfall 0.60 177 MGG -17 Coconut Outfall Swale 0.93 178 MGG -18 Transfere Station Ditch 0.73 179 MGG -20 Bollt Canal 2.13 180 MJC-00 Miller Canal 19.27 r_ O CL d O r C d C N 7 C C a 00 T 0 N T_ LO ti c0 a 00 T_ 0 N O O a r C d E t V cC a 47 of 148 Packet Pg. 137 9.A.2 181 MJC-01 MJC-01 1.31 182 MJC-02 Alligator Alley Canal 0.66 183 MJC-03 C-1 Canal 1.67 184 OSB -01 County Line Rd Canal 8.71 185 OTC -00 Orange Tree Canal 2.12 186 PLM -00 Palm River Canal 1.12 187 PLM -00 Palm River Raven Way Ditch 0.37 188 PRC -00 Pine Ridge Canal 2.27 189 PRC -00 Goodlette Rd. VBR to Pine Ridge 1.19 190 PRC -01 Hickory Road Ditch 0.44 191 PRC -02 Carica Road Ditch 0.33 192 PSB -00 Palm Street Outfall 0.10 193 RCB -00 Rock Creek 2.76 194 RCB -01 RCB -01 0.46 195 RCB -02 Gail/Hazel Ditches 0.96 196 RCB -03 North Rd Ditch 0.91 197 RCB -04 RCB -04 0.31 198 RCB -05 Estey/San Remo ditch 0.23 199 RCB -06 Flamingo/Bluebird ditch 0.25 200 RCB -07 RCB -07 0.12 201 RCB -08 Lotus Swale 0.03 202 S15-00 Throat Canal 0.48 203 S1S-00 U.S. 41 Outfall Swale No. 1 1.90 204 S1S-01:S1S-06 S1S-06 3.66 205 SPO -00 Seminole Park Outlet 4.57 206 SPO -01 Riggs Rd 1.02 207 TRB-01:TRB-14 Alligator Alley Canal 19.95 208 UIB-00 Immokalee Main Canal 2.92 209 UIB-00 Madison ave Ditch 1.74 210 UIB-03 Urban Immokalee Canals 0.24 211 WBB-00 Old US41 Swales 1.33 212 WBB-00 Tarpon Cove Canal 0.68 213 WBB-00 Wiggins Bay 0.37 214 WBB-01 WBB-01 0.27 215 WBB-01 Wiggins Pass Outfall 0.01 216 WBB-01 Wiggins Bay 0.02 217 WBC -00 Coco West Outfall 0.31 218 WBC -00 Victoria Park Outfall West End 0.23 219 WBC -00 North Naples Water Treatment 0.46 220 WBC -01 West Branch Cocohatchee River 0.02 221 WPO -00 Winter Park Outfall 0.05 222 WPO -00 Haldemann Glades Outfall 1.00 Total 453.71 Table based on current Collier County GIS Database a 48 of 148 Packet Pg. 138 9.A.2 Table 3: Existing Collier County Stormwater Control Structures Table based on current Collier County GIS Database T_ Ln ti 49 of 148 Packet Pg. 139 Structure ID Facility Name Overall Rating 1 ARN-02-50110 Four Seasons Outfall C2 2 ARN-02-50120 Four Seasons C2 3 BRN-00-50110 Sunniland C1 4 C4C-00-50110 Eagle Creek C2 5 C4C-04-50090 Naples manor Broad Crested Weir TBD 6 DIC -00-50120 Harvey#1 C2 7 DIC -00-50150 Harvey#2 CI 8 DIC -01-50102 VBR Weir (Roadside Water Quality Str) CI 9 D2C-08-50110 Islandwalk Inflow C1 10 EBC-00-50110 Coco East C2 11 GRE -00-50100 Gordon River C2 12 GRE -00-50124 Gordon River Extension TBD 13 GRE -01-50480 Goodlette Road Canal #1 C3 14 GRE -01-50510 Goodlette Road Canal #2 CI 15 GRE -03-50100 Freedom Park Overflow (Bypass) Weir C1 16 GRE -04-50110 Poinciana TBD 17 GRE -09-50100 Pine Ridge Industrial Park TBD 18 GRE -10-50100 Pine Ridge Industrial Park TBD 19 GRE -12-50100-1 Pine Ridge Industrial Park TBD 20 GRE-12-SO100-2 Pine Ridge Industrial Park TBD 21 GRE -17-50114 Pine Ridge Industrial Park TBD 22 GRE -36-50100 FP Spreader Berm TBD 23 GRE -36-50120 FP Wetlands Weir C1 24 GRE -36-50240 FP Waterfall TBD 25 GRE -39-50100 West Lake Outfall C1 26 GRE -41-50130 Twin Lakes Outfall C1 27 GRE -44-50140 Sperling Lake Outfall CI 28 GTB-00-50100 Flap Gates C2 29 GTB-01-50090 Flap Gates TBD 30 GTB-04-50110 Gateway Triangle C2 31 HCB-00-50130 Haldeman Creek C2 32 HCB-00-50200 Lakewood County Club Weir C1 33 HCB-00-50220 Lely Branch Splitter TBD 34 HCB-01-50100 Lake Kelly C1 35 HCB-02-50106 Lake Avalon C2 36 HEC -03-50100 Henderson #2 C2 37 HEC -04-50100 Henderson #4 TBD 38 HEC -05-50100 Henderson #5 TBD 39 LCB -00-50122 Doral Circle C1 40 LCB -00-50150 Royal Wood C1 41 LCB -00-50190 Santa Barbara #1 C1 42 LCB -00-50210 Santa Barbara #2 C1 43 LCB -00-50230 Santa Barbara #3 C1 44 LCB -01-50140 Crown Pointe C2 45 LCB -01-50174 Davis Blvd TBD 46 LCB -15-50100 Rattlesnake Rd. Weir (Roadside Water Quality Str.) C1 47 LCB -20-50220 Whitaker Rd Ditch Block (West) TBD 48 LCB -20-50230 Whitaker Rd Weir TBD 49 LMB -00-50100 Lely Manor West Outfall Spreader Weir C1 50 LMB -00-50120 Lely Manor Circular Marsh Fixed Crest Weir C1 51 LMB -00-50150 Warren Street Weir TBD 52 MGG -12-50120 Immokalee Road Water Quality Str at Fairgrounds Outfall TBD 53 MGG -14-50100 Naples Production Park (North) TBD 54 MGG -16-50140 Radio Rd. C1 55 MGG -19-50020 Bolt Canal TBD 56 MGG -20-50020 Bolt Canal - Flap Gate -1 TBD 57 MGG -20-50040 Bolt Canal - Flap Gate -2 TBD 58 PLM -00-50100 Palm River Weir C2 59 PRC -00-50110 Pine Ridge 1 C4 60 RCB -02-50110 Hazel Rd. Weir C2 61 RCB -04-50110 Collier Co. Production Park (South) C2 62 WBB-01-50110 Wiggins Pass Weir C2 63 WBC -00-50110 Coco West C2 64 WBC -04-50130 Victoria Park West Outfall TBD 65 WPO -00-50100 Winter Park Weir C2 Table based on current Collier County GIS Database T_ Ln ti 49 of 148 Packet Pg. 139 9.A.2 Table 4: Control Structure Inspection Rating System Overall Description for the Overall Application RatingStructure C1 All old deficiencies noted from the Applied when no further action is previous inspection have been recommended for the structure. corrected. C2 Most old deficiencies noted from the Applied when the overall recommendation is to previous inspection have been monitor minor deficiencies. Deficiencies will corrected. generally be re-evaluated at the next five-year inspection of the structure. Provide overall recommendation on when (timeframe) to monitor deficiencies previous to the next structure inspection cycle. C3 Deficiencies and/or several old Applied when the overall recommendation is to deficiencies noted in the last repair the structure during the next inspection have not been corrected. maintenance cycle or within 5 to 10 -year capital repair schedule. Maintenance repairs are generally estimated to cost less than $50,000; will not require engineering design. C4 Serious deficiencies exist that if not Applied when the overall recommendation is to immediately corrected may lead to or elevate repairs to the County's five-year capital cause deterioration of the structure. repair program. Includes repairs that are generally estimated to cost $50,000 or more, will require engineering design, or should be repaired within a five-year period. C5 Major deficiencies exist such that the Applied when the overall recommendation is to structural integrity of the structure will elevate repairs to the County's capital repair probably not withstand a major flood program, but repairs should be conducted in event. the next cycle of repairs. Generally, the next cycle of repairs would include repair design in the fiscal year following inspection with repair in the fiscal year following design (two-year process). C5 Critical Emergency deficiencies exist that Applied when immediate repairs are must be addressed immediately. recommended. Generally, the County would Deficiencies include those that respond by dispatching its Field Station impede operation of the structure or personnel to triage the deficiency (e.g., block jeopardize public safety. access to the structure, reduced structure operating capacity) until repairs could be affected. Responding County design engineers would be altered to fast track repairs if triage does not ameliorate the deficiencies. **TBD: Current condition not known at this time. Update upon next inspection. LO ti m 50 of 148 Packet Pg. 140 9.A.2 Attachment "D" BASINS AND SUB -BASIN REPORT Objective: To guide the County's Stormwater Management Program by utilizing a watershed management approach. Purpose: To provide a general update on the basins/watersheds used for water resource management and planning within the County. Considerations: The Stormwater Management Program began a new approach to water resource management with the BCC's acceptance of the County Watershed Management Plan on December 13, 2011. The Plan provides assessment and management information for geographically defined watersheds including: analysis, actions, participants, and resources related to developing and implementing the Plan. Understanding issues on a basin by basin level allows for better quantitative analysis and program planning. The Board directed staff to implement the Plan as funding and resources became available. Staff continues to follow that directive when initiating Plan recommendations. There are currently 51 basins in the Stormwater Management GIS database. Since 1990 (Ord. 90-10), the County has had a maximum allowable post -development stormwater runoff discharge rate of 0.15 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre for all basins, with six (6) exception areas (basins) ranging from 0.04 to 0.13 cfs per acre. These more restrictive rates were established through modeling efforts that demonstrated the need to restrict flows from adjacent lands to the receiving canals. Stormwater discharge rates are limited so the rate at which runoff leaves a developed site will not cause adverse off-site (typically downstream) impacts. In the development of the Watershed Management Plan (WMP), computer modeling was used to ti determine the maximum flow that can be conveyed by the various water management canal segments. Results from that effort indicated that various segments of the primary and secondary water management systems do not have the capacity to handle large storm events. Expansion a or enlargement of this system to create additional system capacity is not a viable strategy for 00 managing stormwater flows. One means of addressing this limited capacity is to restrict the N maximum flow in the associated basins that feed into the canals. The WMP included = 4 - recommendations to reduce the maximum allowable post -development discharge rates in several c basins. In addition to these recommendations in the WMP, two additional detailed stormwater management master plans, developed jointly by the South Florida Water Management District and the County for the Belle Meade and Immokalee areas, recommended further limiting the discharge rates for four (4) basins/sub-basins. Conditions may worsen in the future unless management actions are implemented to control the impact of subsequent changes to land use. In total, reducing maximum allowable post -development discharge rates in sixteen (16) basins/sub-basins will ensure adequate flood protection levels of service. A feasibility study and impact analysis was completed to examine the effects of implementation of the discharge rate restrictions. Staff fully vetted the new restricted discharge rates with the Development Services Advisory Committee, the Collier County Planning Commission and, the 51 of 148 Packet Pg. 141 South Florida Water Management District. The new rates were then approved by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2017 and became effective on August 4, 2017. This report includes a listing of all basins with their respective acreage (Table 5); a map depicting all basins within the County (Figure 4); and, a map depicting the twenty-two (22) basins that have restricted stormwater discharge rates (Figure 5). Basins and Discharge Rates Specific Discharge Limitation Basins Rate 1 Airport Road North Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre 2 Airport Road South Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 3. Cocohatchee Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre 4. Lely Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 5. Harvey Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 6. Wiggins Bay Outlet Basin 0.13 cfs/acre 7. Henderson Creek - Belle Meade Basin North 0.06 cfs/acre 8. Henderson Creek - Belle Meade Basin South 0.04 cfs/acre 9. Immokalee Master Basin East 0.05 cfs/acre 10. Immokalee Master Basin West 0.10 cfs/acre 11. 951 Canal North Basin 0.11 cfs/acre 12. C-4 Canal Basin 0.11 cfs/acre 13. Corkscrew Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre 14. Cypress Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 15. Faka-Union Canal Basin -N 0.09 cfs/acre 16. Gordon River Extension Basin 0.09 cfs/acre 17. I-75 Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 18. Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin 0.12 cfs/acre 19. Lely Manor Canal Basin 0.06 cfs/acre 20. Main Golden Gate Canal Basin 0.04 cfs/acre 21. Palm River Canal Basin 0.13 cfs/acre 22. Pine Ridge Canal Basin 0.13 cfs/acre 52 of 148 9.A.2 V_ Ln r - Packet Pg. 142 Cn W 0 0000 Collier County Basins Map Figure 4: Collier County Basins Map 9.A.2 Packet Packet Pg. 143 A 0 A OD / r RD Y TTC N W E 0 1 2 3 Miles Figure 5: Collier County Basins with Restricted Allowable Discharge Rates Map OSB FSB 9.A.2 BRN R 1-1 Q Packet Pg. 144 i Collier County N Restricted Basin Discharge Rate Map ake s Legend Allowable Discharge Rates CRB 9CN, 951 Canal North Basin, 0.11 (cfs/ac) ARN, Airport Road North Canal Basin, 0.04 (cfs/ac) ARS, Airport Road South Canal Basin, 0.06 (cfs/ac) Bo ITA BEACH RD - C4C, C-4 Canal Basin, 0.11 (cfs/ac) o-^ QWP ■ CCB, Corkscrew Canal Basin, 0.04 (cfs/ac) WBB - CRB, Cocohatchee River Canal Basin, 0.04 (cfs/ac) — 1 O CCB mB oil Well RD - CYC, Cypress Canal Basin, 0.06 (cfs/ac) > PLM ` Immokalee RD ELD1C, Harvey Canal Basin, 0.06 (cfs/ac) NPW -PN EBC CN TC -Dic D2C, 1-75 Canal Basin, 0.06 (cfs/ac) NPS I WBc ARN FKC-N, Faka-Union Canal Basin -N, 0.09 (cfs/ac) a.h PRC erbilt each RD a m cvc Goldef-ate BLVD W - GRE, Gordon River Extension Basin, 0.09 (cfs/ac) Dec - HBM-N, Henderson Creek - Belle Meade Basin North, 0.06 (cfs/act Pine Ridge RD I GCB MGG - HBM-S, Henderson Creek - Belle Meade Basin South, 0.0-4 (cfs/aQ a Grrden BLVD gCC m ARS LL - IDO, Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin, 0.12 (cfs/ac)olden �d4 Gab P - LCB, Lely Canal Basin, 0.06 (cfs/ac) w FKc - LMB, Lely Manor Canal Basin, 0.06 (cfs/ac) o Radio H M s - MGG, Main Golden Gate Canal Basin, 0.04 (cfs/ac) RCB Davis BLVD $GTB o eP3B WPO0 o EMC PLM, Palm River Canal Basin, 0.13 (cfs/ac) P HCB t'LCB PRC, Pine Ridge Canal Basin, 0.13 (cfs/ac) m UIB-E, Urban Immokalee Basin East, 0.05 (cfs/ac) LM UIB-W, Urban Immokalee Basin West, 0.10 (cfs/ac) c C M,ic WBB, Wiggins Bay Outlet Basin, 0.13 (cfs/ac) All Other Basins (0.15 cfs/ac) / r RD Y TTC N W E 0 1 2 3 Miles Figure 5: Collier County Basins with Restricted Allowable Discharge Rates Map OSB FSB 9.A.2 BRN R 1-1 Q Packet Pg. 144 Table 5: Collier County Basins Basin ID Name Area Acres 1 9CC 951 Canal Central Basin 835 2 9CN 951 Canal North Basin** 828 3 ARN Airport Road North Canal Basin ** 1,717 4 ARS Airport Road South Canal Basin ** 3,124 5 BRC Barron River Basin 27,635 6 BRN Barron River Canal Basin North 16,873 7 C4C C-4 Canal Basin** 3,582 8 CCB Corkscrew Canal Basin** 6,466 9 CSB Corkscrew Slough Basin 28,016 10 CSB Cocohatchee River Canal Basin ** 90,389 11 CYC Cypress Canal Basin** 10,885 12 D1C Harvey Canal Basin ** 2,478 13 D2C 1-75 Canal Basin** 8,489 14 EBC East Branch Cocohatchee 382 15 EMC Merritt Canal Basin 43,772 16 FKC Faka-Union Canal Basin** 35,581 18 FSB Fakahatchee Strand Basin 146,611 19 GCB Green Canal Basin 5,082 20 GHS Gator Hook Strand Basin 262,969 21 GRE Gordon River Extension Basin** 5,064 22 GTB Gateway Triangle Basin 273 23 HCB Haldeman Creek Basin 1,830 24 HBM-N Henderson Creek - Belle Meade Basin North** 31,134 25 HBM-S Henderson Creek - Belle Meade Basin South** 24,395 26 IDO Imperial Drainage Outlet Basin** 2,528 27 ILB Imperial West Landmark FPL Basin 275 28 L28 L-28 Tieback Basin 118,960 29 LCB Lely Canal Basin ** 5,853 30 LMB Lely Manor Canal Basin** 5,306 31 MCB Miscellaneous Coastal Basins 189,172 32 MGG Main Golden Gate Canal Basin** 29,376 33 MJC Miller Canal Basin 16,086 34 NPN Naples Park North Basin 429 35 NPS Naples Park South Basin 352 36 NPW Naples Park West Basin 279 37 OSB Okaloacoochee Slough Basin 146,766 38 OTC Orange Tree Canal Basin 2,029 39 PLM Palm River Canal Basin** 982 40 PRC Pine Ridge Canal Basin** 2,659 41 PSB Palm Street Basin 65 42 QWP Quail West Phase II 319 43 RCB Rock Creek Basin 1,884 44 SPO Seminole Park Outlet Basin 10,752 45 TRB Turner River Canal Basin 316,480 46 TTC Tamiami Trail Canal Basin 4,611 47 UIB-E Urban Immokalee Basin East** 1,691 48 UIB-W Urban Immokalee Basin West** 2,459 49 WBB Wiggins Bay Outlet Basin ** 2,308 50 WBC West Branch Cocohatchee River Basin 249 51 WPO Winter Park Outlet Basin 173 ** Basins with restricted discharge rates 9.A.2 LO ti m 55 of 148 Packet Pg. 145 COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT -POTABLE WATER SYSTEM CONTENTS • POTABLE WATER SYSTEM 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARI INTRODUCTION • LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOSS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE AREA (TABLE, NOTES • COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT - CURRENT AND FUTURE POTABLE WATER SERVICE AREAS (MAP) • COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT - WATER SERVICE JURISDICTION (MAP) • FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHEAST COLLIER COUNTY (MAP) • COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT - SYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT ("CHECKBOOK") • EXHIBIT `A' - SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS • APPPENDIX "H" - FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPI OF PUBLIC FACILITY Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 146 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARY POTABLE WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES Facility Type: Collier County Water -Sewer District — Potable Water System Facilities Level of Service Standard: Capacity: Total Permitted Treatment Capacity, FY 19 Total Operational Treatment Capacity, FY 19 Required Treatment Capacity, FY 19 Total Permitted Treatment Capacity, FY 28 Total Operational Treatment Capacity, FY 28 Required Treatment Capacity, FY 28 Expenditures FY19-FY23 121 Debt Service Expansion Related Projects - Other Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other Departmental Capital Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects Existing Revenue Sources FY19-FY23 Water System Development Fees / Impact Fees Bonds State Revolving Fund Loans Water Capital Account Rate Revenue Surplus or (Deficit) for Five Year Program 150 gallons per capita day (gpcd) (1) TOTAL 52.75 MGD 48.75 MGD 39.63 MGD 57.75 MGD 53.75 MGD 48.87 MGD $65,182,500 $10,050,000 $116,770,000 $5,908,000 $11,670,000 $209,580,500 9.A.2 $32,500,000 E $0 Q $0 00 $5,908,000 T N $171,172,500 TOTAL $209,580,500 ti m $0 W Recommended Action: That the BCC find the Collier County Water -Sewer District Potable Water System in compliance with concurrency requirements found in FS Section 163, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code; and that it approve the proposed 2018 CCWSD Potable Water System Facilities AUIR and adopt the CIE update for FY 2018/19 - FY 2022/23. Conclusion: To ensure adequate treatment capacity for growth within the jurisdictional boundary of the Collier County Water - Sewer District, expansion related projects should commence in FY 2020 based on the Level of Service Standard, population projections and capacity as shown in the AUIR. (1) Per the 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan (reference 2015 AUIR, Appendix III). (2) CIE consistent with Board approved: FY19 budget (3) As per Florida Statutes Section 129.01(c), contingency reserves are up to 10% of expenses 59 of 148 Packet Pg. 147 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES INTRODUCTION The Public Utilities Department's proposed 2018 Potable Water System Treatment Facilities AUIR is based on permanent population estimates and projections for the potable water service area prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section on June 15, 2018. Populations are based on using the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Medium Range growth rate through 2028. The BEBR population numbers are supplemented by estimates per the implementation plan for the Golden Gate City service area, as reported in the "Technical Feasibility Study for Acquisition of FGUA Water and Wastewater Assets in Golden Gate" prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc., and by preliminary model results provided by Metro Forecasting Models, LLC from the Collier Interactive Growth Model for the planned developments in the expanded Northeast Service Area (i.e. Rural Lands Q West, Winchester Lakes, and Hogan Island Village). 1r 0 a m Notes 0 A. Concurrency is shown for 10 years for the current service area. This conforms with the State mandated CIE, m concurrency regulations, and other Collier County Departments' AUIR submittals. c B. The Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility 06 y systems from the Florida Governmental Utility Authority on March 1, 2018. a C. On September 11, 2018, as Agenda Item 17.F, the Board adopted a resolution expanding the CCWSD's service area to coincide with the unincorporated area permitted by Chapter 2003-353, Laws of Florida. This "jurisdictional boundary" is depicted on the subsequent map entitled, "Collier County Water -Sewer District Water Service Jurisdiction," and encompasses the planned developments known as "Rural Lands West," "Winchester Lakes," and "Hogan Island Q Village," as depicted on the subsequent map entitled, "Future Development in Northeast Collier County." < c N D. To serve the current potable water service area, shown in blue in the "Current and Future Water Service Areas" map, Lo and to support forecasted growth in the northeast region of the county, 5 MGD of new treatment capacity will be needed by FY 2028. This will be achieved through phased construction of a new regional water treatment plant at the Northeast `r Utility Facilities (NEUF) site. Q The NEUF are sited on 147 acres of County owned land at the east end of 39th Ave NE. 100% design documents were 00 completed in 2010. The NEUF program has been reactivated, starting with updating the design criteria (FY 2018) and N modifying the design plans to conform with current technologies (FY 2018-2019). To facilitate reactivation, site work is = planned to begin in FY 2019. 0 Project reactivation is in anticipation of the quantity of large developments going through different stages of the Growth a Management Department review process. The need for readiness is also supported by the "Collier County Water - Sewer District System Utilization and Diminishing Capacity Report" (the "Checkbook") which compares available treatment capacity to the quantity of Board -approved planned unit developments (PUDs). Currently, the Checkbook E reports that if all active Board -approved PUDs within the current service area were to be constructed, there would be a 1 % surplus in potable water treatment capacity in the regional system. r Q E. The Public Utilities Department has solicited new master plans for water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water under RPS 18-7370, with an anticipated completion in FY 2020. The 2018 Potable Water System AUIR is presented as a snapshot of concurrency conditions. The CCWSD is in compliance with concurrency requirements for FY 2019 and FY 2020, as required by FS Section 163, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Code. Recommendation The Public Utilities Department's staff recommends that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve the 2018 CCWSD Potable Water System Treatment Facilities AUIR. 60 of 148 Packet Pg. 148 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 2 3 Fiscal Year Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1 Required Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD MGD New Treatment Capacity MGD Total Permitted Treatment Capacity MGD Total Operational Treatment Capacity MGD Retained Operational Treatment Capacity MGD Percent of Total Permitted Capacity (Max. Day) MGD 2014 162,646 31.7 52.00 48.00 16.3 63% 2015 166,567 32.5 52.00 48.00 15.5 65% 2016 171,461 33.4 52.00 48.00 14.6 67% 2017 175,849 34.3 52.00 48.00 13.7 68% 2018 186,362 36.3 52.75 48.75 12.4 72% 2019 203,245 39.6 52.75 48.75 9.1 78% 2020 208,761 40.7 52.75 48.75 8.0 80% 2021 213,913 41.7 52.75 48.75 7.0 82% 2022 219,170 42.7 52.75 48.75 6.0 84% 2023 221,769 43.2 52.75 48.75 5.5 85% 2024 229,840 44.8 52.75 48.75 3.9 88% 2025 235,257 45.9 52.75 48.75 2.9 90% 2026 240,401 46.9 52.75 48.75 1.9 92% 2027 245,484 47.9 52.75 48.75 0.9 94% 2028 250,622 48.9 5.00 57.75 53.75 4.9 88% 61 of 148 Packet Pg. 149 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 Notes (References are to the column numbers on previous page) 1. Fiscal Year starts October 1 and ends September 30. 2. Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1. Estimates and projections for the served area were prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section on June 15, 2018. Populations are based on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Medium Range growth rate applied through 2028. Permanent population is used in accordance with the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan. The population projections include the NE Utility WTP (formerly Orange Tree Utilities - OTU) service area beginning in FY 2018 and the Golden Gate City service area (approximately 4 square miles) beginning in FY 2019 based on acquisition dates during FY 2017 and FY 2018 respectively. The CCWSD presently supplies potable water to a population of approximately 12,404 in Golden Gate City. Based on the implementation plan outlined in the Board adopted "Technical Feasibility Study for Acquisition of FGUA Water and Wastewater Assets in Golden Gate," Phase 2 will increase the population served to 21,285 within 10 years. 3. Required Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD is obtained by multiplying the Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1 by 150 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and by a maximum 3 -day average daily demand (TDADD) peaking factor of 1.3 and is expressed in million gallons per day (MGD). 150 gpcd is the established Level of Service (LOS) Standard for the Potable Water Service Area, as adopted in the 2015 CCWSD Potable Water System AUIR, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 10, 2015, based on the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan, which utilizes a max. TDADD basis for capacity analysis. Required Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD is plotted in the chart on the next page. 4. New Treatment Capacity is the additional treatment capacity in million gallons per day (MGD) placed into service by the start of the fiscal year through plant construction/expansion. Timing and capacity are tentative and may be adjusted with updates in development forecasts and adoption of developer agreements: Fiscal Year New Treatment Capacity Comments and Cost Estimates Design and permitting updates for additional potable water treatment capacity at the NEUF started in FY 2018 and will be online in FY 2028, as follows: a. Update design criteria, completed FY 2018. 2028 5 MGD b. Update construction drawings and bid package, $500,000 - $1,000,000, FY 2018-19. c. Construct site work, $4,000,000, FY 2019. d. Construct NERWTP potable water facilities, $71,000,000, FY 2025-28. e. Construction Engineering & Inspection, $7,500,000 estimate, FY 2025-28. R s 1r 0 a m 0 c m c Ca a� r 0 a c c Q 00 0 N r LO ti m Q 00 0 N 4- 0 0 c� a r c m E t R r r Q 62 of 148 Packet Pg. 150 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 5. Total Permitted Treatment Capacity is the total permitted finished water treatment capacity at the beginning of the fiscal year in million gallons per day (MGD), including New Treatment Capacity. Capacity in FY 2018 increased by 0.75 MGD (as currently sited) because Orange Tree Utilities (OTU) was integrated into the CCWSD on March 1, 2017, during FY 2017. Acquisition of the Golden Gate City Utility from the Florida Governmental Utility Authority occurred on March 1, 2018. Existing Q Golden Gate City Utility potable water facilities include a 2.1 MGD water treatment plant; however, no additional capacity is - stated because this area is now served by the nearby CCWSD regional potable water system. Unused Golden Gate City Utility assets are being repurposed and/or decommissioned, depending on condition. Twin Eagles potable water services transitioned from the NE Utility WTP (former OTU) to the CCWSD Regional potable water system on December 18, 2017. All customers within the Orange Tree PUD and the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD as well as or-) the Corkscrew Elementary/Middle and the Palmetto Ridge High public school campuses were diverted through reliability c interconnects over the course of FY 2018. Ca a� r 6. Total Operational Treatment Capacity is the Total Permitted Treatment Capacity less 4 MGD, the treatment capacity of a lime softening reactor/clarifier, which could be out of service during a period of peak demand, as plotted in the chart on the next page. c c In accordance with the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP 00 Plan, Total Operational Treatment Capacity must be sufficient for the max. TDADD. c N 7. Retained Operational Treatment Capacity is the Total Operational Treatment Capacity minus the Required Treatment Capacity LO at Max. TDADD. m 8. Percent of Total Permitted Capacity Da the total maximum -da p y (Max.( y) ' is y quantity of finished water produced by all treatment � plants connected to the water system as a percentage of Total Permitted Treatment Capacity. Per FAC 62-555.348, Q source/treatment/storage capacity analysis reporting to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is triggered once °r° maximum -day demand exceeds 75% of Total Permitted Treatment Capacity, as plotted in the chart on the next page. N 4- 0 c� a r Q 63 of 148 Packet Pg. 151 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR POTABLE WATER SERVICE AREA LOS: 150 GPCD 9/12/2018 ti°�^ FISCAL YEAR ---$--Total Operational Treatment Capacity Required Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD — — 75% of Total Permitted Treatment Capacity per FAC 62-555.348 o0 ti Packet Pg. 152 60 50 40 - 0 a co � 30 20 10 0 ^° ti°�^ FISCAL YEAR ---$--Total Operational Treatment Capacity Required Treatment Capacity at Max. TDADD — — 75% of Total Permitted Treatment Capacity per FAC 62-555.348 o0 ti Packet Pg. 152 9.A.2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Current and Future Potable Water Service Areas (2018 AUIR) z, p �+ 4' Legend 0 r = Po1aLNe Water Service Area �� � � � � 771 Un -served Area a� -P— / e a 0 1.5 3 6 �+ ---- �o f SM Wappp ig: 9sen Yang, AICP Figure PWA 65 of 148 Packet Pg. 153 EI MUNI I A SEEM NOR NIWIII INN Igo ROME Molls MEN No SENSE z, p �+ 4' Legend 0 r = Po1aLNe Water Service Area �� � � � � 771 Un -served Area a� -P— / e a 0 1.5 3 6 �+ ---- �o f SM Wappp ig: 9sen Yang, AICP Figure PWA 65 of 148 Packet Pg. 153 COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT WATER SERVICE JURISDICTION Immakalee Water & Sewer District w � oc o I T+ S4 "' Oil Well; RD 4 I Immvkalee RD I I AVe Maria Z I I _j Vanderbilt Beaci•, RD 1 I r � E z Golden Gate BLVD 4V Big Cypress t C',I �a A ~ ry Green BLVQ I x Jurisdictional Boundar [olio Ra I75 BLVD _ City of Maples Existing Water Service Jurisdiction Excluded from District per Special Act c; TJ Stewardship District (Interlocal agreement in progress) Q Franchise Certlfirate dArea and Stewardship District Community Development District d i 1. Not all aleas vmthin CCWSO will be served. 2. 5ervire areas shown are app nDxim ate_ ( 3. The }udsdictional houndary includes all developable land within the mu" that is contiguous with the existing CCVJSD. City of Marco Island Port Of The Islands 10 Community Improvement District a. D Everglades City r 5 10 .. Mlles Chpkaloskee Municipaa January 2018 Service Taxing Unit {Everglades City} F, 9.A.2 66 of 148 Packet Pg. 154 9.A.2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT wMain'ST IN NORTHEAST COLLIER COUNTY Hogan Island Village gig Cypress N Y N r r Iminokalee RD ` - t I Immokalee Water & Sewer District SR 846 Land Trust r Ave Maria I r I 1 l Orange Blossom Ranch Winchester Lakes N Jf � N 1 Oil Well RD l �n I Rural Lands West 1t l � r i Q Jurisdictional Boundary Valencia Golf I i Ell Stewardship District (Interlocal agreement in progress) and Country Club ' l ®Excluded from CCWSD per Special Act Z r I Franchise Certificated Area and Stewardship District '. j I I x Active Development 190 1 2 4 ti Planned Development ° Miles' 3 � Existing CCWSD Boundary February 2018 Packet Pg. 155 COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT SYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT ("CHECKBOOK") REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS DATA: Current as of August 15, 2018 CURRENT AVAILABLE CAPACITY (BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA) 1 a. Existing Permitted Plant Capacity (MADD for water, MADF for Wastewater) lb. Existing Operational Plant Capacity (per 2017 AUIR) 2a. Historical Maximum 3 -Day Average Daily Demand/Flow (TDADD/TDADF) [2] 2b. Historical Maximum Month Average Daily Demand/Flow (MADD/MADF) [3] 3a. Diverted Flow (TDADF) [4] 3b. Diverted Flow (MADF) [4] co 0 co co 4a. Current Available Diminishing Capacity Based on Max. 3 -Day (Line lb - Line 2a - Line 3a) 4b. Current Available Diminishing Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line lb - Line 2b - Line 3b) 5a. 5b. CURRENT AVAILABILITY WITHOUT FUTURE COMMITMENTS SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3 -DAY (Line 4a / Line 1b) SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 4b / Line 1b) PROJECTED AVAILABLE CAPACITY (WITH FUTURE COMMITMENTS) 6. Total BCC -approved Active PUD commitments (unbuilt per GMD PUD Master List) [5] 7a. Projected Available Capacity Based on Max. 3 -Day (Line 4a - Line 6) 7b. Projected Available Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line 4b - Line 6) EM 0 CURRENT AVAILABILITY WITH FUTURE COMMITMENTS SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3 -DAY (Line 7a / Line 1b) SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 7b / Line 1b) 1 of 2 d Million Gallons per Day (MGD) — WATER WASTEWATER "' REGIONAL NORTH SOUTH 52.000 24.100 16.000 48.000 24.100 16.000 33.963 16.734 17.313 31.877 11.962 9.944 n/a 0.092 n/a n/a 0.060 n/a 14.037 7.274 (1.313) 16.123 12.078 6.056 t r L 0 a m 0 _ a� c a� 0 a D M 0 _ _ a co 0 29% 30% -8% N 34% 50% 38%LO o_ Million Gallons per Day (MGD) a WATER WASTEWATER "' REGIONAL NORTH SOUTH 13.094 3.710 5.649 0.943 3.029 3.565 1 8.368 (6.962) 1 0.407 00 0 N w 0 1= a d E 2% 15% -44%_ 6% 35% 3% a Packet Pg. 156 COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT SYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT ("CHECKBOOK") REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS DATA: Current as of August 15, 2018 FUTURE AVAILABLE CAPACITY (WITH EXPANSIONS AND DIVERSIONS) 9a. Expansions Within Next 12 Months (MADD for Water, MADF for Wastewater) 9b. Expansions Within Next 12-24 Months (MADD for Water, MADF for Wastewater) I Oa. Excess Flow Diverted to (from) WWTP for Max. 3 -Day [6] [7] l Ob. Excess Flow Diverted to (from) WWTP for Max. Month [6] [71 11 a. Future Available Capacity Based on Max. 3 -Day (Line 7a + Line 9a + Line 9b - Line 10a) 11 b. Future Available Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line 7b + Line 9a + Line 9b - Line 10b) 12a. 12b. FUTURE AVAILABILITY WITH EXPANSIONS AND DIVERSIONS SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3 -DAY (Line Ila / Line lb) SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 11b / Line 1b) d Million Gallons per Day (MGD) — WATER WASTEWATER "' REGIONAL NORTH SOUTH 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 n/a n/a 3.111 0.154 (2.700) 0.000 0.943 3.029 0.453 8.214 (4.262) 0.407 t r L 0 a m 0 c a� c a� r �o a 76 0 c 2% 2% -27% 0 6% 34% 3% o FOOTNOTES/QUALIFIERS: T.- [ 1 ] Wastewater North and South shown separately because of the finite capacity of the interconnect. `D [2] Line 2a: Mo -Yr of Max. 3 -Day Since January 2003 => Apr -07 Aug -17 Sep -03 [3] Line 2b: Mo -Yr of Max. Month Since January 2003 => Apr -06 I Aug -17 Jan -16 a 00 [4] The sub -regional Northeast Utility Facilities (former OTU) previously served all customers in the Orange Tree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs o N as well as the Twin Eagles subdivision, but all former OTU customers have been transferred to the regional potable water system as of August = 13, 2018, and flow from Twin Eagles will be diverted to the NCWRF wastewater collection/transmission system by April 2019. Since the ° historical max. wastewater flows occurred prior to any services being transferred, values are reduced by eleven percent (11%) based on billing a. data from September 2017, the month in which the maximums occurred. [5] Capacity requested by outstanding active BCC -approved PUD units, as documented in the most current GMD PUD Master List. Built -out, closed- C out, inactive, and discontinued PUD's are not included in line 5; only active PUD's are included. The outstanding PUD units are assumed to be developed before PUD closeout. Level of service for future commitments is defined by the latest master plan. [6] Peak flows and effluent will be diverted to the NCWRF by the 0.75 MGD OT pump station and Oil Well Road force main; Heritage Bay master a pump station; and new and existing force mains along Oil Well Rd, Immokalee Rd, Logan Blvd, Vanderbilt Beach Rd, and Goodlette-Frank Rd. [7] Per the 2014 master plan, a maximum of 2.7 MGD can be diverted from the south service area to the NCWRF upon completion of the East and West Interconnects and associated pump station improvements. Packet Pg. 157 2 of 2 0 0 00 00 EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 9.A.2 PUD POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL WIF - Water System Development Fees / Impact Fees CONSTRUCTION $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT CIE # PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL Debt Service $10,242,000 $13,015,000 $14,951,000 $14,389,500 $12,585,000 $65,182,500 Expansion Related Projects - Other $50,000 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $10,050,000 Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other 1 1 $14,670,0001 $35,285,0001 $21,325,0001 $23,510,000 $21,980,000 $116,770,000 Departmental Capital 1 $1,135,0001 $1,158,0001 $1,181,0001 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000 Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Pro'ects 1 $1,459,0001 $3,529,0001 $2,133,0001 $2,351,000 $2,198,000 $11,670,000 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS 1 $27,556,0001 $52,987,0001 $44,590,0001 $41,455,5001 $42,992,000 $209,580,500 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL WIF - Water System Development Fees / Impact Fees $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $32,500,000 B1 - Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WCA - Water Capital Account $1,135,000 $1,158,000 $1,181,000 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000 REV - Rate Revenue $19,921,000 $45,329,000 $36,909,000 $33,750,500 $35,263,000 $171,172,500 REVENUE TOTAL $27,556,0001 $52,987,0001 $44,590,0001 $41,455,5001 $42,992,0001 $209,580,500 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. CIE consistent with Board approved: FY19 budget. DATA SOURCES: • Expansion Related and Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects: FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget. • Department Capital: FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget, split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. FY 2020 to FY 2028 is a 2% increase over each fiscal year from - FY 2020 through FY 2028 - (pursuant to CPI adjustments per Board policy). • Debt Service: FY 2019 - FY 2023 are obtained from the Collier County Water and Sewer District Financial Statements and Other Reports, Summary of Debt Service requirements to maturity. Debt Service for anticipated 2020 bonds is estimated. Total Debt Service amount is split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. • Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement and Rehabilitation Projects: As per Florida Statues, reserve for contingencies are up to 10% of expenses. 9/12/20188:18 AM O Q d O C d C 06 O r f0 >Z 76 3 C C Q 00 O N r LO ti cD Packet Pg. 158 v 0 W APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 9.A.2 PUD POTABLE WATER PROJECTS FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL WIF - Water System Development Fees CONSTRUCTION $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT CIE # PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL Debt Service $14,725,000 $17,510,000 $16,727,000 $15,900,500 $15,689,500 $80,552,000 Expansion Related Projects - Generally $82,500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $92,500,000 Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Generally $22,375,0001 $17,755,000 $17,815,0001 $23,495,0001 $23,495,0001 $104,935,000 Departmental Capital $1,254,0001 $1,279,0001 $1,305,0001 $1,331,0001 $1,358,0001 $6,527,000 Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects $2,238,0001 $1,776,0001 $1,782,0001 $2,350,0001 $2,350,0001 $10,496,000 POTABLE WATER PROJECT TOTALS $123,092,0001 $43,320,0001 $37,629,0001 $48,076,5001 $42,892,5001 $295,010,000 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL WIF - Water System Development Fees $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $32,500,000 61 - Bonds $82,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,500,000 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WCA - Water Capital Account $1,254,000 $1,279,000 $1,305,000 $1,331,000 $1,358,000 $6,527,000 REV - Rate Revenue $32,838,000 $35,541,000 $29,824,000 $40,245,500 $35,034,500 $173,483,000 REVENUE TOTAL $123,092,0001 $43,320,0001 $37,629,0001 $48,076,5001 $42,892,500 $295,010,000 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. 9/12/20188:18 AM O Q d O C d C 06 O r f0 Q 7 C C Q ao O N r LO ti cD Packet Pg. 159 COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT -WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS CONTENTS • 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARY - WASTEWATER TREATME: SYSTEM FACILITIES • INTRODUCTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (SCWR SERVICE AREA (TABLE, NOTES & CHART) • LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWI SERVICE AREA (TABLE, NOTES & CHART COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT - CURRENT A FUTURE WASTEWATER SERVICE AREAS MAP • COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT - WASTEWAT SERVICE JURISDICTION (MAP) • FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHEAST COLLIER COUNT (MAP) • COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT - SYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT ("CHECKBOOK") • EXHIBIT "A" - SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS • APPENDIZ "H" - FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE PUBLIC FACILITY 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 160 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM FACILITIES Facility Type: Collier County Water -Sewer District — Wastewater Treatment System Level of Service Standard: Capacity: South Service Area (SCWRF) Permitted/Operational Treatment Capacity, FY 19 Required Treatment Capacity, FY 19 Permitted/Operational Treatment Capacity, FY 28 Required Treatment Capacity, FY 28 Capacity: North Service Area (NCWRF) & Northeast Service Area (NEWRF) Permitted/Operational Treatment Capacity, FY 19 Required Treatment Capacity, FY 19 Permitted/Operational Treatment Capacity, FY 28 Required Treatment Capacity, FY 28 Expenditures FY19-FY23 (2) Debt Service Expansion Related Projects - Other Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other Departmental Capital Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects Existing Revenue Sources FY19-FY23 Wastewater System Development Fees / Impact Fees Bonds State Revolving Fund Loans Wastewater Capital Account - Transfers Rate Revenue Surplus or (Deficit) for Five Year Program Recommended Action: 9.A.2 100 gallons per capita day (gpcd) (1) TOTAL 16.00 MGD 14.58 MGD 16.00 MGD 16.00 MGD 26.10 MGD 19.32 MGD 30.48 MGD 23.88 MGD $65,182,500 $116,000,000 $186,760,000 $5,908,000 $17,340,000 $391,190,500 $29,000,000 T., $116,000,000 $0 $5,908,000 $240,282,500 Q TOTAL $391,190,500 c N $0 That the BCC find the Collier County Water -Sewer District Wastewater Treatment System in compliance with concurrency requirements found in FS Section 163, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code; and that it approve the proposed 2018 CCWSD Wastewater Treatment Facilities AUIR and adopt the CIE Update for FY2018/19 - FY 2022/23. Conclusion: To ensure adequate treatment capacity for growth within the jurisdictional boundary of the Collier County Water - Sewer District, expansion related projects should commence in FY 2020 based on the Level of Service Standard, population projections and capacity as shown in the AUIR. (1) Per the 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan (reference 2015 AUIR, Appendix III). (2) CIE consistent with Board approved: FY19 budget (3) As per Florida Statutes Section 129.01(c), contingency reserves are up to 10% of expenses 75 of 148 Packet Pg. 161 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES INTRODUCTION The Public Utilities Department's (PUD's) proposed 2018 CCWSD Wastewater System Treatment Facilities AUIR is based on permanent population estimates and projections for the CCWSD's wastewater service areas prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section on June 15, 2018. Populations are based on using the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Medium Range growth rate through 2028. The BEBR population numbers are supplemented by estimates per the implementation plan for the Golden Gate City service area, as reported in the "Technical Feasibility Study for Acquisition of FGUA Water and Wastewater Assets in Golden Gate" prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc., and by preliminary model results provided by Metro Forecasting Models, LLC from the Collier Interactive Growth Model for the planned developments in the expanded Northeast Service Area (i.e. Rural Lands West, Winchester Lakes, and Hogan Island Village). Notes A. Concurrency is shown for 10 years for the current service area. This conforms with the State mandated CIE, concurrency regulations, and other Collier County Departments' AUIR submittals. B. The Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) acquired the Golden Gate City potable water and wastewater utility systems from the Florida Governmental Utility Authority on March 1, 2018. C. On September 11, 2018, as Agenda Item 17.F, the Board adopted a resolution expanding the CCWSD's service area to coincide with the unincorporated area permitted by Chapter 2003-353, Laws of Florida. This "jurisdictional boundary" is depicted on the subsequent map entitled, "Collier County Water -Sewer District Water Service Jurisdiction," and encompasses the planned developments known as "Rural Lands West," "Winchester Lakes," and "Hogan Island Village," as depicted on the subsequent map entitled, "Future Development in Northeast Collier County." The population, demand, and treatment capacity projections for these future developments are included in this report. D. To serve the Orange Tree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs, 0.375 MGD of new treatment capacity will be needed by FY 2020. This will be achieved through Class I process reliability expansion of the Northeast Sub -Regional (former Orange Tree) Wastewater Treatment Plant. (The Orange Tree PUD includes Waterways of Naples, Orange Tree, Valencia Lakes, Neighborhood Shoppes at Orange Tree, and Valencia Golf & Country Club as well as the Corkscrew Elementary/Middle and Palmetto Ridge High campuses.) E. The new regional water reclamation facility at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site will support forecasted growth in the northeast region of the county. The population, flow, and treatment capacity projections for these future developments are included in this AUIR cycle in anticipation of expanding the CCWSD service area. The NEUF is sited on 147 acres of County owned land at the east end of 39th Ave NE. 100% design documents were completed in 2010. The NEUF program has been reactivated, starting with updating the design criteria (FY 2018) and modifying the design plans to conform with current technologies (FY 2018-2019). To facilitate reactivation, site work is planned to begin in FY 2019 for a 1.5 MGD interim WWTP and deep injection well, which will be followed by a 4 MGD initial phase of the Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (NEWRF) to be online by FY 2024. Project reactivation is in anticipation of the quantity of large developments going through different stages of the Growth Management Department review process. The need for readiness is also supported by the "Collier County Water - Sewer District System Utilization and Diminishing Capacity Report" (the "Checkbook") which compares available treatment capacity to the quantity of Board -approved planned unit developments (PUDs). Currently, the Checkbook reports that if all active Board -approved PUDs were to be constructed, there would be 15% remaining capacity at the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) while the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF) would have a 44% deficit. F. The Public Utilities Department has negotiated with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. to prepare new, individual master plans for water, wastewater, and irrigation quality water under RPS 18-7370, with an anticipated completion in FY 2020. R s 1r 0 a m 0 r c m E 06 a� r 0 a c c Q 00 0 N r LO ti m Q 00 0 N 4- 0 c� a r c m E t R r r Q 76 of 148 Packet Pg. 162 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES INTRODUCTION The 2018 Wastewater System AUIR is presented as a snapshot of concurrency conditions. The CCWSD is in compliance with concurrency requirements for FY 2019 and FY 2020, as required by FS Section 163, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan, and the Land Development Code. Recommendation The Public Utilities Department's staff recommends that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve the 2018 CCWSD Wastewater System Treatment Facilities AUIR. R s r- 0 a m 0 r c m c Ca a� r 0 a c c Q 00 T- Q 0 N r LO ti tD 77 of 148 Packet Pg. 163 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (SCWRF) SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 4 5 6 7 8 Fiscal Year Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1 Max. 3 -Day Average Daily Flow (TDADF) MGD New Treatment Capacity MGD Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity MGD Retained Operational Treatment Capacity MGD Max. TDADF Diverted to NCWRF MGD Required Treatment Capacity at SCWRF MGD Percent of Permitted Capacity at Max. MADF MGD 2014 86,781 13.0 16.00 3.0 13.0 65% 2015 88,940 13.3 16.00 2.7 13.3 67% 2016 91,535 13.7 16.00 2.3 13.7 69% 2017 93,376 14.0 16.00 2.0 14.0 70% 2018 95,212 14.3 16.00 1.7 14.3 71% 2019 97,227 14.6 16.00 1.4 14.6 73% 2020 99,285 14.9 16.00 1.1 14.9 74% 2021 101,201 15.2 16.00 0.8 15.2 76% 2022 102,968 15.4 16.00 0.6 15.4 77% 2023 104,768 15.7 16.00 0.3 15.7 79% 2024 106,602 16.0 16.00 0.0 16.0 80% 2025 108,468 16.3 16.00 0.3 16.0 81% 2026 110,184 16.5 16.00 0.5 16.0 83% 2027 111,743 16.8 16.00 0.8 16.0 84% 2028 113,326 17.0 16.00 1.0 16.0 85% uO I- W 78 of 148 Packet Pg. 164 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (SCWRF) SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 Notes (References are to the column numbers on the previous page.) 1. Fiscal Year starts October 1 and ends September 30. 2. Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1. Estimates and projections for the served area were prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section on June 15, 2018. Populations are based on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Medium Range growth rate applied through 2028. Permanent population is used in accordance with the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan. Max. 3 -Day Average Daily Flow (TDADF) is obtained by multiplying the Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1 by 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and by a maximum 3 -day daily flow (TDADF) peaking factor of 1.5 and is expressed in million gallons per day (MGD). 100 gpcd is the established Level of Service (LOS) Standard for the South Service Area, as adopted in the 2015 CCWSD Wastewater Treatment Systems AUIR, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 10, 2015, based on the 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan, which utilizes a max. TDADF basis for capacity analysis. 4. New Treatment Capacity is the additional treatment capacity in million gallons per day (MGD) placed into service by the start of the fiscal year through plant construction/expansion, as follows: Fiscal New Treatment Comments Year Capacity NA 0 The SCWRF site is built -out. 5. Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity is the permitted treatment capacity at the beginning of the fiscal year with no deduction for the largest unit being out of service given that the SCWRF is designed for Class I reliability. Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity is plotted in the chart on the next page. In accordance with the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan, Total Operational Treatment Capacity must be sufficient for the max. TDADF. 6. Retained Operational Treatment Capacity is the Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity minus the Max. 3 -Day Average Daily Flow (TDADF). Any deficit in operational treatment capacity is countered by diverting flow to the NCWRF. 7. Max. TDADF Diverted to NCWRF is the max. TDADF that must be diverted to the NCWRF to avoid exceeding the permitted capacity of the SCWRF. 8• Required Treatment Capacity at SCWRF is equal to the Max. 3 -Day Average Daily Flow (TDADF) less the Max. TDADF Diverted to NCWRF and is plotted in the chart on the next page. 9. Percent of Permitted Capacity at Max. MADF is the maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow (MADF) as a percentage of Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity. Per FAC 62-600.405, capacity analysis reporting to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is triggered once MADF exceeds 50% of permitted capacity, as plotted in the chart on the next page. R s 1r 0 a m 0 r c m c od a� r 0 a c c Q 00 0 N r LO ti m 79 of 148 Packet Pg. 165 9.A.2 0 CL m 0 c m r- 06 06 a� r �o a 0 c c a 0 0 N T. - LO LO ti �D a 0 0 N 0 r IL j.; V ca a Packet Pg. 166 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (SCWRF) SERVICE AREA LOS: 100 gpcd 9/12/2018 35 30 25 20 O 15 10 5 VON�, No VO`CO VO`� Fiscal Year Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity Required Treatment Capacity at SCWRF — — 50% of Permitted Treatment Capacity per FAC 62-600.405 0 CL m 0 c m r- 06 06 a� r �o a 0 c c a 0 0 N T. - LO LO ti �D a 0 0 N 0 r IL j.; V ca a Packet Pg. 166 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH AND NORTHEAST COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 4 5 6 7 Fiscal Year Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1 Max. 3 -Day Average Daily Flow (TDADF) MGD New Treatment Capacity MGD Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity MGD Retained Operational Treatment Capacity MGD Max. TDADF Diverted to NCWRF MGD Required Treatment Capacity at NCWRF MGD Percent of Permitted Capacity at Max. MADF MGD 2014 98,126 14.7 24.10 9.4 14.7 49% 2015 99,935 15.0 24.10 9.1 15.0 50% 2016 102,328 15.3 24.10 8.8 15.3 51% 2017 105,070 15.8 24.10 8.3 15.8 52% 2018 113,863 17.1 24.85 7.8 17.1 55% 2019 128,816 19.3 26.10 6.8 19.3 59% 2020 131,417 19.7 0.375 26.48 6.8 19.7 60% 2021 133,847 20.1 1.5 27.98 7.9 20.1 57% 2022 136,472 20.5 27.98 7.5 20.5 59% 2023 139,134 20.9 27.98 7.1 20.9 60% 2024 141,836 21.3 4 31.98 10.7 21.3 53% 2025 144,578 21.7 -1.5 30.48 8.8 0.3 22.0 57% 2026 147,140 22.1 30.48 8.4 0.5 22.6 58% 2027 149,821 22.5 30.48 8.0 0.8 23.2 59% 2028 152,532 22.9 30.48 7.6 1.0 23.9 60% uO I- W 81 of 148 Packet Pg. 167 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH AND NORTHEAST COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 Notes (References are to the column numbers on the previous page.) 1. Fiscal Year starts October 1 and ends September 30. 2. Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1. Estimates and projections for the served area were prepared by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section on June 15, 2018. Populations are based on the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Medium Range growth rate applied through 2028. Permanent population is used in accordance with the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan. The population projections include the NE Utility WWTP (formerly Orange Tree Utilities - OTU) service area beginning in FY 2018 and the Golden Gate City service area (approximately 4 square miles) beginning in FY 2019 based on acquisition dates during FY 2017 and FY 2018 respectively. The Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA) presently provides wastewater service to a population of approximately 12,404 in Golden Gate City. Based on the implementation plan outlined in the Board adopted "Technical Feasibility Study for Acquisition of FGUA Water and Wastewater Assets in Golden Gate," Phase 3 will increase the population served to 15,000 within 20 years. Max. 3 -Day Average Daily Flow (TDADF) is obtained by multiplying the Permanent Population Served on Oct. 1 by 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and by a max. TDADF peaking factor of 1.5 and is expressed in million gallons per day (MGD). 100 gpcd is the established Level of Service (LOSS) Standard for the North Service Area, as adopted in the 2015 CCWSD Wastewater Treatment Systems AUIR, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 10, 2015, based on the 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan, which utilizes a max. TDADF basis for capacity analysis. 4. New Treatment Capacity is the additional treatment capacity in million gallons per day (MGD) placed into service by the start of the fiscal year through plant construction/expansion. Timing and capacity are tentative and may be adjusted with updates in development forecasts and adoption of developer agreements: Fiscal New Treatment Comments and Cost Estimates Year Capacity $5M expansion to the NE Utility WWTP (formerly OTU) to sustain sewer service to 2019 to 0.375 MGD existing and future customers in the Orange Tree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs 2020 beginning in FY 2020 through FY 2027. 2019 $13-17M interim WWTP and deep injection well at the NEUF site to facilitate to 1.5 MGD development in the northeast region of the county, outside the Orange Tree and Orange 2020 Blossom Ranch PUDs, beginning in FY 2020 through FY 2024. $106M Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (NEWRF) at the Northeast Utility Facilities 2020 site to sustain sewer service to customers in the new developments proposed in the to 4 MGD Northeast Service Area, outside the Orange Tree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs, 2023 beginning in FY 2024 through FY 2029. $10M NEWRF Construction Engineering and Inspection, FY 2024-29. 2024 -1.5 MGD The interim WWTP at the NEUF site will be decommissioned once the 4 MGD NEWRF lis operational. Equipment taken offline will be repurposed or sold. R s r- 0 a m 0 r c m E Ca a� a c c Q 0 T 0 N LO ti m Q 0 0 N 4- 0 c� a r c m E t R r r Q 82 of 148 Packet Pg. 168 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER SYSTEM - TREATMENT FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH AND NORTHEAST COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITIES SERVICE AREA 9/12/2018 5. Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity is the permitted treatment capacity at the beginning of the fiscal year in million gallons per day (MGD) with no deduction for the largest unit being out of service given that the NCWRF is designed for Class I reliability. Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity is plotted in the chart on the next page. In accordance with the Board adopted 2014 Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Quality Water and Bulk Potable Water Master/CIP Plan, Total Operational Treatment Capacity must be sufficient for the max. TDADF. Capacity in FY 2018 increased by 0.75 MGD (as currently sited) because Orange Tree Utilities (OTU) was integrated into the CCWSD during FY 2017. Acquisition of the Golden Gate City Utility from the Florida Governmental Utility Authority occurred on March 1, 2018. Existing Golden Gate City Utility wastewater facilities include a 1.25 MGD wastewater treatment plant that will continue operation. Twin Eagles wastewater services will transition from the NE Utility WWTP (formerly OTU) to the NCWRF, anticipated by April 2019. The corresponding capacity will become available at the NE Utility WWTP to serve the northeast region. 6. Retained Operational Treatment Capacity is the Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity minus the Max. 3 -Day Average Daily Flow (TDADF). 7. Max. TDADF Diverted to NCWRF is the max. TDADF that must be diverted to the NCWRF to avoid exceeding the permitted capacity of the SCWRF. 8• Required Treatment Capacity at NCWRF is equal to the Max. 3 -Day Average Daily Flow (TDADF) plus the Max. TDADF Diverted to NCWRF and is plotted in the chart on the next page. 9. Percent of Permitted Capacity at Max. MADF is the maximum Monthly Average Daily Flow (MADF) as a percentage of Permitted / Operational Treatment Capacity. Per FAC 62-600.405, capacity analysis reporting to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is triggered once MADF exceeds 50% of permitted capacity, as plotted in the chart on the next page. R s r- 0 a m 0 c m c Ca a� a c c Q 00 T- Q 0 N LO ti m 83 of 148 Packet Pg. 169 9.A.2 0 CL m 0 c m r- 06 06 a� r co a 0 c c a 0 0 N T. - LO LO ti cc a 0 0 N 0 r a c (D E U c� a Packet Pg. 170 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) SERVICE AREA LOS: 100 gpcd 9/12/2018 35 30 25 0 20 15 10 5 0 R `Low 0j, h 0 `LOQ `LOQ `Low `Lo^ `LOQ `LO`L `Lo`L `Lo`L `LO`L `LO`L `Lo`L `Lo`L `P Fiscal Year ---$--Permitted /Operational Treatment Capacity Required Treatment Capacity at NCWRF — — 50% of Permitted Treatment Capacity per FAC 62-600.405 0 CL m 0 c m r- 06 06 a� r co a 0 c c a 0 0 N T. - LO LO ti cc a 0 0 N 0 r a c (D E U c� a Packet Pg. 170 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS 9/12/2018 The following four areas will have future constrained wastewater conveyance capacity based on current growth patterns. The plan to address each constraint is discussed below and shown on the following "Current and Future Wastewater Service Areas" map. City Gate PUD/Activity Center #9 Background: The original design of wastewater transmission facilities along Davis Boulevard did not anticipate service to the areas north of I- Q 75. Proposed growth in Activity Center #9 and the surrounding area may require additional conveyance and treatment c capacity. Status: 0' 0 An analysis is underway to evaluate existing operational data, project future wastewater flows, assess the need for transmission system improvements, and recommend potential solutions. c Status: A portion of the 24" force main has been constructed along the north side of the Cocohatchee Canal. A design -build contract E for the remainder of the force main between the MPS 167 and MPS 104, with an anticipated cost of approximately $5M, will be awarded in FY 2019. Future Actions: Complete MPS 167 by the end of FY 2018. Complete the 24" force main in early FY 2020 r Q 85 of 148 Packet Pg. 171 06 Future Actions: Design and construct required improvements by FY 2021, before construction of the proposed sports complex - Phase 1. r a Ensure adequate capacity to Activity Center #9, including Phase 2 of the sports complex. c Immokalee Road & Collier Blvd Q 00 Background: N To make full use of the capacity of the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) for wastewater service to the growing northeast region of Collier County, the 2014 Master Plan/CIP Plan recommended construction of a 24" force main LO from a new master pump station (MPS 167) at Heritage Bay west along Immokalee Road, then south along Logan Boulevard, then east a short distance along Vanderbilt Beach Road to MPS 104. Once completed, these improvements will relieve the - burden on the 12" force main along Immokalee Road, which has become constrained due to extensive development of the corridor. Q 00 MPS 167, located at the south end of Heritage Bay Commons Tract G, will serve as a wastewater booster pump station for the T_ N Heritage Bay PUD and current and future developments along Collier Blvd and east of Collier Blvd along Immokalee Road. _ Initially, MPS 167 will route wastewater to the NCWRF but will ultimately provide the flexibility to route wastewater to the future o NEWRF as well as the NCWRF. c� a Status: A portion of the 24" force main has been constructed along the north side of the Cocohatchee Canal. A design -build contract E for the remainder of the force main between the MPS 167 and MPS 104, with an anticipated cost of approximately $5M, will be awarded in FY 2019. Future Actions: Complete MPS 167 by the end of FY 2018. Complete the 24" force main in early FY 2020 r Q 85 of 148 Packet Pg. 171 Collier County Government Public Utilities Department 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) WASTEWATER COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS 9/12/2018 Western Interconnect 9.A.2 Background: A western interconnect is needed to manage growth in the south service area and to facilitate maintenance of existing force mains. A series of force main extensions and improvements to PS 309.09 are needed to move wastewater flows from the south wastewater service area to the north wastewater service area, where there is available treatment capacity. The force main along Livingston Road is divided into ten phases generally extending from Radio Road to Immokalee Road. :3 Status: o Four phases have been constructed ahead of development activity in these areas. o Future Actions: Start construction of three phases in FY 2019 at an estimated cost of $5M. r m Construct the remaining three phases in FY 2020-2022. c Ca New Master Pump Station 101.12 (Naples Park) (; Background: MPS 101.00 currently serves areas north and south of 111th Avenue N. The new MPS 101.12 allow the area to be divided such that MPS 101.00 will serve north of 111th Avenue N., and MPS 101.12 will serve the area south, which includes Naples Park. A new gravity main and force main connected to MPS 101.12 will allow greater wastewater flows to be conveyed from Q the constrained Naples Park area. 00 T- Q 0 N Status: As part of the Basin 101 Program, the needed infrasructure has been designed. LO m Future Action: W Construct MPS 101.12 in FY 2019, including associated piping, at an estimated cost of $15M. 5 86 of 148 Packet Pg. 172 9.A.2 Collier County Water -Sewer District Current and Future Wastewater Service Areas (2018 AUIR) Immokalee R --T --- ------ & Collier Blvd m ]e U6nslralnt a, ,s ,1 i] �' I � •� j r s a ,t -, 19 si I yl + h [' z M PS. Ar �fl, mn _ 26 101.12 yy 1 g MI's 4 4 Ili .. m to % ,I G „l R I PI eI e, Park FI Constraint _ �� + a� l x.1.3, 1.,,•-- OBMGA "°° NIPS 104 r� fff � RM641PuE q.iy �s r� LVo Ir ,i 2z 28 pA ,6 x u Western - �r Interconnect I ---- Y: 2' (24" FM) - ,,,}, as au n.—BLVD �1� I City Gate RUD1 309.09 - at Activity Center #9 Constraint I I _, •l j I z8 IT n N 2A 2f 11 25 30 South Service x, u as a+ fr Area Constraint I � ti z r r a •.o I ti� 13 211 c.11M1�U� H1) 25 3a Legends 5 'D North Wastewater Service Area _ South Wastewater Service Area I -� ` h t f .. ,,i le 1r In •c Golden Gate Gity Service Area Un-servedAFea -- z3 1• ,9 A �i 2z 2T 0 1.5 3 6 4 Miles G16 baPP.g: E301h reng.MC.P Gr -Ah Ma gernerA ❑e�Amene 15 ffi Y 9 2 1 6 D 9 Figure WT -1 87 of 148 Packet Pg. 173 COLLIER COUNTY WATER -SEWER DISTRICT WASTEWATER SERVICE JURISDICTION Immokalee Water & Sewer District i�� ImmokalcC RD 2 � Vanderbilt Beach RD r C, E Y ro , Green 13L z 1 den Gate BLVD WBig Cypress 1 . 1 I .D 1 1 Ave Maria t a 9.A.2 jJ Irisdictional Boundary 175 City of Maples A. Existing Wastewater Service Jurisdiction Excluded from District per Special Act 0 TJ Stewardship District (Interlocal agreement in progress) [] Franchise Certificated Area and Stewardship District Community Development District d � 1.Natallareaswithin CCWSpwill 6eserved. f� 2. SCrvi[0 in tcat shown ageappraximatc. 3. The jurMletional baundary Includes all developable land wlthlei the county that is contiguous with the existinjg CCWSV_ City of Marco Island Port Of The Islands Community Improvement District Everglades Clty ! 5 10 ! Miles Chakplvskee Municipal January 2018 Service Taxing Unit (Everglades City) 88 of 148 Packet Pg. 174 00 0 00A 9.A.2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT1N M' a' n' ST IN NORTHEAST COLLIER COUNTY Hogan Island Village Big Cypress N �N � � r r � Immokalee 1 Immokalee Water & Sewer District SR 846 Land Trust i �{ ,g I I Ave Maria t 1 1 r Orange Blossom Ranch Winchester Lakes N d' N Oil Well RD %ENO Fill �- I Rural Lands West I QJurisdictional Boundary ] Valencia Golf Stewardship District (Interlocal agreement in progress) j and Country Club I ® Excluded from CCWSD per Special Act 1 z C Franchise Certificated Area and Stewardship District 1 > 1 Active Development J T ID p 1 2 4 tik Planned Development °Miles —" Existing CCWSD Boundary February 2018 1 Packet Pg. 175 COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT SYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT ("CHECKBOOK") REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS DATA: Current as of August 15, 2018 CURRENT AVAILABLE CAPACITY (BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA) 1 a. Existing Permitted Plant Capacity (MADD for water, MADF for Wastewater) lb. Existing Operational Plant Capacity (per 2017 AUIR) 2a. Historical Maximum 3 -Day Average Daily Demand/Flow (TDADD/TDADF) [2] 2b. Historical Maximum Month Average Daily Demand/Flow (MADD/MADF) [3] 3a. Diverted Flow (TDADF) [4] 3b. Diverted Flow (MADF) [4] 0 0 co co 4a. Current Available Diminishing Capacity Based on Max. 3 -Day (Line lb - Line 2a - Line 3a) 4b. Current Available Diminishing Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line lb - Line 2b - Line 3b) 5a. 5b. CURRENT AVAILABILITY WITHOUT FUTURE COMMITMENTS SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3 -DAY (Line 4a / Line 1b) SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 4b / Line 1b) PROJECTED AVAILABLE CAPACITY (WITH FUTURE COMMITMENTS) 6. Total BCC -approved Active PUD commitments (unbuilt per GMD PUD Master List) [5] 7a. Projected Available Capacity Based on Max. 3 -Day (Line 4a - Line 6) 7b. Projected Available Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line 4b - Line 6) EM 0 CURRENT AVAILABILITY WITH FUTURE COMMITMENTS SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3 -DAY (Line 7a / Line 1b) SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 7b / Line 1b) 1 of 2 d Million Gallons per Day (MGD) — WATER WASTEWATER "' REGIONAL NORTH SOUTH 52.000 24.100 16.000 48.000 24.100 16.000 33.963 16.734 17.313 31.877 11.962 9.944 n/a 0.092 n/a n/a 0.060 n/a 14.037 7.274 (1.313) 16.123 12.078 6.056 t r L 0 a m 0 _ a� c a� 0 a D M 0 _ _ a co 0 29% 30% -8% N 34% 50% 38%LO o_ Million Gallons per Day (MGD) a WATER WASTEWATER "' REGIONAL NORTH SOUTH 13.094 3.710 5.649 0.943 3.029 3.565 1 8.368 (6.962) 1 0.407 00 0 N w 0 1= a d E 2% 15% -44%_ 6% 35% 3% a Packet Pg. 176 COLLIER COUNTY WATER - SEWER DISTRICT SYSTEM UTILIZATION AND DIMINISHING CAPACITY REPORT ("CHECKBOOK") REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS DATA: Current as of August 15, 2018 FUTURE AVAILABLE CAPACITY (WITH EXPANSIONS AND DIVERSIONS) 9a. Expansions Within Next 12 Months (MADD for Water, MADF for Wastewater) 9b. Expansions Within Next 12-24 Months (MADD for Water, MADF for Wastewater) I Oa. Excess Flow Diverted to (from) WWTP for Max. 3 -Day [6] [7] l Ob. Excess Flow Diverted to (from) WWTP for Max. Month [6] [71 11 a. Future Available Capacity Based on Max. 3 -Day (Line 7a + Line 9a + Line 9b - Line 10a) 11 b. Future Available Capacity Based on Max. Month (Line 7b + Line 9a + Line 9b - Line 10b) 12a. 12b. FUTURE AVAILABILITY WITH EXPANSIONS AND DIVERSIONS SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. 3 -DAY (Line Ila / Line lb) SYSTEM AVAILABILITY BASED ON MAX. MONTH (Line 11b / Line 1b) d Million Gallons per Day (MGD) — WATER WASTEWATER "' REGIONAL NORTH SOUTH 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 n/a n/a 3.111 0.154 (2.700) 0.000 0.943 3.029 0.453 8.214 (4.262) 0.407 t r L 0 a m 0 c a� c a� r �o a 76 0 c 2% 2% -27% 0 6% 34% 3% o FOOTNOTES/QUALIFIERS: I- [1] [ 1 ] Wastewater North and South shown separately because of the finite capacity of the interconnect. `D [2] Line 2a: Mo -Yr of Max. 3 -Day Since January 2003 => Apr -07 Aug -17 Sep -03 [3] Line 2b: Mo -Yr of Max. Month Since January 2003 => Apr -06 I Aug -17 Jan -16 a 00 [4] The sub -regional Northeast Utility Facilities (former OTU) previously served all customers in the Orange Tree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs o N as well as the Twin Eagles subdivision, but all former OTU customers have been transferred to the regional potable water system as of August = 13, 2018, and flow from Twin Eagles will be diverted to the NCWRF wastewater collection/transmission system by April 2019. Since the ° historical max. wastewater flows occurred prior to any services being transferred, values are reduced by eleven percent (11%) based on billing a. data from September 2017, the month in which the maximums occurred. [5] Capacity requested by outstanding active BCC -approved PUD units, as documented in the most current GMD PUD Master List. Built -out, closed- C out, inactive, and discontinued PUD's are not included in line 5; only active PUD's are included. The outstanding PUD units are assumed to be developed before PUD closeout. Level of service for future commitments is defined by the latest master plan. [6] Peak flows and effluent will be diverted to the NCWRF by the 0.75 MGD OT pump station and Oil Well Road force main; Heritage Bay master a pump station; and new and existing force mains along Oil Well Rd, Immokalee Rd, Logan Blvd, Vanderbilt Beach Rd, and Goodlette-Frank Rd. [7] Per the 2014 master plan, a maximum of 2.7 MGD can be diverted from the south service area to the NCWRF upon completion of the East and West Interconnects and associated pump station improvements. Packet Pg. 177 2 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 9.A.2 PUD WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees / Impact Fees CONSTRUCTION $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT CIE # PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL Debt Service $10,242,000 $13,015,000 $14,951,000 $14,389,500 $12,585,000 $65,182,500 Expansion Related Projects - Other $0 $116,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $116,000,000 Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other $27,965,000 $42,685,000 $37,685,000 $41,475,000 $36,950,000 $186,760,000 Depart ental Capital ,9, ,2 1,78190 , 1,2050000 1,20 $5,908,000 Reservefor Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation $48, 0000 $4148,0 000j $3695, $17,340,000 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS 1 $40,801,0001 $177,127,0001 $57,586,0001 $61,217,5001 $54,459,0001 $391,190,500 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees / Impact Fees $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $29,000,000 131 - Bonds $0 $116,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $116,000,000 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SCA -Wastewater Capital Account - Transfers $1,135,000 $1,158,000 $1,181,000 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000 REV - Rate Revenue $33,866,000 $54,169,000 $50,605,000 $54,212,500 $47,430,000 $240,282,500 REVENUE TOTAL $40,801,0001 $177,127,0001 $57,586,0001 $61,217,5001 $54,459,0001 $391,190,500 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. Revenue sources are estimates only; both the mix of sources and amounts will change when a rate study is conducted. CIE consistent with Board approved: FY18 budget. DATA SOURCES: • Expansion Related and Replacement & Rehabilitation Proiects: FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget. • Department Capital: FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget, split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. FY 2020 to FY 2028 is a 2% increase over each fiscal year from - FY 2020 through FY 2028 - (pursuant to CPI adjustments per Board policy). • Debt Service: FY 2019 - FY 2023 are obtained from the Collier County Water and Sewer District Financial Statements and Other Reports, Summary of Debt Service requirements to maturity. Debt Service for anticipated 2020 bonds is estimated. Total Debt Service amount is split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. • Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement and Rehabilitation Proiects: As per Florida Statutes Section 129.01(c), reserve for contingencies are up to 10% of expenses. 9/12/20188:22 AM Packet Pg. 178 APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024 - 2028 9.A.2 PUD WASTEWATER PROJECTS FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL SIF - Wastewater System Develo ment Fees / Impact Fees CONSTRUCTION $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT CIE # PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL Debt Service $14,725,000 $17,510,000 $16,727,000 $15,900,500 $15,689,500 $80,552,000 Expansion Related Projects - Other $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $15,000,000 Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects - Other $35,695,000 $37,220,000 $33,595,000 $35,205,000 $35,205,000 $176,920,000 Departmental Capital $1,254,0001 $1,279,0001 $1,305,0001 $1,331,0001 $1,358,0001 $6,527,000 Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects $3,570,0001 $3,722,0001 $3,360,0001 $3,521,0001 $3,521,0001 $17,694,000 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS $bb,244,UUU1 $(i4,731,UUU159,987,000 60,957,500 55,773,500 296,693,000 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL SIF - Wastewater System Develo ment Fees / Impact Fees $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $29,000,000 131 - Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SCA -Wastewater Capital Account - Transfers $1,254,000 $1,279,000 $1,305,000 $1,331,000 $1,358,000 $6,527,000 REV - Rate Revenue $48,190,000 $57,652,000 $52,882,000 $53,826,500 $48,615,500 261,166,000 REVENUE TOTAL $55,244,0001 $64,731,0001 $59,987,0001 $60,957,500 $55,773,5001 $296,693,0001 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. s O CL d LL 0 C d C od 4) w+ w4 3 C C Q e0 r O N LO ti cD a 00 0 N O r i t4 a C O E U f4 Q 9/12/20188:22 AM Packet Pg. 179 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES CONTENTS • SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES - SUMMAR_ • INTRODUCTION • TABLE 1 - COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL DISPOSA CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD: TEN I OF PERMITTED LANDFILL CAPACITY AT PREVIO THREE YEARS AVERAGE TONS PER CAPITA DISPI RATE, INC. NOTES • CHART 1 - TEN YEARS OF PERMITTED LANDFILI CAPACITY • TABLE 2 - COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL DISPOSA CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD: TWO OF LINED CELL CAPACITY AT PREVIOUS THREE AVERAGE TONS PER CAPITAL DISPOSAL RATE, Il NOTES CHART 2 - TWO YEARS OF LINED CELL CAPACIT • SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES SCHEDULE; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Faciliti 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 180 9.A.2 2018 AUIR SUMMARY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES Facility Type: Solid Waste Landfill Disposal Facilities Level of Service Standard: 10 years of permitted landfill capacity and 2 years of lined cell capacity at previous 3 years average tons per capita disposal rate Capacity: Total Permitted Landfill Capacity Remaining, 2018 18,710,256 Tons Required Permitted Landfill Capacity, 2018 2,916,440 Tons Total Lined Cell Capacity Remaining, 2018 2,093,744 Tons Required Lined Two -Year Cell Capacity, 2018 519,324 Tons Estimated Life of landfill 51 Years The Collier County Landfill is financed and operated under a design/build/operate Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management Inc. of Florida (WMIF). All capital expenses incurred, including new cell construction, permitting and operation for the landfill, are paid through tipping fees to WMIF. This includes closure and long-term care. Under the LOA: • No debt is carried by Collier County • Design/build/operate provisions ensure proper cell capacity • Landfill cells vary by size and disposal capacity Recommended Action: That the BCC finds the Collier County Landfill Disposal Capacity in compliance with concurrency requirements found in FS Section 163, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code; that it continue its support of the Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategy initiatives to save landfill airspace; and that it approve the 2018 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities AUIR. Note: The Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division reached a milestone in 2017, achieving a 68% recycling rate as reported by FDEP. 97 of 148 Packet Pg. 181 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Division 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL DISPOSAL CAPACITY Introduction: The Public Utilities Division's 2018 AUIR submittals are based on "Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections" dated June 26, 2018, prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section. Populations are derived from data obtained from: 2000 Census and 2010 Census; Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population bulletins; Collier County Comprehensive Planning staff; and, Planning staff from Naples and Marco Island. Peak Season population is derived by increasing each year's October 1 permanent population by 20% (.20). Based upon BEBR Medium Range growth rate projections. The 2018 Solid Waste AUIR projects that the Collier County Landfill will have zero capacity remaining in FY 2069, while the 2017 Solid Waste AUIR projected the Collier County Landfill would have zero capacity remaining in FY 2068. This represents 51 years of projected capacity. 2. The projected Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate for 2018 is 0.59, an increase of 0.02% over the 2017 Solid Waste AUIR of 0.57. 3. Based on all federal, state and local standards siting, permitting and construction of a new landfill is estimated to take at least ten years. A new landfill should be sited by 2049, to allow a for permitting and construction. c N V_ The 2018 Solid Waste AUIR is presented as a snapshot of concurrency conditions. The Collier County ti Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Department is in compliance with concurrency requirements t° for FY 2018 and FY 2019, as required by FS Section 163, the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. Recommendations: The Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division reached a milestone, achieving a recycling rate of 68% in 2017, as reported by FDEP. In addition, Collier County has ranked 5th in traditional recycling in comparison to other Florida Counties. The national award winning Household Hazardous Waste Program collected approximately 2 million pounds of household hazardous waste, contributing to an increased diversion rate from 86% in FY16 to 88% in FY17. The Recycling Drop-off Centers serviced 69,052 residents of Collier County and anticipate the opening of newest Northeast Recycling Drop-off Center in the late summer of FY18. The Public Utilities Department's staff recommends that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approve the 2018 Collier County Landfill Disposal Capacity AUIR and continue to support the Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategy initiatives to increase recycling to reach the 75% State goal, and to divert recyclables and hazardous waste from the Collier County Landfill. 98 of 148 Packet Pg. 182 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Division 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Table 1: Collier County Landfill Disposal Capacity Level of Service Standard: Ten Years of Permitted Landfill Capacity at Previous Three Years Average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate July 09, 2018 5 6 Fiscal Year Peak Population Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate Annual Tons Disposed Total Landfill Capacity Balance (tons) Next Ten Years Landfill Capacity Requirement (tons) Ten Year Permitted Landfill Capacity Surplus or Deficiency (tons) 2000 309,511 1.23 381,499 4,537,914 2,851,851 1,686,063 2001 325,159 1.32 430,511 4,107,403 2,623,566 1,483,837 2002 341,954 1.07 366,547 3,740,856 2,460,204 1,280,652 2003 359,191 0.80 288,409 5,820,359 2,381,106 3,439,253 2004 374,384 0.78 291,903 9,130,976 2,307,141 6,823,835 2005 386,668 0.71 274,777 9,695,124 2,256,842 7,438,282 2006 396,310 0.70 278,384 9,920,278 2,214,289 7,705,988 2007 400,027 0.64 254,889 9,594,647 2,192,730 7,401,917 2008 399,532 0.61 241,816 9,282,412 2,188,799 7,093,613 2009 399,979 0.54 215,338 9,067,074 2,215,991 6,851,084 2010 387,183 0.54 209,277 8,857,797 2,253,542 6,604,256 2011 392,180 0.52 202,226 8,655,571 2,302,083 6,353,488 2012 398,107 0.51 203,185 18,566,434 2,353,717 16,212,717 2013 402,268 0.52 209,311 18,524,000 2,403,242 16,120,758 2014 408,351 0.53 217,938 18,186,000 2,448,271 15,737,729 2015 416,590 0.54 224,479 17,961,521 2,490,536 15,470,985 2016 424,603 0.55 233,647 18,408,274 2,804,790 15,603,484 2017 433,539 0.57 247,602 18,970,672 2,864,860 16,105,812 2018 442,240 0.59 260,416 18,710,256 2,916,440 15,793,817 2019 451,303 0.57 270,101 18,440,155 2,962,720 15,477,436 2020 459,799 0.57 275,186 19,246,320 3,008,051 16,238,269 2021 467,704 0.57 279,917 18,966,403 3,052,529 15,913,874 2022 475,746 0.57 284,730 18,681,673 3,096,121 15,585,552 2023 483,925 0.57 289,625 18,392,048 3,138,791 15,253,257 2024 492,245 0.57 294,604 18,097,444 3,180,503 14,916,941 2025 499,928 0.57 299,202 17,798,242 3,221,687 14,576,555 2026 506,954 0.57 1 303,407 17,494,834 3,262,785 14,232,050 2027 514,079 0.57 307,672 17,187,162 3,303,788 13,883,375 2028 521,304 0.57 311,996 16,875,167 3,344,687 13,530,480 2029 528,631 0.57 316,381 16,558,786 3,385,471 13,173,315 2030 535,541 0.57 320,517 16,238,269 3,426,442 12,811,827 2031 542,022 0.57 324,395 15,913,874 3,467,909 12,445,964 2032 548,582 0.57 328,321 15,585,552 3,509,878 12,075,674 2033 555,221 0.57 332,295 15,253,257 3,552,355 11,700,902 2034 561,940 0.57 336,316 14,916,941 3,595,346 11,321,595 2035 568,741 0.57 340,386 14,576,555 3,638,857 10,937,698 2036 575,624 0.57 344,506 14,232,050 3,682,895 10,549,154 2037 582,590 0.57 348,675 13,883,375 3,727,466 10,155,909 2038 589,640 0.57 352,895 13,530,480 3,772,576 9,757,904 2039 596,776 0.57 357,165 13,173,315 3,818,232 9,355,082 2040 603,999 0.57 361,488 12,811,827 3,864,441 8,947,386 2041 611,308 0.57 365,863 12,445,964 3,911,209 8,534,755 LO I- 99 99 of 148 Packet Pg. 183 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Division 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Table 1: Collier County Landfill Disposal Capacity Level of Service Standard: Ten Years of Permitted Landfill Capacity at Previous Three Years Average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate July 09, 2018 5 6 Fiscal Year Peak Population Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate Annual Tons Disposed Total Landfill Capacity Balance (tons) Next Ten Years Landfill Capacity Requirement (tons) Ten Year Permitted Landfill Capacity Surplus or Deficiency (tons) 2042 618,706 0.57 370,290 12,075,674 3,958,543 8,117,131 2043 626,194 0.57 374,772 11,700,902 4,006,449 7,694,453 2044 633,772 0.57 379,307 11,321,595 4,054,936 7,266,659 2045 641,442 0.57 383,898 10,937,698 4,104,009 6,833,689 2046 649,205 0.57 388,543 10,549,154 4,153,676 6,395,478 2047 657,062 0.57 393,246 10,155,909 4,203,945 5,951,964 2048 665,014 0.57 398,005 9,757,904 4,254,821 5,503,083 2049 673,062 0.57 402,821 9,355,082 4,306,314 5,048,769 2050 681,207 0.57 407,696 8,947,386 4,358,429 4,588,957 2051 689,451 0.57 412,630 8,534,755 4,411,175 4,123,580 2052 697,795 0.57 417,624 8,117,131 4,464,560 3,652,572 2053 706,240 0.57 422,678 7,694,453 4,518,590 3,175,863 2054 714,787 0.57 427,794 7,266,659 4,573,275 2,693,385 2055 723,437 0.57 432,971 6,833,689 4,628,621 2,205,067 2056 732,192 0.57 438,211 6,395,478 4,684,637 1,710,841 2057 741,053 0.57 443,514 5,951,964 4,741,331 1,210,633 2058 750,022 0.57 448,881 5,503,083 N/A N/A 2059 759,099 0.57 454,314 5,048,769 N/A N/A 2060 768,285 0.57 459,812 4,588,957 N/A N/A 2061 777,583 0.57 465,377 4,123,580 N/A N/A 2062 786,994 0.57 471,009 3,652,572 N/A N/A 2063 796,518 0.57 476,709 3,175,863 N/A N/A 2064 806,157 0.57 482,478 2,693,385 N/A N/A 2065 815,914 0.57 488,317 2,205,067 N/A N/A 2066 825,788 0.57 494,227 1,710,841 N/A N/A 2067 835,782 0.57 500,208 1,210,633 N/A N/A 2068 845,896 0.57 506,262 704,371 N/A N/A 2069 856,134 0.57 512,388 191,983 N/A N/A 100 of 148 Packet Pg. 184 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Division 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Table 1: Collier County Landfill Disposal Capacity Level of Service Standard: Ten Years of Permitted Landfill Capacity at Previous Three Years Average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate July 09, 2018 NOTES: (References are to the column numbers on previous page) 1. Fiscal Year starts October 1 and ends September 30. Peak Population. Estimates and projections for the existing service area are based on "Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections" dated June 26, 2018, prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section. Populations are derived from data obtained from: 2000 Census and 2010 Census; Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population bulletins; Collier County Comprehensive Planning staff; and, Planning staff from Naples and Marco Island. Peak Season population is derived by increasing each year's October 1 permanent population by 20% (.20). Based upon BEBR Medium Range growth rate projections. 3. Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate for FY 2000 - FY 2018 is calculated by dividing the actual Annual Tons Disposed (column 4) by the Peak Population (column 2). FY 2019 forward is the average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate (column 3) of FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018. 4. Annual Tons Disposed for FY 2017 is actual tonnage amount buried at the Collier County 3 Landfill. FY 2018 reflects the projected tons disposed from the current year forecast. FY 2019 forward are derived from Peak Population (column 2) multiplied by the Tons Per Capita Q Disposal Rate. Impacts from Hurricane Irma devestation resulted in the addition of 11,523 0o annual tons disposed at the Collier County Landfill from September 2017 through December r N 2018. W ti m 5. Total Landfill Capacitv Balance tons is the previous years Total Landfill Capacity Balance `r (column 5) minus Annual Tons Disposed (column 4) at the Collier County Landfill. The bolded value in the Total Landfill Capacity Balance (column 5) is from Waste Management, Q Inc. of Florida's (WMIF) Annual Estimate of Remaining Life and Capacity Letter that includes °r° the Board approved and FDEP permitted vertical expansion plus 930,000 tons of contracted N disposal capacity at the Okeechobee Landfill. See graph on page SW -5. 6. Next Ten Years Landfill Capacitv Requirement tons is the sum of the next ten years of Annual Tons Disposed (column 4) at the Collier County Landfill. See graph on page SW -5. 7. Ten Year Permitted Landfill Capacitv Surplus or Deficiency tons is the Total Landfill Capacity Balance (column 5) minus the Next Ten Years Landfill Capacity Requirement (column 6). 101 of 148 Packet Pg. 185 25 N C O 0 20 c O E LU U 15 Q J o Q N m o w U a 10 Q U J J U- 0 z 5 CHART 1: TEN YEARS OF PERMITTED LANDFILL CAPACITY Level of Service Standard = Ten Years of Permitted Landfill Capacity at Previous Three Years Average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate July 9, 2018 FY13: A --L — � O`LO O`L0'00,DO`l'O 00000 00�00� On�O OO�b OHO O�`LOp,� O�00�OOc�O O�`LOt�� OHO OHO 000 OOO,OODOcaO OOR� FISCAL YEAR Total Landfill Capacity Balance (tons) Next Ten Years Landfill Capacity Requirement (tons) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 9.A.2 1= O a m O a+ C d c od a� a �a c C Q 00 O N LC) ti t0 Q 00 0 N O tC d c m E U a r r Q Packet Pg. 186 Page 6 2 Packet Pg. 187 2017 Peak Population COLLIER COUNTY PEAK SEASON POPULATION ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS 2000 6 2010 - 2034 estimates estimates estimates estimates projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 O Unincorporated Area 265,366 343,593 348,497 354,268 358,404 364,414 372,134 379,704 387,921 396,342 404,945 412,953 420,342 COUNTYWIDE 1 309,5111 387,183 1 392,180 1 398,107 402,268 1 408,351 1 416,402 1 424,603 1 433,539 1 442,240 1 451,303 1 459,799 1 467,704 d C 06 r R projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections Q� 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Unincorporated Area 1 427,866 1 435,530 1 443,333 1 450,504 1 457,023 1 463,639 1 470,356 1 477,175 1 483,548 1 489,464 1 495,457 1 501,530 1 505,487 COUNTYWIDE 1 475,746 1 483,925 1 492,245 1 499,928 1 506,954 1 514,079 1 521,304 1 528,631 1 535,541 1 542,022 1 548,582 1 555,221 1 561,940 3 C C ni Q 1) Estimates and projections are derived from data obtained from: 2000 Census and 2010 Census; Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population bulletins; Collier County Comprehensive Planning staff; and, Planning staff from Naples and Marco Island. 00 2) Peak Season population is derived by increasing each year's October 1 permanent popG7 %j)2W. O 3) Based upon BEBR Medium O Range growth rate projections. N W r O LC) Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section May 26, 2017. (O o' Year 2000 309,511 2010 387,183 12.69% 2011 392,180 1.29% Q 2012 398,107 1.51% 00 2013 402,268 1.05% N 2014 408,351 1.51% 2015 416,402 1.97% 4- 2016 424,603 1.97% G 2017 433,539 2.10% 2018 442,240 2.01% M 2019 451,303 2.05% a 2020 459,799 1.88% 2021 467,704 1.72% d 2022 475,746 1.72% E 2023 483,925 1.72% 2024 492,245 1.72% cUC 2025 499,928 1.56% 2026 506,954 1.41% Q 2027 514,079 1.41% Page 6 2 Packet Pg. 187 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Division 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Table 2: Collier County Landfill Disposal Capacity Level of Service Standard: Two Years of Lined Cell Capacity at Previous Three Years Average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate July 09, 2018 2 5 Fiscal Year Peak Population Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate Annual Tons Disposed Lined Cell Capacity Balance (tons) Next Two Years Lined Cell Capacity Requirement (tons) Projected Lined Cell Capacity Surplus or Deficiency (tons) 2000 309,511 1.23 381,499 1,019,063 797,058 222,005 2001 325,159 1.32 430,511 588,552 654,956 66,404 2002 341,954 1.07 366,547 2,325,580 580,312 1,745,268 2003 359,191 0.80 288,409 2,037,171 566,680 1,470,491 2004 374,384 0.78 291,903 1,745,268 553,161 1,192,107 2005 386,668 0.71 274,777 1,470,491 533,273 937,218 2006 396,310 0.70 278,384 1,973,878 496,705 1,477,173 2007 400,027 0.64 254,889 1,718,989 457,154 1,261,835 2008 399,532 0.61 241,816 1,477,173 424,615 1,052,558 2009 399,979 0.54 215,338 2,107,085 411,503 1,695,582 2010 387,183 0.54 209,277 2,027,287 405,411 1,621,876 2011 392,180 0.52 202,226 1,825,061 412,496 1,412,565 2012 398,107 0.51 203,185 1,621,876 427,249 1,194,627 2013 402,268 0.52 209,311 2,237,565 442,417 1,795,149 2014 408,351 0.53 217,938 1,630,910 460,310 1,559,318 2015 416,590 0.54 224,479 1,374,671 460,728 1,334,421 2016 424,603 0.55 233,647 1,821,424 508,018 1,313,406 2017 433,539 0.57 247,602 2,383,822 517,655 1,866,167 2018 442,240 0.59 260,416 2,093,744 519,324 1,574,419 2019 451,303 0.57 257,239 1,844,968 528,677 1,316,291 2020 459,799 0.57 262,085 2,664,232 537,765 2,126,467 2021 467,704 0.57 266,591 2,397,641 547,011 1,850,630 2022 475,746 0.57 271,174 2,126,467 556,416 1,570,051 2023 483,925 0.57 275,837 1,850,630 565,537 1,285,093 2024 492,245 0.57 280,579 1,570,051 573,921 996,130 2025 499,928 0.57 284,958 1,285,093 581,987 703,106 2026 506,954 0.57 288,963 996,130 590,167 405,963 2027 514,079 0.57 293,024 703,106 598,461 104,644 104 104 of 148 Packet Pg. 188 9.A.2 Collier County Government Public Utilities Division 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) Table 2: Collier County Landfill Disposal Capacity Level of Service Standard: Two Years of Lined Cell Capacity at Previous Three Years Average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate July 09, 2018 NOTES: (References are to the column numbers on previous page) 1. Fiscal Year starts October 1 and ends September 30. 2. Peak Population. Estimates and projections for the existing service area are based on "Collier County Peak Season Population Estimates and Projections" dated June 26, 2018, prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section. Populations are derived from data obtained from: 2000 Census and 2010 Census; Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population bulletins; Collier County Comprehensive Planning staff; and, Planning staff from Naples and Marco Island. Peak Season population is derived by increasing each year's October 1 permanent population by 20% (.20). Based upon BEBR Medium Range growth rate projections. 3. Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate for FY 2000 - FY 2018 is calculated by dividing the actual Annual Tons Disposed (column 4) by the Peak Population (column 2). FY 2019 forward is the average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate (column 3) of FY 2016, FY 2017, and FY 2018. 4. Annual Tons Disposed for FY 2017 is actual tonnage amount buried at the Collier County Landfill. FY 2018 reflects the projected tons disposed from the current year forecast. FY 2019 forward are derived from Peak Population (column 2) multiplied by the Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate (column 3). 5. Lined Cell Capacitv Balance tons is the previous years Lined Cell Capacity Balance (column N 5) minus Annual Tons Disposed (column 4) at the Collier County Landfill. See below for � explanations of the bolded values in the Lined Cell Capacity Balance (column 5). Also see graph on page SW -9. Fiscal Year New Capacity (tons) Description Source of Information 2002 930,000 Contracted disposal capacity at the Okeechobee Landfill. June 12, 2001 Disposal Capacity Agreement, as amended. 2002 1,173,575 Lined Cell Expansion Complete. 2006 911,250 Lined Cell Expansion Complete. 2009 845,250 Lined Cell Expansion Complete. 2016 840,000 Lined Cell Expansion WMIF Cell Development Start Cell A6. 2017 1,000,000 Lined Cell Expansion Complete Cell A6. 2019 0 Lined Cell Expansion Start Cell A5 2020 1,335,000 Lined Cell Expansion WMIF 5 -year Cell Development Completed Cell A5/Cell Development Schedule 6. Next Two Years Lined Cell Capacitv Requirement tons is the sum of the next two years of Annual Tons Disposed (column 4) at the Collier County Landfill. See graph on page SW -9. 7. Projected Lined Cell Capacitv Surplus or Deficiency tons is the Lined Cell Capacity Balance (column 5) minus the Next Two Years Lined Cell Capacity Requirement (column 6). 105 of 148 Packet Pg. 189 2017 AUIR - Solid Waste Page SW -9 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 190 CHART 2: TWO YEARS OF LINED CELL CAPACITY Level of Service Standard = Two Years of Lined Cell Capacity at Previous Three Years Average Tons Per Capita Disposal Rate July 9, 2018 4 4 N C O r O ° 3 FY01: Solid Waste FY27: Two Years of 3 ° Workshop at Collier Lined Cell Capacity 0 .2 w o County Landfill — E Ez .. W2 IN:3 w UA 2 w 2 a J llJ m d' H � U a U a a a U 1 1U) J J w � a U uJ D W � Z J � H X w - - z rp rL0 rL0 rL0 0,0 rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 rL0 1P 110 1P FISCAL YEAR ll Cell Capacity Balance (tons) Next Two Vears Lined Cell Capacity Requirement (tons) 2017 AUIR - Solid Waste Page SW -9 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 190 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 9.A.2 PUD SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT SCHEDULE CIE # PROJECT NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL TBDCounty Landfill Cell Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOLID WASTE PROJECT TOTALS :I 'TCA I MET - RTEil I1E .YO111:ZCi ��i�Ili['>•��i�IIYI•>•��i�IlYli���i�IlYi����i�l1YX1•�[1iIG1� LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees RET ER 1E TOTAL ' Pursuant to the Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF), landfill cell construction is scheduled and guaranteed by WMIF over the life of the Collier County Landfill. Collier County landfill expansion costs are paid for by WMIF through agreed upon Collier County landfill tipping fees. By contract under the LOA, WMIF will construct any future required cells. Landfill cells vary in size and disposal capacity. LO ti t0 Packet Pg. 191 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 9.A.2 PUD SOLID WASTE PROJECTS FY 2024 FY 2025 CONSTRUCTION $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT CIE # PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL TBD County Landfill Cell Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOLID WASTE PROJECT TOTALS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees ' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 REVENUE TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pursuant to the Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF), landfill cell construction is scheduled and guaranteed by WMIF over the life of the Collier County Landfill. Collier County landfill expansion costs are paid for by WMIF through agreed upon Collier County landfill tipping fees. By contract under the LOA, WMIF will construct any future required cells. 0 co 0 coco T— LO ti t0 Packet Pg. 192 COLLIER COUNTY SCH( CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONTENTS • SUMMARY OF DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COI COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) F( FIVE YEARS COUNTYWIDE SCHOOLS INVENTORY - MAP Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Faciliti 9.A.2 LO ti Packet Pg. 193 Chapter's 0 co Summary of 5 Year Capital Budget co 9.A.2 LO Chapter 1 Packet Pg. 994 9.A.2 5 Year Capital Budget Summary Packet Pg. 195 FY FY FY FY FY a 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Five Year a Project 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Capital Construction Program o New Schools/Additions Growth High School 100,000 4,000,000 500,000 90,000,000 94,600,000 c Immokalee High School Addition/Renovations 1 500,000 1,150,000 11,500,000 13,150,000 06 Subtotal New Schools/Additions 600,000 5,150,000 12,000,000 90,000,000 107,750,000 0 Capital Maintenance/Renovations (see Chapter 6) a Electrical 1,873,000 2,675,000 3,992,000 6,070,000 21,402,000 ^ 36,012,000 Emergency Maintenance Projects 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 15,000,000 R N Everglades Storm Mitigation j 2,000,000 2,000,000 Q o Facilities Renovation Other 1,560,000 4,110,000 1,541,000 183,000 595,000 7,989,000 w Facility Modifications/Special Needs co 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 17,500,000! N HVAC 16,680,000 28,065,000 15,010,000 39,168,000 35,680,000 134,603,000; r Maintenance 2,591,000 2,426,000 2,426,000 2,426,000 2,426,000 12,295,000 LO ti Roads and Bridge 26,000 10,000 36,000 45,000 34,0001 151,000 cc Roofing 3,330,000 9,905,000 12,790,000 13,475,000 12,300,000 , 51,800,000 0� School Maintenance and RenovationsQ 17,431,000 8,203,000 5,871,000 4,387,000 2,835,000 38,727,000 00 Subtotal Capital Maintenance/Renovations (see Chapter 6) 51,991,000 61,894,000 48,166,000 72,254,000 81,772,000 316,077,000 N Subtotal Capital Construction Program 52,591,000 67,044,000 60,166,000 162,254,000 81,772,000 423,827,000 Other Items Site Acquisition/Asset Management r Property Management 195,000 90,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 405,000 1 IL +� Site Acquisition 210,000 50,000 i 260,000 c W Site Development 100,000 I 100,000: E Transportation Facilities 1,800,000 14,000,000 300,000 16,100,000 Q 1-1 Packet Pg. 195 1-2 9.A.2 0 CL m 0 c m r- 06 06 a> 0 R 0 c c Q CO 0 N LO r` cc a 0 0 N 0 r M a c d E t v ca Q Packet Pg. 196 FY FY FY FY FY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Five Year Project 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Subtotal Site AcquisitionlAsset Management 505,000 1,940,000 14,040,000 340,000 40,0001 16,865,000 Health and Safety ' I i Access Control Enhancements 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 1 8,200,000 Fire Safety 532,364 533,052 533,752 534,467 550,257 2,683,892 Health, Safety, and Security 525,721 545,819 542,076 565,158 563,981 2,742,755 Security Camera Replacements/Additions 354,064 360,146 366,349 422,676 429,1301,932,365 Surveillance/Security Camera Maintenance 177,032 180,073 186,175 211,899 215,6971 970,876 Subtotal Health and Safety 3,589,181 3,619,090 3,028,352 3,134,200 3,159,0651 16,529,888 Portables Portable Leasing ` 430,000 502,000 502,000 358,000 250,000 2,042,000 Portable Renovation 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 350,000 Portable Setup 617,000 482,000 120,000 320,000 320,000 1,859,000 Subtotal Portables 1,117,000 1,054,000 692,000 748,000 640,0001 4,251,000 Technology (*Transfer to General) Classroom Technology Equipment' I 5,700,000 6,270,000 6,387,000 6,805,000 6,820,0001 31,982,000 Enterprise Software/Current Year I 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,0001 I 50,0001 Enterprise Software/Prior Year 13,059,000 13,059,000 Technology Cabling 5,875,000 2,400,000 1,175,000 1,200,000 1,225,000 11,875,000 Technology Infrastructure * 4,048,000 3,878,000 4,270,000 4,070,000 4,050,000 20,316,000 Technology Retrofit* 1,429,446 1,360,348 1,439,000 1,448,000 1,458,000 7,134,794 Subtotal Technology (*Transfer to General) 30,121,446 13,918,348 13,281,000 13,533,000 13,563,000 84,416,794 Equipment and Vehicles (*Transfer to General) District Capital Equipment 337,610 218,500 313,000 428,600 233,400 1,531,110 Districtwide Equipment Transfer* 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 6,000,000 Equipment/Portables * 185,000 105,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 365,000 School Buses 4,012,000 4,389,860 4,384,724 4,647,410 4,693,812 1 22,127,806 Vehicles other than Buses 408,250 497,762 576,615 528,509 789,4771 2,800,613 Subtotal Equipment and Vehicles ("Transfer to General) 6,142,860 6,411,122 6,499,339 6,829,519 6,941,6891 32,824,529 1-2 9.A.2 0 CL m 0 c m r- 06 06 a> 0 R 0 c c Q CO 0 N LO r` cc a 0 0 N 0 r M a c d E t v ca Q Packet Pg. 196 1-3 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 197 FY FY FY FY FY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Five Year Project 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total - _ Planning and Staff Support Building & Equipment Maintenance Staff 11,320,990 11,612,980 11,909,629 12,217,246 12,536,105 59,596,950 Facilities Staff 1,477,320 1,517,810 1,559,504 1,716,647 1,764,048 8,035,329 Other Capital Staff 661,226 679,303 697,923 782,214 1,604,841 4,425,507 Permitting Services 135,000 135,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 795,000 Printing Services 18,000 18,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 186,000 Professional Services Retainer-Engineer/ArchitecUOther 90,000 90,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 630,000 Site/Facility Testing 45,000 13,747,536 45,000 14,098,093 100,000 14,642,056 100,000 15,191,107 100,0001 16,379,994 3901000 74,058,786 Subtotal Planning and Staff Support Carry Forward/Debt Service/Insurance/Transfer/Contingency Carry Forward for Subsequent Years 106,165 78,070 43,557 107,126 206,804 541,722 Charter School Capital Flow Thru 4,400,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 22,000,000 Debt Service 43,100,000 33,700,000 35,000,000 36,200,000 36,500,000 1 184,500,000 Property Insurance 4,600,000 5,200,000 5,500,000 5,800,000 6,200,000 27,300,000 Reserve for Future Schools/Current Year 71000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 55,000,000 Reserve for Future Schools/Prior Years 66,335,000 66,335,000 Reserve for Future Vehicles 2,054,982 2,054,982 Self -Insured Retention/Current Year 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 30,000,000 Self -Insured Retention/Prior Year 27,000,000 i 27,000,000 Transfer to General Maintenance 4,125,000 4,225,000 4,325,000 4,425,000 4,525,000 21,625,000 Subtotal Carry Forward/Debt Service/Insurance/Transfer/Contingency 164,721,147 63,603,070 65,268,557 70,932,126 71,831,804 436,356,704 Subtotal Other Items 219,944,170 104,643,723 117,451,304 110,707,952 112,555,552 655,3{t2,7R1 Total Projects 272,535,170 171,687,723 177,617,304 272,961,952 194,327,552 1,089,129,701 1-3 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 197 Summary of Estimated Revenue FY FY FY FY FY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Five Year Estimated Revenue 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Local Sources Impact Fees 14,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000 70,000,000 Interest Income 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 11,000,000 Capital Improvement Tax 4,400,000 135,529,970 144,435,828 154,314,651 161,989,822 170,872,458 767,142,729 Beginning Balance 6,435,968 5,500,000 106,165 78,070 43,557 107,126 5,834,918 Other 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 60,000 Future School Reserve Usage 4,000,000 88,000,000 92,000,000 Future Vehicle Reserve Usage 408,250 497,762 576,615 280,605 700,000 2,463,232 CFWD of Designated Reserves 108,448,982 108,448,982 Subtotal Local Sources 266,099,202 165,251,755 171,181,336 266,525,984 187,891,584 1,056,949,861 State CO & DS 1,246,434 1,246,434 1,246,434 1,246,434 1,246,434 6,232,170 PECO Maint. 789,534 789,534 789,534 789,534 789,534 3,947,670 Charter Capital Flow Thru 4,400,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 22,000,000 Subtotal State 6,435,968 6,435,968 6,435,968 6,435,968 6,435,968, 32,179,840 Total 272,535,170 171,687,723 177,617,304 272,961,952 194,327,5521 1,089,129,701 1-4 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 198 2018 COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS E COUNTY I= OIL WELL RD LEGEND sRe2 CATEGORY ��°�`��' z GO N • Elementary O Middle LAKE TRAFFOR RD d • High m a zJ m a O Charter U) O O Other IMMOKALEE RD E cn E COUNTY I= OIL WELL RD 0 846 N r m lS N U) N City of J Sg7 Marco Island F a City of Everglades 0 1 2 4 6r�� Miles, GIs MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICP GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ,4 116 of 148 9.A.2 2 M z Q n O O C a z a) O r c a) c d c c Q 00 T O N Ln ti m Q a0 T- Q N O a C a Packet Pg. 199 � m Q zJ m GOLDEN GATE BLVD W W O z Q O w Lu � 3 Z J v City of Naples DIO I-75 0 846 N r m lS N U) N City of J Sg7 Marco Island F a City of Everglades 0 1 2 4 6r�� Miles, GIs MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICP GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ,4 116 of 148 9.A.2 2 M z Q n O O C a z a) O r c a) c d c c Q 00 T O N Ln ti m Q a0 T- Q N O a C a Packet Pg. 199 r 4 r L r L 4 4 4 COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES CONTENTS • COUNTY COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARK LANDS - SUMMARY • LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD (LOSS) ASSESSMENT FOR COMMUNITY PARK LANDS • TABLE • CHART • ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN COMMUNITY PARK LAND INVENTORY OVER NEXT FIVE YEARS - TABLE • LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD (LOSS) ASSESSMENT FOR REGIONAL PARK LANDS • TABLE • CHART • ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN REGIONAL PARK LAND INVENTORY OVER NEXT FIVE YEARS - TABLE • COUNTY PARK LAND INVENTORY • COUNTY PARKS INVENTORY - MAP • FEDERAL AND STATE OWNED PARK LAND - MAP Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.2 4 4 4 D Q 00 T- Q 0 N 0 IL c 1 d E m U ca Q Packet Pg. 200 2018 AUIR SUMMARY COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PARK LANDS Facility Type: Community and Regional Park Land (Category A) Level of Service Standards (LOSS): 1.2 acres per 1,000/population (Community) 2.7 acres per 1,000/population (Regional) Unit Costs: $119,947 per acre* (Community) $504,450 per acre* (Regional) Community Parks: Using the Peak Season population for unincorporated area of the County, the following is set forth: Available Inventory as of 9/30/2018 Required Inventory as of 9/30/2023 Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19-2022/23 5 -year Surplus or (Deficit) 9.A.2 Acres Value 594.74 $71,337,279 522.64 ** $62,689,100 0.00 72.10 $8,648,179 Regional Parks: Using the Countywide Peak Season population, the following is set forth: Available Inventory as of 9/30/2018 Required Inventory as of 9/30/2023 Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19-2022/23 5 -year Surplus or (Deficit) Expenditures Proposed AUIR FY 18/19-22/23 (value of) Acquisitions Debt Service Payments for 2011/2013 Bonds Total Expenditures Revenues Impact Fees anticipated Interest/Misc Grant/Reimbursement 1,311.78 1,306.60 *** 0.00 **** 5.18 Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service Proposed added value through commitments, leases and governmental transfers Total Revenues Surplus or (Deficit) Revenues***** Revenues needed to maintain existing LOSS $661,727,421 $659,114,370 $0 $2,613,051 $0 $17,555,700 $17,555,700 $43,130,600 $560,000 $0 $4,224,500 $0 $47,915,100 $30,359,400 no, Recommendation: That the BCC approve the proposed Community and Regional Park Lands AUIR and adopt the CIE Update for FY 2018/19- FY 2022/23. L 0 a m 0 c Q c od CL D R 3 c c a co 0 N Ln r - a w 0 N 0 R a c m E R a 119 of 148 Packet Pg. 201 9.A.2 Notes: Community Park Land and Regional Park Land Unit Cost values are based on the 2017 Impact Fee Study Update ** Peak Season population for the unincorporated area of the County of 435,530 x 0.0012 LOSS = 522.64 acres *** Countywide Peak Season population of 483,925 x 0.0027 LOSS = 1,306.60 acres **** Proposed AUIR FY 2018/2019 - FY2022/2023 46 Acres Collier Enterprise- Rural Lands West will be considered outside of 10 year window ***** Reserved for future growth. Ln 120 of 148 Packet Pg. 202 9.A.2 2018 AUIR Community Park Acres LOSS: 1.2 Acres/1000 Population FISCAL YEAR POPULATION UNINCORPORATED PARK ACRES REQUIRED 0.0012000 PARK ACRES PLANNED IN AUIR PARK ACRES AVAILABLE SURPLUS/ (DEFICIENCY) REQUIRED COST AT $119,947 TOTALIVALUE AVAILABLE $119,947 2017-18 396,342 475.61 0.00 594.74 119.13 $57,047,993 $71,337,279 2018-19 404,945 485.93 0.00 594.74 108.81 $58,285,846 $71,337,279 2019-20 412,953 495.54 0.00 594.74 99.20 $59,438,536 $71,337,279 2020-21 420,342 504.41 0.00 594.74 90.33 $60,502,466 $71,337,279 2021-22 427,866 513.44 0.00 594.74 81.30 $61,585,588 $71,337,279 2022-23 435,530 522.64 0.00 594.74 72.10 $62,689,100 $71,337,279 1st 5 -Year Growth (2019-2023) 39,188 47.03 0.00 2023-24 443,333 532.00 0.00 594.74 62.74 $63,811,804 $71,337,279 2024-25 450,504 540.60 0.00 594.74 54.14 $64,843,348 $71,337,279 2025-26 457,023 548.43 0.00 594.74 46.31 $65,782,533 $71,337,279 2026-27 463,639 556.37 0.00 594.74 38.37 $66,734,912 $71,337,279 2027-28 470,356 564.43 0.00 594.74 30.31 $67,701,685 $71,337,279 2nd 5 -Year Growth (2024-2028) 34,826 41.79 0.00 Total 10 -Year Growth (2019-2028) 74.014 88.82 0.00 Note: 46 Acres Collier Enterprise- Rural Lands West will be considered outside of 10 year window d Q 0 a d 0 c m C m m a CL D M r - 00 00 0 N u� 0 N 0 1= m a C d E L V R Packet Pg. 203 600,000 550,000 500,000 C O N N .R 0 3 A CL0 a0 450,000 400,000 350,000 2018 AUIR Community Park Acres, LOSS: 1.2 Acres / 1,000 Population 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 f Population & Acres Required Acres Available 9.A.2 d 720 Q 0 690 ami fY Z 0 660 = d C 630 °6 d R C Q 600 D R 3 C C 570 v, Q CO VCD Q N 540 LO �o 510 5 D Q s 480 0 N O 450 1= R IL 420 E s m Q Packet Pg. 204 9.A.2 Anticipated Changes in Community Park Land Inventory FY 18/19 to FY 27/28 FY Action Acquisition Type Location Acres Value Cash Expenditure $119,947 2018/19 $0 FY 18/19 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 2019/20 $0 FY 19/20 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 2020/21 $0 $0 FY 20/21 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 2021/22 $0 FY 21/22 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 2022/23 $0 FY 22/23 TOTAL FY 18/19 TO • 0 i $0 $0 i 2023/24 $0 FY 23/24 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 2024/25 $0 FY 24/25 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 2025/26 $0 FY 25/26 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 2026/27 $0 FY 26/27 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 2027/28 $0 FY 27/28 TOTAL 0 $0 $0 FY 23/24 TO • i i FY 18/19 TO FY 27/28 TEN-YEAR TOTAL 0 1 $0 $0 LO tY 5 Q co 0 N 0 0 1= a Packet Pg. 205 9.A.2 2018 AUIR Regional Park Land Acres LOSS: 2.7 Acres / 1000 Population FISCAL YEAR POPULATION CO -WIDE FACILITIES REQUIRED 0.0027000 FACILITIES PLANNED IN AUIR PARK ACRES AVAILABLE' PARK ACRES SURPLUS/ (DEFICIENCY) REQUIRED COST AT $504,450 TOTALIVALUE AVAILABLE $504,450 2017-18 442,240 1,194.05 151.00 1,311.78 117.73 $602,338,523 $661,727,421 2018-19 451,303 1,218.52 0.00 1,311.78 93.26 $614,682,414 $661,727,421 2019-20 459,799 1,241.46 0.00 1,311.78 70.32 $626,254,497 $661,727,421 2020-21 467,704 1,262.80 0.00 1,311.78 48.98 $637,019,460 $661,727,421 2021-22 475,746 1,284.51 0.00 1,311.78 27.27 $647,971,070 $661,727,421 2022-23 483,925 1,306.60 0.00 1,311.78 5.18 $659,114,370 $661,727,421 1st 5 -Year Growth (2019-2023) 41,685 112.55 0.00 2023-24 492,245 1,329.06 0.00 1,311.78 (17.28) $670,444,317 $661,727,421 2024-25 499,928 1,349.81 0.00 1,311.78 (38.03) $680,911,655 $661,727,421 2025-26 506,954 1,368.78 0.00 1,311.78 (57.00) $690,481,071 $661,727,421 2026-27 514,079 1,388.01 0.00 1,311.78 (76.23) $700,181,645 $661,727,421 2027-28 521,304 1,407.52 0.00 1,311.78 (95.74) $710,023,464 $661,727,421 2nd 5 -Year Growth (2024-2028) 37,379 100.92 0.00 Total 10 -Year Growth (2019-2028) 79,064 213.47 0.00 2017/2018: 151 Acres Sport Tourism Venue R s I a Packet Pg. 206 550,000 500.000 450,000 c 0 N 3 CIL 0 p a. 400,000 350,000 300,000 2018 AUIR Regional Park Acres, LOSS: 2.7 Acres/1000 Population 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 f Population & Acres Required --+— Acres Available 9.A.2 1,460 1,410 1,360 1,310 1,260 1,210 1,160 aNi 1,110 Q 1,060 1,010 960 910 860 810 R Q 0 CIL d fY Z 0 c d c 06 d R Q D R 3 C c Q Co 0 N LC) r` �o D Q 0 N 0 0 cc 1= a d E s v m Q Packet Pg. 207 9.A.2 Anticipated Changes in Regional Park Land Inventory FY 18/19 to FY 27/28 FY Action Acquisition Type Location Acres Value Cash Expenditure $504,450 2018/19 $0 FY 18/19 TOTAL 0.00 $0 $0 2019/20 $0 FY 19/20 TOTALI 0.00 $0 $0 2020/21 1 0 FY 20/21 TOTALI 0.00 $0 $0 2021/22 $0 FY 21/22 TOTALI 0.00 $0 $0 2022/23 $0 FY 22/23 TOTALI FY 18/19 TO FY 22/23 FIVE-YEAR SUBTOTAL 0.00 0.00 $0 $0 2023/24 0.00 $0 FY 23/24 TOTAL 0.00 $0 $0 2024/25 0.00 $0 FY 24/25 TOTAL 0.00 $0 $0 2025/26 0.00 $0 FY 25/26 TOTAL 0.00 1 $0 $0 2026/27 0.00 FY 26/27 TOTAL 0.00 $0 $0 2027/28 0.00 FY 27/28 TOTAL 0.00 $0 $0 FY 23/24 TO FY 27/28 FIVE-YEAR SUBTOTAL 0.00 i FY 18/19 TO FY 27/28 TEN-YEAR TOTALI 0.00 1 $0 $0 Packet Pg. 208 2018 Collier County Park Land Inventory Commissioner District District Location Type Acreage Community Park Area Regional Park Acres Regional Park Pathway Neighborhood Park Acres Notes Acres 1 Marco Caxambas Park Re ional 4.20 4.20 1 Maroc Collier Blvd Boating Park Re ionel 0.50 0.50 1 Marco Goodland Boating Park Regional 5.00 5.00 1 Marco Isle of Capri Land Parcels Neighborhood 0.11 0.11 1 Ma- Isles of Can NP Neighborhood 0.15 0.15 1 Marco Isles of Capri Paddlecraft Park Regional 9.00 9.00 1 Marco Mar Good Harbor Park Regional 2.50 2.50 1 Marco South Memo Beach Access Regional 5.00 5.00 1 Marco Ti ertail Beach Park Regional 31.60 1 31.60 2 North Naples Barefoot Beach Access Re ional5.00 5.00 2 North Naples Barefoot Beach Preserve Regional 159.60 159.60 2 North Naples Barefoot Beach State Land Regional 186.00 186.00 2 North Naples Clam Pass Park Regional 35.00 35.00 2 North Naples Cocohatchee River Park Regional 7.56 7.56 2 North Naples Conner Park Regional 5.00 5.00 2 North Naples Naples Park Elementary Community 5.00 5.00 2 NorthNa les North Collier RP Re ionel 207.70 207.70 4 North Na las North Gutfehore Beach Access Regional 0.50 0.50 2 North Na les North Naples NP (Best Fri-, u 1 Neighborhood 3 North Naples Oakes NP Neighborhood 2.00 2.00 2 North Na Its Osceola Elementa Communi 3.20 3.20 2 North Na les Palm River NP Neighborhood 3.00 3.00 2 NorthNa les Pelican Ba CP Community15.00 15.00 4 North Naples Poinciana NP Neighborhood 0.30 0.30 2 North Naples Vanderbilt Beach Regional 5.00 5.00 2 North Na les Veterans CP Community43.64 43.64 2 North Na les Veterans Memorial Elementary Community4.00 4.00 3 North Naples Vineyards CP Community 35.50 35.50 2 North Naples WIIIouhb Park Neighborhood 1.20 1.20 3 Golden Gate Aaron Lutz NP Neighborhood 3.20 3.20 Golden Gate Coconut Circle NP Neighborhood 1.20 1.20 Golden Gate Sorts Tounsm Park Regio al 151.00 151.00 3 Golden Gate Golden Gale Community Center Community 21.00 21.00 3 Golden Gate Golden Gate CP Community 35.00 35.00 3 GoldenGate Golden Gate Greenway / PathwayCommunity3.00 3.00 3 Golden Gate minNP Neighborhood 6.70 6.70 3 Golden Gate Neighborhood 4.80 4.80 4 East Naples Bay Street Land Parcels Regional 1.34 1.34 4 East Naples Bayview Park Regional 6.27 6.27 1 East Na les CindyM els CP Community 5.00 5.00 4 East Na les EastNa les CP Communi 47.00 47.00 1 East Naples Na les Manor NP Neighborhood 0.30 0.30 4 East Naples Su den RP Regional 120.00 120.00 1 South Na les Eagle Lakes CP Community32.00 32.00 1 South Na les Manatee CP Community60.00 60.00 1 Sol Na les Panther NP Neighborhood 0.50 0.50 1 South Naples Port of The Islands Regional 5.55 5.55 4 Central Naples Fred W. Coyle Freedom Park Regional 25.16 25.16 4 Central Naples Gordon River Greenway Park Regional 79.00 79.00 4 Central Na les Na les Zoo Regional 50.00 50.00 1 Central Na les Rock Harbor Parcels Nei hborhood 0.10 0.10 5 Immokalee Airport Pam Community 19.00 19.00 5 Immokalee Ann Oleski Park Regional 2.30 2.30 5 Immokalee Dreamland NP-•senoorr1-Mevo Neighborhood 0.50 0.50 5 Immokalee Eden Park Elementary Community 2.80 2.80 5 Immokalee Immokalee CP Community 23.00 23.00 5 Irrmokalee Immokalee Hi h School Communi 1.00 1.00 5 Immokalee Immokalee S orts Com lex Communi 14.00 14.00 5 Immokalee Immokalee South Park Communi 3.20 3.20 5 Immokalee Oil Well Park Neighborhood 5.50 5.50 5 Immokalee Pepper Ranch Regional 50.00 50.00 5 Immokalee Ton RosboU h CP Community7.00 7.00 5 Urban Estates Bi Corkscrew Islantl RP Regional 62.00 62.00 5 Urban Estates Bi Corkscrew Island RP - Lake ReTonal 90.00 90.00 5 Urban Estates Corkscrew Elementa /Middle Communi 16.90 16.90 5 Urban Eslales Livin stun Woods NP (surplus) Neighborhood 2.73 5 Urban Estates Mex AHasse CP Community 2000. 20.00 5 Urban Estates Palmetto Elementary Community 2.00 2.00 5 Urban Estates Randall Curve Property Community 47.00 47.00 1 Urban Estates Rich Kin Greenwa -FPL Regional 37.50 37.50 5 Urban Estates Sabal Palm Elementa Communi 9.50 9.50 5 Urban Estates Vanderbilt Extension CP Communi 120.00 120.00 If•ntI -l1r.fFn F&Y ilU1411�5■ EXLRLli1k51 RI:1_�f/FL!_ �k1F1� 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 299 2018 Collier Countv Park Land Inventory District Location Type Acreage Community Park Acres Regional Park Regional Park Pathway Neighborhood Park Acres Acres Acres City of Naples Beach Accesses Re Tonal 0.50 0.50 City of Naples Naples Landings Re ional 3.81 3.81 City of Naples Fleischmann Park Community 25.26 City of Naples Cambier Park Community 12.84 City of Naples Baker Park Re icnal 15.20 15.20 City of Naples Lowdermilk Park Regional 10.30 10.30 City of Naples River Park CC Community 1.61 City of Naples Naples Preserve Regional 9.78 9.78 City of Naples AnthonyPark Negbborbood 7.00 Total Naples Units 86.30 39.59 City of Marco Island Jane Hittler Ne' bbomooa 0.25 City of Marco Island Veterans' Memorial Negbbomood 0.25 City of Marco Island Leigh Plummer Neghborbood 3.50 City of Marco Island Racquet Center Community 2.97 City of Marco Island Frank Mackie Community 30.00 City of Marco IslandWinterberr Ne bborbood 5.00 Total Marco Units 41.97 Everglades City Communit, Park Communi 0.86 Eve lades Ci McLeod Park Communi 1.04 Tonal Everglades Units Total Units 1.90 1 2,106.48 1 594.74 1 1,388.87 1 1 2956 Community ParkRegional Park NeighborhoodPark Totals Acreage mAcres Acres Acres Value per Un B $119,947 $504,450 Total Value $771,952,750 $71337279 $70D615472 Notes: Only acreage within municipalities that have regional park type designations are inventoried for purposes of the AUIR Park land and amenities located in Private communities are taken into consideration when planning new parks and facilities but cannot be counted as inventory due to lack of public access Packet Pg. 210 9.A.2 Summary of Changes in Parks and Recreation Inventory FY 17 to FY 18 Community Park Land Changes Action Location Acres Explanation Add Sports Tourism Park Phase 1 61 Add Sports Tourism Park Phase 11 90 NET CHANGE TO COMMUNITY PARK ACREAGE 0 N O A Regional Park Land Changes Action Location Acres Explanation Add Sports Tourism Park Phase 1 61 Add Sports Tourism Park Phase 11 90 NET CHANGE TO REGIONAL PARK ACREAGE 151 Packet Pg. 211 W O O A 00 Yc�kHr 2018 PARKS INVENTORY NAPLES Florid Gulf Coast Un.vers it YCORKSCREW RD EE COUNTY IMMOKALEE RD ACH F� MARCO ISLAND N,1p1p WIPE FFS Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 52 HAMMOCK RD IMMOKALEE Legend O Neighborhood Parks • Regional Parks • Community Parks • Undeveloped Parks School Site • • (Interlocal agreements for recreation use) 9.A.2 OIL WELL RD �— Map ID Number NAME YUMBER NAME 1WILLOUGHBY ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 31 PELICANBAY COMMUNITY PARK 2 POINCIANA VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 32VINEYARDS COMMUNITY PARK 3 RITA EATON NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 33 MAX A HASSE JR COMMUNITY PARK 4 AARON LUTZ NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 34 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER 5 PALM SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 35 GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK S COCONUT CIRCLE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 36 CORKSCREW ELEMENTARYIMIDDLE SCHOOL" T DREAMLAND NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 3T EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK 8 IMMOKALEE SOUTH PARK 38 CINDY MYSELS COMMUNITY PARK 8 OILWELL PARK 3B EAGLELAKES COMMUNITYPARK 10 ISLES OF CAPRI NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 40 TONY ROSBOUGH COMMUNTY PARK 11 NAPLES MANOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 41 IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY PARK 12 PANTHER NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 42 IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX 13 BAREFOOT BEACH ACCESS 43 OSCEOLA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL" 14 BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE COUNTY PAR 44 IMMOKALEE AIRPORT PARK 15 COCOHATCHEE RIVER PARK 45 SABAL PALM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL" I6 CONNER PARK 46 BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARK 17 VANDERBILT BEACH PARK 47 GOODLAND BOATING PARK 18 NORTH GULFSHOREACCESS 48 MAR GOOD HARBOR PARK 18 CLAM PASS PARK 40 GOLDEN GATE GREENWAY 20 NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK 50 MANATEE COMMUNITY PARK 21 SUDDEN REGIONAL PARK 51 GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK 22 BAYVIEW PARK 52 VANDERBILTEXT COMMUNITYPARK 23 COLLIER BLVD BOATING PARK 53 VETERANSMEMORIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL' 24 TIGERTAIL BEACH PARK 54 IMMOKALEE HIGH SCHOOL" 25 SOUTH MARCO BEACH ACCESS 55 PALMETTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL• 26 CAXAMBAS PARK 56 EDEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL• 27ANN OLESKY PARK 57 FRED W. COYLE FREEDOM PARK 28 NAPLES ZOO 58 PORT OF THE ISLANDS PARK 28NAPLES PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL" 59 OAKES NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 30 VETERANS COMMUNITY PARK 60 RICH KING GREENWAY REGIONAL PARK / @62 61 ISLES OF CAPRI PADDLECRAFT PARK PALM RIVER NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 1 0 a 0 Packet Pg. 212 CoCakaaty Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park FEDERAL AND STATE OWNED PARK LAND (Disclaimer: The information provided is to be used for general mapping purposes only. Ground survevina and records search must be used for absolute boundaries/acreages Corkscrew\ 9.A.2 Regio- Okaloacoochee Slough Ecosystem State Forest Name: Big Cypress National Preserve Acres: 574,848 Watershed F Lake Trafford ann en Im d t Collier -Seminole State Park 7,271 Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed 15,421 Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park 166 = Everglades National Park 26,840 a Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park 75,000 t� Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge 26,400 a Corkscrew Lake Trafford Impoundment 634 d ERegional � ' r' Okaloacocochee Slough State Forest 4,920 watershed Picayune Strand State Forest 78,909 0 - Rookery Bay National Reserve 110,000 = Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge 35,000 Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Picayune Strand Park State Forest rrsul Rookery, Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve j' collier / Seminole jl r� state Park Ten Thousand - q Islands National i Ai i Wildlife Refuge - --- - i 0 2.25 4.5 9 Miles 7 Everglades TG6EAZMEhT C TOTAL: 955,409 ad d R CL t6 3 C C Q CD N 1- 5 Q O N w O 1= R IL W d E v t0 Q Packet Pg. 213 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT (CIE) AMENDMENT SUBMITTALS FOR CATEGORY "A" FACILITIES CONTENTS EXHIBIT "A", SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR NEXT 5 FISCAL YEARS APPENDIX "H", SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR FUTURE FISCAL YEARS 6 -10 Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.2 Q Packet Pg. 214 9.A.2 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" CONSIDERATION VERSION COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR ROADS AND BRIDGE PROJECTS FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL IF -Im act Fees I COA Revenue $13,600,000 $14,000,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT PRWECTRo. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL 60144 Oil Well Rd - Everglades Blvd to Oil Well Grade Advanced Construction $900,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $2,100,000 60144C Oil Well Rd - Immokalee Rd to Everglades Blvd $0 $1,500,000 $4,000,000 $0 $5,500,000 CF -Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service $22,783,000 60168 Vanderbilt Beach Rd - Collier Blvd to 8th St R 19-20 C 21 $16,000,000 $14,770,000 $55,600,000 $0 $0 $86,370,000 60200 Goodland Rd (CR 92A) Improvements Construction 20 $0 $6,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,100,000 60129 Wilson Benfield Extension - Lord's Way to City Gate N ROW Acquisition 21-23 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 60211 Orange Blossom - Ai ort Rd to Livingston Blvd D 20 R/A 21 C 22 $0 $600,000 $4,000,000 $2,450,000 $0 $7,050,000 TBD Airport Rd - Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd D/M/A 21-22, C 23 $0 $0 $3,000,0001 $10,000,000 $7,839,000 $20,839,000 68057 Collier Blvd CR 951 - Green Blvd to GG Main Canal D/MIA 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 TBD Goodlette Rd -Vanderbilt Beach Rd to Immokalee Rd D/MIA 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 TBD Green Blvd - Santa Barbara Blvd to Sunshine Blvd Stud 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 60201 Pine Ride Rd - Livingston Blvd Intersection Improvement D 19 DIM 20 A 21 C 22 $500,000 $250,000 $5,000,000 $2,450,000 $0 $8,200,000 60219 Whippoorwill D 19, D/C 20 $300,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,300,000 65061 Ruston Pointe Construction 19 $140,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 60198 Veterans Memorial Blvd A/R 20, A21-22 $0 $2,900,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $0 $7,400,000 60199 Vanderbilt Beach Rd - US 41 to E of Goodlette D 19, C 21 $300,000 $8,900,000 $0 $9,200,000 60147 Randall/Immokalee Roads Intersection D20 R21 A22-23 $0 $650,000 $500,000 $6,000,000 $2,000,000 $9,150,000 60215 Triangle Blvd - Price St ROW Acquisition 19 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 60214 Immokalee/Woodcrest Improvement Construction 19 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 TBD 116th St Bride LAP DIC 21 $0 $0 $8,000,000 $0 $0 $8,000,000 60212 47th Ave NE Bnd a LAP R 21 C 22 $0 $0 $200,000 $8,800,000 $0 $9,000,000 33563 Tiger Reserve Construction 19 $2,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,800,000 Contingency $25,174,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,174,000 Sbtll Operation Improvements/Programs $15,150,000 $34,150,000 $17,650,000 $16,950,000 $17,450,000 $101,350,000 60109 Planning Consultants $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Impact Fee Refunds $368,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,968,000 Debt Service Payments $13,326,000 $13,137,000 $13,134,000 $13,131,000 $13,136,000 $65,864,000 ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR ROADS AND BRIDGE PROJECT TOTALS 1 $76,558,0001 $76,257,000 $119,684,000 $63,981,000 $50,125,000 $385,605,000 REVENUE KEY -REVENUE SOURCE FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL IF -Im act Fees I COA Revenue $13,600,000 $14,000,000 $14,500,000 $15,000,000 $15,500,000 $72,600,000 Potential Debt Fundin /Unfunded Needs $0 $26,295,000 $69,509,000 $10,594,000 $0 $106,398,000 GA -Gas Tax Revenue $21,575,000 $21,750,000 $22,000,000 $22,250,000 $22,500,000 $110,075,000 DCA/ Interlocal 62014 $700,000 $2,000,000 $2,700,000 GR - Grants/Reimbursements $0 $0 $1,500,000 $4,000,000 $0 $5,500,000 CF -Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service $22,783,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,783,000 GF - General Fund 001 $8,556,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $45,756,000 Supplornental OMB Funding $5,361,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,361,000 IN - Interest Revenue - Fund 313 Gas Tax & Impact Fees $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,250,000 TR - MSTU General Fund 111 Transfers $4,250,000 $4,250,000 $4,250,000 $4,250,000 $4,250,000 $21,250,000 RR- Revenue Reduction less 5% re uin;db law $1,717,000 $1,788,000 $1,825,000 $1,863,000 $1,875,000 $9,068,000 REVENUE TOTAL $75,558,000 $76,257,000 1 $119,684,000 1 $63,981,000 1 $50,125,000 1 $385,605,000 CUMMULATIVE FOR FY23 CAPITAL FUNDING 1 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 CIE - 16 Packet Pg. 215 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 9.A.2 CONSIDERATION VERSION PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL 151 Acres - Sports Tourism Venue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fund 298 Debt Service 2011/2013 Bonds $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Fund 346 Debt Service (2013 Bond) $123,470 $123,470 $123,47 $123,470 $185,170 $679,050 F7715 a ervice on $2,764,730 $2,815,930 $2,824-530 $2,818,330 $5 603 130 $4,224,50 PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTTOTALS $2,938,200 $2,939,400 $2,948,000 $2,941,800 $5,788,300 $17,555,700 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue $8,325,000 $8,481,000 $8,626,300 $8,774,000 $8,924,300 $43,130,600 DIF - Deferred Impact Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 IN -Interest/ Misc. $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $112,000 $560,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required by law) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CF - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service $4,224,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,224,50 TR - Added Value through Commitments, Leases & Transfers $2$0 $0 $0 $0 GF - General Fund 001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 REVENUE TOTAL$12,661,5001 9 036 300$47,915,100 NOTE: All Community Park Land and Regional Park Land transactions are being facilitated through interdepartmental transfers exchanging land holdings for park lands, or using other methods not involving expenditure of capital funds. These transactions represent chances to the value of land holdings only. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\02 CIE FY 19-23_18 AUIR_CCPC rvsd FNL R s L0 11- W Q Go 0 N 0 O 1= R IL Packet Pg. 216 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amendments EXHIBIT W COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 CONSIDERATION VERSION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL Countywide Programs, Planning & Maintenance $550,000 $750,000 $800,000 $850,000 $850,000 $3,800,000 Infrastructure & Capacity Projects $12,020,000 $13,862,000 $14,045,000 $13,761,000 $12,464,000 $66,152,000 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS $12,570,000 $14,612,000 $14,845,000 $14,611,000 $13,314,000 $69,952,000 Stormwater Management Operating $6,275,000 $4,645,000 $4,865,000 $5,099,000 $5,396,000 $26,280,000 Debt Service/Transfers/Reserves $1,282,000 $1,735,000 $2,235,000 $2,735,000 $3,235,000 $11,222,000 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS $20,127,0001 $20,992,0001 $21,945,0001 $22,445,0001 $21,945,0001 $107,454,000 G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\02 CIE FY 19-23_18 AUR _CCPC rvsd FNL O CL d I O C d C od d R CL Packet Pg. 217 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 CONSIDERATION VERSION POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL Debt Service $10,242,000 $13,015,000 $14,951,000 $14,389,500 $12,585,000 $65,182,500 Expansion Related Projects $50,000 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $10,050,000 Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects $14,670,000 $35,285,000 $21,325,000 $23,510,000 $21,980,000 $116,770,000 Departmental Capital $1,135,000 $1,158,000 $1,181,000 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000 Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects 1 $1,459,000 $3,529,000 $2,133,000 $2,351,000 $2,198,000 $11,670,000 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS $27,556,000 $52,987,000 $44,590,000 $41,455,500 $42,992,000 $209,580,500 REVENUE KEY -REVENUE SOURCE FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL WIF- Waters stem Development Fees Impact Fees $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $32,500,000 RR - Reserve Reduction less 5% required bylaw) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 B - Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LOC - Commercial Paper $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WCA-Water Capital Account $1,135,000 $1,158,000 $1,181,000 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000 REV - Rate Revenue $19,921,000 $45,329,000 $36,909,000 $33,750,500 $35,263,000 $171,172,500 REVENUE TOTAL $27,556,000 $52,987,000 $44,590,000 $41,455,500 $42,992,000 $209,580,500 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. DATA SOURCES: - Expansion Related and Replacement & Rehabilitation Proiects: FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget. - Department Capital: FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget, split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. FY 2020 to FY 2028 is a 2% increase over each fiscal year from FY 2020 through FY 2028 (pursuant to CPI adjustments per Board policy. - Debt Service: FY 2019 to 2023 are obtained from the Collier County Water and Sewer District Financial Statements and other Reports, Summary of Debt service requirements to maturity. Debt Service for anticipated 2020 bonds is estimated. Total Debt Service amount is split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. - Reserve for Contingencies -- Replacement and Rehabilitation Proiects: As per Florida Statutes, reserve for contingencies are up to 10% of expenses. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\02 CIE FY 19-23_18 AUIR_CCPC rvsd `NL Packet Pg. 218 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 CONSIDERATION VERSION SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT NOTES SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL TBD County Landfill Cell Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECT TOTALS $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0 I $0 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2019 1 FY 2020 1 FY 2021 1 FY 2022 1 FY 2023 1 TOTAL LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 REVENUE TOTAL 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 NOTE. Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\02 CIE FY 19-23_18 AUR _CCPC rvsd FNL " Pursuant to the Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF), landfill cell construction is scheduled and guaranteed by WMIF over the life of the Collier County Landfill. Collier County landfill expansion costs are paid for by WMIF through agreed upon Collier County landfill tipping fees. By contract under the LOA, WMIF will construct any future required cells. Landfill cells vary in size and disposal capacity. O CL N I O _ d _ od d R CL Packet Pg. 219 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 CONSIDERATION VERSION WASTEWATER COLLECTION & TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS FY 2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL Debt Service (CAFR) $10,242,000 $13,015,000 $14,951,000 $14,389,500 $12,585,000 $65,182,500 Expansion Related Projects $0 $116,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $116,000,000 Re lacement & Rehabilitation Projects $27,965,000 $42,685,000 $37,685,000 $41,475,000 $36,950,000 $186,760,000 Departmental Capital $1,135,000 $1,459,000 $1,158,000 $1,181,000 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000 Reserve for Contin enciea Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects $4,269,000 $3,769,000 $4,148,000 $3,695,000 $17,340,000 WASTEWATER COLLECTION& TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTAI $40,801,000 $177,127,000 $57,586,000 $61,217,500 $54,459,000 $391,190,500 REVENUE KEY -REVENUE SOURCE FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees / Impact Fees $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $5,800,000 $29,000,000 RR - Reserve Reduction less 5% required bylaw) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 B - Bond Proceeds $0 $116,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $116,000,000 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SCA- Wastewater Capital Account - Transfers $1,135,000 $1,158,000 $1,181,000 $1,205,000 $1,229,000 $5,908,000 REV - Rate Revenue $33 866 000 $54 169 000 $50,605,000 $54,212,500 $47,430,000 $240,282,500 REVENUE TOTAL 1 $40,801,000 $177,127,000 1 $57,586,000 1 $61,217,500 1 $54,459,000 $391,190,500 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. G:\CDES Planning Services\Compmhensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\02 CIE FY 19-23_18 AUIR_CCPC and FNL DATA SOURCES: - Expansion Related and Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects: FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget. - Department Capital: FY 2019 is obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget, split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. FY 2020 to FY 2028 is a 2% increase over each fiscal year from FY 2020 through FY 2028 (pursuant to CPI adjustments per Board policy). - Debt Service: FY 2019 to 2023 are obtained from the Collier County Water and Sewer District Financial Statements and other Reports, Summary of Debt Service requirements to maturity. Debt Service for anticipated 2020 bonds is estimated. Total Debt Service amount is split 50/50 between Water and Wastewater. - Reserve for Contingencies — Replacement and Rehabilitation Projects: As per Florida Statutes Section 129.01(c), reserve for contingencies are up to 10% of expenses. R t R O CL O C d C 06 d R CL Packet Pg. 220 9.A.2 EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 The table below itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The "Revenue Amount' column contains the 5 -Year amount of facility revenues. The right column is a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. The subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the deficit in order to maintain the levels of service standards as referenced in the Capital Improvement Element. Protects Revenue Sources Expenditure Revenue Amount Total ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR ROADS AND BRIDGE PROJECTS $32,500,000 Revenues: IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue $72,600,000 Unfunded Needs $106,398,000 GA - Gas Tax Revenue $110,075,000 DCA / Interlocal 62014 $2,700,000 GR - Grants / Reimbursements $5,500,000 AC - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) Service $22,783,000 GF - General Fund (001) $45,756,000 Supplemental OMB Funding $5,361,000 IN - Interest Revenue - Fund 313 Gas Tax & Impact Fees $2,250,000 TR - MSTU General Fund 111 Transfers $21,250,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) -$9,068,000 $385,605,000 Less Expenditures: $385,605,000 $385,605,000 REV - Rate Revenue Balance $0 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS $171,172,500 Revenues: WIF -Water System Development Fees/Impact Fees $32,500,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $0 B - Bond Proceeds $0 LOC - Commercial Paper 1 $0 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 WCA - Water Capital Account $5,908,000 REV - Rate Revenue $171,172,500 $209,580,500 Less Expenditures: $209,580,500 $209,580,500 GR - Grants / Reimbursements Balance $0 WASTEWATER COLLECTION & TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $0 Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees/Impact Fees $29,000,000 TR - Added Value through Commitments, Leases & Transfers RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $0 B- Bond Proceeds $116,000,000 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien $0 SCA - Wastewater Capital Account, Transfers $5,908,000 REV - Rate Revenue $240,282,500 $391,190,500 Less Expenditures: $391,190,500 $391,190,500 Balance $0 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS Revenues: LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees Less Expenditures: $0 $0 $0 Balance PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS Revenues: IF - Impact Fees $43,130,600 DIF - Deferred Impact Fees $0 GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0 IN -interest $560,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $0 AC - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service $4,224,500 TR - Added Value through Commitments, Leases & Transfers $0 GF- General Fund (001) $0 $47,915,100 Less Expenditures: $17,555,700 $47,915,100 Balance $30,359,400 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS Revenues: GR - Grants / Reimbursements BP/RESTORE Act County Held Tax Certificate - OMB Funding TR - Transfer from Naples Park Debt Service CF - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service IN -Interest Revenue RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) GF - General Fund (001) GF - MSTU General Fund (111) Less Expenditures: TOTAL PROJECTS 141 of 148 G:\CDES Planning Seivioes\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIEN02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIM02 CIE FY 19-23_18 AUIR_CCPC and FNL $2,500,000 $0 $100,050,000 $0 $5,132,000 -$5,275,000 $5,047,000 $0 $0 $107,454,000 $107,454,000 $107,454,000 Balance $0 TOTAL REVENUE ZA 00 T_ CD N O IL C tU E t V M y+ y+ Q $1,111,385,700 SOURCES $1,141,745,100 Packet Pg. 221 Capital Improvement Element - Appendix Table: 2018 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 CONSIDERATION VERSION ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL IF -Im acl Fees I COA Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL Contin enc $3,570,000 $3,722,000 $3,360,000 $3,521,000 $3,521,000 $17,694,000 Sbltl Operations Im rovements/Pro rams $9,310,000 $9,778,000 $10,260,040 $10,756,541 $11,267,938 $51,372,519 Sbttl Departmental Capital $1,254,000 $1,279,000 $1,305,000 $1,331,000 $1,358,000 $6,527,000 Expansion Related Projects $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $15,000,000 Replacement R Rehabilatation Projects $35,695,000 $37,220,000 $33,595,000 $35,205,000 $35,205,000 $176,920,000 Debt Service Payments $14,725,000 $17,510,000 $16,727,000 $15,900,500 $15,689,500 $80,552,000 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECT TOTALS $64,554,000 $74 509 000 $70 247 040 $71 714 041 $67 041 438 $348 065 519 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL IF -Im acl Fees I COA Revenue $15,500,000 $15,500,000 $15,500,000 $15,500,000 $15,500,000 $77,500,000 GA -Gas Tax Revenue $22,000,000 $22,000,000 $22,000,000 $22,000,000 $22,000,000 $110,000,000 GR - Grants/Reimbursements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 AC - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TR - Transfers $4,250,000 $4,250,000 $4,250,000 $4,250,000 $4,250,000 $21,250,000 GF - General Fund (001) $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $46,500,000 DC- Developer Contribution Agreements/ Advanced Reimbursements $18,113,104 $18,113,104 $18,113,104 $18,113,104 $18,113,103 $90,565,519 IN -Interest - Fund 313 (Gas Tax &Interest Impact Fees) $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,250,000 RR -Revenue Reduction less 51 re uired b law $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 REVENUE TOTAL $69,613,104 $69,613,104 $69,613,104 $69,613,104 $69,613,103 $348,065,519 Q G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\03 CIE FY 24-28_18 AUIR_CCPC wad FNL CIE Appendix - 1 Packet Pg. 222 Capital Improvement Element - Appendix Table: 2018 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 CONSIDERATION VERSION PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS CAPITAL $ VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL 35 Acres - Collier Enterprises - Rural Lands West $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECT TOTALS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue $2,952,269 $2,981,347 $3,297,835 $0 $0 $9,231,451 GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 GF - General Fund 001 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 SO 1 $0 1 $0 REVENUE TOTAL 1 $2,952,269 1 $2,981,347 1 $3,297,835 1 SO 1 $0 1 $9,231,451 G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIM02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR103 CIE FY 24-28_18 AUIR_CCPC rvsd FNL NOTE: All Community Park Land and Regional Park Land transactions are being facilitated through interdepartmental transfers exchanging land holdings for park lands, or using other methods not involving expenditure of capital funds. These transactions represent chances to the value of land holdings only. Q CID 0 N 0 O R a d E s v m Q CIE Appendix - 2 Packet Pg. 223 Capital Improvement Element - Appendix Table: 2018 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 9.A.2 CONSIDERATION VERSION STORMINATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT Na. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL Stormwaler Management System Projects Continuous $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $100,000,000 Stormwaler Management Operations & Reserves $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 STORMINATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $21,000,000 $105,000,000 R t R O Q d Z O C d C 06 d R Q r TOTAL � $0 $0 $0 ♦Y $105,000,000 $105,000,000 Q O N 0 O r - R IL d E s v m Q G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\03 CIE FY 24-28_18 AUIR_CCPC and FNL CIE Appendix - 3 Packet Pg. 224 Capital Improvement Element - Appendix Table: 2018 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 CONSIDERATION VERSION POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS WIF- Water System Development Fees $6,500,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL $0 Expansion Related Projects $82,500,000 $82,500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $92,500,000 $0 Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects $1,254,000 $22,375,000 $17,755,000 $17,815,000 $23,495,000 $23,495,000 $104,935,000 $32,838,000 Debt Service 29,824,000 $14,725,000 $17,510,000 $16,727,000 $15,900,500 $15,689,500 $80,552,000 37,629,000 Departmental Capital Reserve for Contingencies -Replacement &Rehabilitation Projects $1,254,000 $2,238,000 $1,279,000 $1,776,000 $1,305,000 $1,782,000 $1,331,000 $2,350,000 $1,358,000 $2,350,000 $6,527,000 $10,496,000 $123,092,000 $43,320,000 $37,629,000 $48,076,500 $42,892,500+J295,010,000 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIM02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR103 CIE FY 24-28_18 AUIR_CCPC rvsd FNL R s a O Q d Z O C d C 06 d R iZ Q CIE Appendix - 4 Packet Pg. 225 WIF- Water System Development Fees $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $32,500,000 RR - Revenue Reduction less 5% required by law $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 B - Bond Proceeds $82,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $82,500,000 SRF - State Revolving Loan Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WCA - Water Capital Account $1,254,000 $1,279,000 $1,305,000 $1,331,000 $1,358,000 $6,527,000 REV- Rate Revenue $32,838,000 $35,541,000 29,824,000 40,245,500 35,034,500 7173,483,000 123,092,000 43,320,000 37,629,000 48,076,500 42,892,500 295,010,000 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIM02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR103 CIE FY 24-28_18 AUIR_CCPC rvsd FNL R s a O Q d Z O C d C 06 d R iZ Q CIE Appendix - 4 Packet Pg. 225 Capital Improvement Element -Appendix Table: 2018 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 CONSIDERATION VERSION SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL TBD County Landfill Cell Construction SO $0 $0 SO $0 $0 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECT TOTALS SO $0 $0 SO $0 $0 REVENUE KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2024 1 FY 2025 1 FY 2026 1 FY 2027 1 FY 2028 1 TOTAL LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees SO 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 REVENUE TOTAL i SO 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. ' Pursuant to the Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMIF), landfill cell construction is scheduled and guaranteed by WMIF over the life of the Collier County Landfill. Collier County landfill expansion costs are paid for by WMIF through agreed upon Collier County landfill tipping fees. By contract under the LOA, WMIF will construct any future required cells. R s O Q d r 0 C O) C od d R tZ R 7 C C Q co O N Q G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\03 CIE FY 24-28_18 AUIR_CCPC rvsd FNL CIE Appendix - 5 Packet Pg. 226 Capital Improvement Element - Appendix Table: 2018 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024 - 2028 CONSIDERATION VERSION WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees I Impact Fees CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL Expansion Related Projects $0 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $15,000,000 Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects $0 $35,695,000 $37,220,000 $33,595,000 $35,205,000 $35,205,000 $176,920,000 Departmental Capital $0 $1,254,000 $1,279,000 $1,305,000 $1,331,000 $1,358,000 $6,527,000 Debt Service Reserve for Contingencies - Replacement & Rehabilitation Projects $6,527,000 $14,725,000 $17,510,000 $16,727,000 $15,900,500 $15,689,500 $80,552,000 3,570,000 3,722,000 3,360,000 3,521,000 3,521,000 $17,694,000 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS 64,731,000 55,244,000 $64,731,000 59,987,000 60,957,500 $55,773,500 296,693,000 - FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees I Impact Fees 5,800,000 $5,800,000 5,800,000 5,800,000 $5,800,000 29,000,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 B - Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SCA- Wastewater Capital Account - Transfers $1,254,000 $1,279,000 $1,305,000 $1,331,000 $1,358,000 $6,527,000 REV - Rate Revenue $48,190,000 $57,652,000 $52,882,000 $53,826,500 $48,615,500 $261,166,000 REVENUE TOTAL 55,244,000 64,731,000 59,987,000 60,957,500 55,773,500 296,693,000 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible with a dedicated revenue source or an alternative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not realized. Figures provided for years six through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. r fp Q G:\CDES Planning Services\Compmhensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\03 CIE FY 24-28_18 AUIR_CCPC and FNL CIE Appendix - 6 Packet Pg. 227 APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 The table below itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The "Revenue Amount' column contains the 5 -Year amount of facility revenues. The right column is a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. The subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the deficit in order to maintain the levels of service standards as referenced in the Capital Improvement Element. Projects Revenue Sources Expenditure Revenue Amount Total ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS Revenues: IF - Impact Fees / COA Revenue GA - Gas Tax Revenue GR - Grants / Reimbursements AC - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service TR - Transfers GF - General Fund (001) DC - Developer Contribution Agreements / Advanced IN - Interest - Fund 313 (Gas Tax & Interest Impact Fees RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) Less Expenditures: $77,500,000 $110,000,000 $0 $0 $21,250,000 $46,500,000 $90,565,519 $2,250,000 $0 $348,065,519 $348,065,519 $348.065.519 Balance $0 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS $173,483,000 Revenues: WIF - Water System Development Fees $32,500,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $0 B - Bond Proceeds $82,500,000 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 WCA - Water Capital Account $6,527,000 REV - Rate Revenue $173,483,000 $295,010,000 Less Expenditures: $295,010,000 $295.010.000 Balance $0 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees $29,000,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $0 B - Bond Proceeds $0 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien $0 SCA - Wastewater Capital Account $6,527,000 REV - Rate Revenue $261,166,000 $296,693,000 Less Expenditures: $296,693,000 $296,693,000 Balance $0 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS Revenues: LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees $0 $0 Less Expenditures: $0 $0 Balance $0 PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS Revenues: IF - Impact Fees $9,231,451 GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0 GF - General Fund (001) $0 $9,231,451 Less Expenditures: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS Revenues: $0 Balance 9.A.2 ZA 00 T— CD O N O IL Jr C tv E t V O Q GR - Grants / Reimbursements SO AC - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service SO CRA - Community Redevelopment Area/Municipal Service Taxinq SO GF - General Fund (001) S105,000,000 $105,000,000 Less Expenditures: $105,000,000 $105,000,000 Balance $0 PROJECTS $1,044,768,519 SOURCES $1,053,999,970 GACDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\2018 AUIR-CIE\02 Materials for CCPC 18 AUIR\03 CIE FY 24-28_18 AUIR_CCPC rvsd FNL CIE Appendix - 7 148 of 148 Packet Pg. 228 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES 2018 CATEGORY "B" FACILITIES (Non Concurrency Regulated) 1. County Jail & Correctional Facilities 2. Law Enforcement Facilities 3. Library — Buildings — Materials/Collections 4. Emergency Medical Services 5. Government Buildings Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 229 COUNTY JAIL &CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES CONTENTS • COUNTY JAIL & CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES - SUMMARY • TABLE • CHART • JAILS & CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES - EXISTING INVENTORY - LOCATION MAP COUNTY JAIL POPULATION TRENDS Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 230 9.A.3 2018 AUIR SUMMARY JAILS / CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Facility Type: County Jail & Correctional Facilities (Category B) Level of Service Standard (LOSS): 2.79 beds per 1,000/population* Unit Cost: $93,084/floor space required/individual housed** Using the Countywide Peak Season population, the following is set forth: Units Available Inventory 9/30/18 1,304 Required Inventory 9/30/23*** 1,325 Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 0 5 -year Surplus or (Deficit) (21)**** Expenditures Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 Projects Debt Service Payments on 2013 Bond Debt Service Payments on 2011 Bond (refinanced 2003 bond) Total Expenditures Revenues Impact Fees Interest Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service Loan from Countywide Capital Projects (Gen Fund) Total Revenues Surplus or (Deficit) Revenues for 5 -year Capital Program Revenues needed to maintain existing LOSS Value/Cost $ 121,381,536 $ 123,336,300 $ 0 $ 1,954,764 $ 0 $ 1,570,800 $ 8,960,600 $ 10,531,400 $ 7,565,300 $ 60,000 $ 1,781,000 $ 1,125,100 $ 10,531,400 $ 0 $ 0 Recommendation: That the BCC approve the proposed Jails / Correctional Facilities AUIR for FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 which contains no new projects over the five-year planning period. Notes: * The previous Level of Service Standard (LOSS) of 3.2 beds per 1, 000/population was adjusted to the current 2.79 beds per 1, 000/population by the BCC as part of their adoption of the 2009 AUIR. ** Unit cost value indexed per 2017 Impact Fee Update from previous value of $80,979 for the floor space required for each individual housed. *** The required inventory does not attempt to predict future possible increases or decreases in land, building and equipment costs. **** The Immokalee Jail Center (IJC) is a 192 -bed adult detention center and booking facility. The IJC processes about 18% of all arrests in the County. The facility also processes, and registers convicted felons and sex offenders, maintains a video visitation link with Naples Jail Center, and conducts a Working Weekend Program. 153 of 270 Packet Pg. 231 540.000 520,000 500,000 Z� r- 41 O 2 480,000 v 3 o Q O IL 460,000 440,000 420.000 2018 AUIR Jail Facilities, LOSS: 2.79 Beds / 1,000 Population (Peak Season) Unit Cost: $93,084 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2025-26 2026-27 f Population & Beds Required * Beds Available 1,480 1,430 1,380 1,330 d m 1,280 1,230 imFIf 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 232 9.A.3 2018 AUIR Jail Facilities (Peak Season) LOSS: 2.79 Beds / 1,000 Population* * During the 2009 AUIR the BCC adjusted the current level of service standard from 3.2 beds per 1,000 population to 2.79 beds per 1,000 population. The motion passed 5 to 0. It should also be noted that not all available beds can be occupied at any given time, due to restrictions associated with the inability to house specific types of offenders within the general jail population. Please reference the Collier County Sheriffs Office, Jail Facilities "Average Daily Population" by Month, and by Year statistics sheet included herein. ** Due to budgetary constraints only the Immokalee Jail expansion is being proposed within the 10 year planning window. Inmate population will be analyzed on an annual basis to determine actual need prior to any expansion being programmed any earlier than year 10. W) a ao N N 0 O R a Packet Pg. 233 SURPLUS OR POPULATION BEDS BEDS BEDS SURPLUS/ (DEFICIENCY) AT FISCAL CO -WIDE REQUIRED PLANNED AVAILABLE (DEFICIENCY) YEAR 0.00279 IN AUIR** 93,084 2018-19 451,303 1,259 0 1,304 45 $4,188,780 2019-20 459,799 1,283 0 1,304 21 $1,954,764 2020-21 467,704 1,305 0 1,304 (1) ($93,084) 2021-22 475,746 1,327 0 1,304 (23) ($2,140,932) 2022-23 483,925 1,350 0 1,304 (46) ($4,281,864) 1st 5 -Year Growth (2019-23) 32,622 91 0 2023-24 492,245 1,373 0 1,304 (69) ($6,422,796) 2024-25 499,928 1,395 0 1,304 (91) ($8,470,644) 2025-26 506,954 1,414 64 1,368 (46) ($4,281,864) 2026-27 514,079 1,434 0 1,368 (66) ($6,143,544) 2027-28 521,304 1,454 0 1,368 (86) ($8,005,224) 2nd 5 -Year Growth (2024-28) 29,059 81 0 64 Total 10 -Year Growth (2019-28) 61,681 172 0 64 * During the 2009 AUIR the BCC adjusted the current level of service standard from 3.2 beds per 1,000 population to 2.79 beds per 1,000 population. The motion passed 5 to 0. It should also be noted that not all available beds can be occupied at any given time, due to restrictions associated with the inability to house specific types of offenders within the general jail population. Please reference the Collier County Sheriffs Office, Jail Facilities "Average Daily Population" by Month, and by Year statistics sheet included herein. ** Due to budgetary constraints only the Immokalee Jail expansion is being proposed within the 10 year planning window. Inmate population will be analyzed on an annual basis to determine actual need prior to any expansion being programmed any earlier than year 10. W) a ao N N 0 O R a Packet Pg. 233 CA, 2018 JAILS - EXISTING INVENTORY 41 MARCO lJq N W�E SSSS M 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 234 alee Jail � Florid Gulf ����� Loas[ Un v sity CORKSCREW RD w LAKE TCR Z Legend VEE 846 i Major Roads IMMOKCOUNTY I IMMOKALEE RDS Q Existing Jail 3EA RD A i -NAAn I� y ............ $ . ❑ Y i3Cy I� .� caowrx MarvncEMENTDEPARrMera OIL WELL RD � ❑ IMMOKALEE rc o � �..�..�..�..�..�. m LT BEACH RD ti�..�..�..�.. �..�..�..�.. ATE 2 R1 VO '1 kTE PK K U 1-75 ® 75 RADIO tt DA S BLVD 51 y HAMMOCKRD Naples Jail s Tye ry. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 234 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE -JAIL POPULATION Average Daily Jail Population / Cost per Inmate Month 2016 15/16 Chg Cost/Day 2017 16/17 Chg Cost/Day 2018 17/18 Chg Cost/Day Oct 802 -5.76% $136.47 744 -7.23% $151.60 823 10.62% $146.48 Nov 773 -3.86% $141.59 701 -9.31% $160.90 837 19.40% $144.03 Dec 783 -1.39% $139.78 679 -13.28% $166.11 840 23.71% $143.52 Jan 815 6.26% $134.29 731 -10.31% $154.29 810 10.81% $148.83 Feb 810 5.06% $135.12 757 -6.54% $149.00 823 8.72% $146.48 Mar 801 5.12% $136.64 755 -5.74% $149.39 829 9.80% $145.42 Apr 777 -0.89% $140.86 768 -1.16% $146.86 837 8.98% $144.03 May 786 0.13% $139.24 783 -0.38% $144.05 Jun 791 -1.13% $138.36 771 -2.59% $146.29 Jul 768 -3.03% $142.51 789 2.73% $142.95 Aug 735 -10.15% $148.91 800 8.84% $140.99 A Sep 751 -9.95% $145.73 803 6.92% $140.46 _k FY Avg 783 -1.78% $139.84 757 -3.17% $149.04 Average Daily Jail Population, Fiscal Year 157 of 270 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 235 9.A.3 COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES c 1 E U 4 4 4 Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities a Packet Pg. 236 CONTENTS a O • COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES — SUMMARY • TABLE • CHART • EXISTING AND LEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT Ca BUILDINGS — MAP • EXISTING AND LEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDINGS — INVENTORY a • EXISTING AND LEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT o BUILDINGS — INFORMATIONAL SUPPLEMENT N • COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CALLS FOR SERVICE OVER LAST 5 -YEAR PERIOD • COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CRIMES AND CRIME RATES 00 • COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE DISTRICT 0 N BOUNDARIES — MAP o 1 = a c 1 E U 4 4 4 Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities a Packet Pg. 236 9.A.3 2018 AUIR SUMMARY LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES Facility Type: Law Enforcement (Category B) Current Level of Service Standard (LOSS): 1.84 Officers per 1,000/population' Achieved Level of Service Standard (LOSS): 1.77 Officers per 1,000/population2 Proposed Level of Service Standard (LOSS): 0.9089 sq. ft. per capita Unit Cost: $362.00 per sq. ft.4 Using the Unincorporated Area Peak Season and the Everglades City populations, the following is set forth: Expenditures Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 Projects Officers 0 E Debt Service Payments for 2013 Bond Available Sq. Ft. Value/Cost Available Inventory 9/30/18 660 296,651 $ 107,387,662 Required Inventory 9/30/23 $ 396,276 $ 155,340,135 Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 (+99,000 sq. ft.) 395,6515 $ 143,225,662 5 -year Surplus or (Deficit) 6256 $ (12,114,473) Expenditures Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 Projects $ 0 E Debt Service Payments for 2013 Bond $ 1,451,500 06 Debt Service Payments for 2010/2017 Bond $ 5,548,300 Debt Service Payments for 2011 Bond $ 2,634,000 a Total Expenditures $ 9,633,800 �a 3 Revenues c Impact Fees anticipated $ 6,798,700 a Interest $ 100,000 c Loans from Countywide Capital Projects (Gen Fund) $ 1,954,500 "! Available Cash for Future Projects/Payments of Debt Service $ 780,600 , Total Revenues $ 9,633,800 Surplus or (Deficit) Revenues for 5 -year Capital Program $ 0 Additional Revenues needed to achieve Proposed LOSS $ 0 00Q Recommendation: That the BCC approve the proposed Law Enforcement AUIR for FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 Footnotes: 1. The 2017 AUIR approved the Sheriff's Office request to adopt a revised Level of Service Standard. 2. Achieved Impact Fee Level of Service will be reviewed as part of each Impact Fee Update Study and will reflect actual officer count. 3. Level of Service Standard reflects actual square footage available plus 5 -year capital plan and move of the Evidence/Forensic Science Building into the 5 -year capital plan. 4. Unit cost value is based upon cost estimate for the Orangetree permanent station. 5. These expansion/relocation projects reflect the Evidence/Forensic Science Building, in addition to that square footage above the square footage already inventoried in existing substations. 6. The 2017 AUIR approved the Sheriff's Office request to move the 90,000 sq. ft. expansion into.first 5 -year window. 161 of 270 Packet Pg. 237 9.A.3 CCSO Comments: Identification of Future Need — The Collier County Sheriffs Office requested the construction of, and in 2017 was approved for, a Forensic Science Building to consolidate multiple evidence facilities and examination services into one structure. The retention of evidence requires high security and storage involving environmentally correct conditions for the items and unerring tracking for court. With addition of new laws, and new methods of scientific examination and major cases that must be retained until solved, the number of items being held for investigation and court purposes continually increases. Forensic evidence is presently housed in four separate structures, processed at one location, and examined at another. Consolidation of these services improves security and tracking, eliminate transportation needs and the potential for evidence contamination in many cases, and expedite forensic examination. In addition, with County and subsequent forensic needs growth, expanded services are needed, that include more local evidence processing and examination, digital evidence storage (secure servers and room), shoe and tire examination, ballistics, and so forth. The current location for these services is at maximum capacity with no room for growth. A centralized location of forensic services would help improve efficiency by having all the evidence centrally located and more readily available. A central location for forensic services greatly enhances communication, training and cohesion between the various forensic disciplines which ultimately facilitates greater success and services to the citizens of Collier County. These are all extensions of existing Sheriffs Office services that require more space. Based on Law Enforcement projections of evidence storage needs, and present and future evidence examination of needs in the State of Florida, an evidence storage site needs to be a minimum of 5 acres, with a structure estimated 90,000 square feet and a large, secure outside storage area. The structure needs to be built in an area with very limited chance of flooding and must be hurricane rated as the destruction of these items would do unrepairable damage to the prosecution of pending cases. Ideally the building would be as centrally located as possible for deputies to deliver evidence and be readily available for court and prosecution needs and the return of property to victims. The area around Collier Boulevard and 1-75 would be the most ideal area for districts and court transportation issues including a site on the County -owned 305 property, located east of Collier Boulevard in Citygate Commerce Park. The Collier County Sheriffs Office is also asking for early or accelerated consideration of other more- N immediate facilities needs. The existing North Naples (District 1) Substation at 776 Vanderbilt Beach Road, is to be vacated sooner than originally anticipated. The relocation of this facility and personnel is of immediate concern. The current District 1 Substation is in the Stage One mandatory evacuation zone cc (given a natural disaster, i.e. hurricane or other storm event in which evacuation is ordered) the current substation must be evacuated accordingly, and operations moved to temporary location. As our population has grown, the population of District 1 has expanded east, making the current substation location no longer centrally located in the District, thus negatively impacting response times to calls for service. The Substation currently houses approximately 75 to 80 personnel (including civilian members and CID) in an area of approximately 2,500 sq. ft. The space limitations have caused numerous units and specialized teams to have to share already inadequate space to accommodate their mission. In addition, Supervisors must share space with other units, which create challenges when Supervisors must handle sensitive issues such as employee discipline/correction. We have had to temporarily create space for housing teams by converting lobby space to office space. Storage of specialized equipment has become a significant challenge as well. As District 1 has grown, we have needed to acquire more and varying pieces of equipment to provide for the safety of the public (i.e. Skywatch Observation Tower, ATV s, Message Boards etc ). Storage of these items create a significant challenge due to the space limitations, currently causing us to store them in mobile trailers or leave them out in the elements which significantly reduces their useful life, thereby costing tax payer dollars to maintain and/or replace. As the number of staff has increased over the past 20+ years, the need for areas for those staff to park has also increased. We currently do not have enough spaces to accommodate the staff that we have. The Sheriffs Office has found a temporary District 5 substation site located at 11325 US 41 (next to Tractor Supply). The BCC approved the new lease agreement for this temporary substation on July 11, 2017. This location satisfies the Sheriffs Office needs until such time that a permanent location is developed. 162 of 270 Packet Pg. 238 9.A.3 2018 AUIR Law Enforcement (Peak Season) 0.9089 sq. ft./capita FISCAL YEARS POPULATION (UNINCORPORATED AREA + EVERGLADES CITY) REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGE PER CAPITA SQ. FT. PLANNED IN AUIR SQ. FT. AVAILABLE 296,651 SURPLUS OR (DEFICIT) SQ. FT. SURPLUS OR (DEFICIT) @ $362 PER SQ. FT.* 2018-19 405,396 368,464 0 296,651 (71,813) ($25,996,460) 2019-20 413,407 375,746 4,500 301,151 (74,595) ($27,003,253) 2020-21 420,800 382,465 0 301,151 (81,314) ($29,435,711) 2021-22 428,328 389,307 4,500 305,651 (83,656) ($30,283,588) 2022-23 435,995 396,276 90,000 395,651 (625) ($12,114,473) 1st 5 -Year Growth (2019-23) 30,599 27,811 99,000 2023-24 443,802 403,372 0 395,651 (7,721) ($2,794,871) 2024-25 450,976 409,892 0 395,651 (14,241) ($5,155,273) 2025-26 457,499 415,821 0 395,651 (20,170) ($7,301,482) 2026-27 464,118 421,837 0 395,651 (26,186) ($9,479,278) 2027-28 470,839 427,946 0 395,651 (32,295) ($11,690,633) 2nd 5 -Year Growth (2024-28) 34,844 31,670 0 Total 10 -Year Growth (2019-28) 659443 59,481 99,000 R s 0 CL a� 0 d c od 0) R -0 CL D ti co o: Q NN 0 0 R CL Packet Pg. 239 C O r O a 2018 AUIR Law Enforcement (Peak Season) Proposed LOSS: 0.9089 sq. ft. per capita f r rd t 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 240 -4 0 go_gc.0 2018 LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDINGS Florid Gulf uiu Cna.t Dn � .ity CORKSCREW LAKE TRAF 50. Range Control Builtling COUNTY _ 70th AVE. E s Y' G T � ON. Naples Substation 1 � s D O SM1eriff CID Builtling NAPLES[, Special Operations Naples Airport Building J CSO I Headquart-Cer.` ESC - E. Naples Substation Marco SheNff Substation � i� MARCO ISLAND N w+ ,F SSSS Miles 01.53 6 9 12 A.V.e .fjK n w , 4r ity 1 New GG Estates CCSO Substation I IRD nA CATF RI VQ GG SM1eriff Subatagan Facilities 4VI LVD Fleet -pd PM1ase 11 $ Shergf Fleet HAMMOCK RD '' L` T District 5 Bubslation S ' EI Vm Legend 4LEE m Z Immokalee Substation Q CR 846 Major Roads n la Existing Station O C {}s Leased Station Z U 1 GIS MAPPING BETH YANG. AICP 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 241 2018 LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDINGS - EXISTING AND LEASED NAME STATUS ADDRESS TYPE Building "J-1" Addition -1st floor Owned 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples Law Enforcement Building "J-1" Addition -2nd floor Owned 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples Law Enforcement Building "J" Sheriff -2nd floor Owned 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples Law Enforcement District 2 - GG Sheriffs Substation Owned 4741 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples Law Enforcement Marco Sheriffs Substation Owned 990 N. Barfield Drive, Marco Law Enforcement SO Trailer Owned 4441 70th Ave. NE, Naples Law Enforcement SO Range Control Bldg. #1 2nd FI. Owned 4441 70th Ave. NE, Naples Law Enforcement SO Range Control Bldg. #1 2nd Fl. Owned 4441 70th Ave. NE, Naples Law Enforcement SO Range Trailer Owned 4441 70th Ave. NE, Naples Law Enforcement District 8 - Immokalee SO Substation Owned 112 S. 1st Street, Naples Law Enforcement District 4 - Golden Gate Estates Substation Owned 14750 Immokalee Road, Naples Law Enforcement Sheriff CID Building Owned 2373 S. Horseshoe, Naples Law Enforcement District 1 - N. Naples Substation Owned 766 Vanderbilt Beach Dr, Naples Law Enforcement District 3 - E. Naples Substation Owned 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway Law Enforcement Fleet and Purchasing Owned 2885 County Barn Road Law Enforcement Facilities Leased 4373 Mercantile Ave. Law Enforcement Special Operations Owned 250 Patriot Way Law Enforcement District 5 Substation I Leased 111325 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples Law Enforcement Source: Collier County Sheriff Office 9.A.3 a N N w O R a Packet Pg. 242 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - CALLS FOR SERVICE Calls for Service by Call Source ■ r d _ r d Calls for Service Average Resnonse Time (Min.) by District Citizen Agency Total 2007 142,652 493,893 636,545 2008 137,860 437,280 575,140 2009 130,500 379,387 509,887 2010 127,599 352,656 480,255 2011 133,315 305,869 439,184 2012 135,696 287,801 423,497 2013 137,447 283,799 421,246 2014 148,283 265,792 414,075 2015 152,894 262,546 415,440 2016 161,047 248,670 409,717 2017 174,066 246,124 420,190 ■ r d _ r d Calls for Service Average Resnonse Time (Min.) by District 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 r1 0) N to O N 9.2 9.2 ° 9.5 D2 - Golden Gate 8.2 oho n n' Ln W 9.6 D3 - East Naples 9.5 9.7 10.0 10.6 11.0 00 00 W w Kt N N N N N N -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.4 LO Z N oc O 12.1 Ln 12.4 00 N 5.9 Kd 6.3 6.5 6.5 Ln M M ■ r d _ r d Calls for Service Average Resnonse Time (Min.) by District Response times represent average time in minutes from dispatch -to -arrival for citizen -generated calls for service. Districts 3 and 7 boundaries changed, created a new District 5 in November 2017; District 7 no longer exists. 167 of 270 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 243 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 D1- North Naples 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.2 9.1 9.5 D2 - Golden Gate 8.2 8.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 10.1 9.6 D3 - East Naples 9.5 9.7 10.0 10.6 11.0 11.1 11.8 D4 - Estates 11.0 10.5 9.9 10.1 10.9 11.2 11.5 D5 - Everglades -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.4 D7 - Everglades 12.8 13.6 13.8 12.8 12.1 12.6 12.4 D8 - Immokalee 6.0 5.9 5.8 6.3 6.5 6.5 7.3 Response times represent average time in minutes from dispatch -to -arrival for citizen -generated calls for service. Districts 3 and 7 boundaries changed, created a new District 5 in November 2017; District 7 no longer exists. 167 of 270 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 243 COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE — CRIME RATE rime rate is calculated per 100,000 residents and includes art R -reported crimes to the lorida Department of aw nforcement. O, OL O'� OR Oh O1O 01 OQ' O� y0 �y 'L y"I on ) yb 'el ti0 y0 ,ti0 y0 ,ti0 ti0 ,ti0 ,LO - ,LO ' f)",ti0 f)",ti0 ,y0 ' LU -J['/ t 1orncia U UK Crime Kate by U01 Legend FL Counties CrimeRate201 T - 825- 1516 ® 1511- 4805 168 of 270 O CL d O C d C Ca O c0 Q 3 C c Q 00 0 N r LO r - co D Q 00 0 N O R a c a� E U ca Q Packet Pg. 244 Collier Cou Sheriff's 01 District Boun 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 245 COUNTY LIBRARY BUILDINGS AND MATERIALS/ COLLECTIONS CONTENTS COUNTY LIBRARY BUILDINGS - SUMMARY • TABLE • CHART • COUNTY LIBRARY MATERIALS/COLLECTIONS - SUMMARY • TABLE • CHART • LIBRARY BUILDING INVENTORY - LOCATION MAP • LIBRARY COLLECTION AND FACILITIES INVENTORY • LIBRARY OPERATING STATISTICS THROUGH PREVIOUS YEAR Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 246 2018 AUIR SUMMARY LIBRARY BUILDING FACILITIES Facility Type: Library Buildings (Category B) Level of Service Standard (LOSS): 0.33 sq.ft./capita Unit Cost: $263.41 per sq.ft. Using the Countywide Peak Season population, the following is set forth: Available Inventory as of 9/30/18 Required Inventory as of 9/30/23 Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 5 -year Surplus or (Deficit) Expenditures Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 2010 & 2010B Bonds Debt Service Payments Total Expenditures Square Feet Value/Cost 181,082 $ 47,698,810 159,695 $ 42,065,260 0 $ 0 21,387 $ 5,633,550 Revenues Impact Fees Misc. Income Carry Forward (unspent cash as of 9/30/18) Loan from Countywide Capital Projects (General Fund) to assist with debt service payments Total Revenues Surplus or (Deficit) Revenues For Library Materials/Collections Revenues needed to maintain existing LOSS $ 0 $ 5,159,100 $ 5,159,100 $ 4,274,900 $ 35,000 $ 334,200 $ 515,000 $ 5,159,100 ;=11 none Recommendation: That the CCPC forward a recommendation of approval to the BCC for the proposed Library Buildings AUIR for FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 . 173 of 270 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 247 9.A.3 Appendix A The Collier County Public Library concluded a comprehensive community needs assessment in FY 2017. The goal of the assessment was to gain as much insight from the resident and visitor populations on the current library system. The assessment set to identify the library system s existing strengths, weaknesses, and to understand how the library can better serve the community of residents and visitors. Summary: Stantec, Inc. was hired to manage and conduct the community assessment. Starting with a half-day staff workshop in late September, the Stantec team laid the groundwork for the online survey through focus groups, one-on-one interviews, and town hall style meetings at various libraries throughout Collier County. The online survey was open for thirty days during the months of February and March, 2017. When the survey closed in March, 1,885 respondents had completed with online survey with more than 3,500 additional comments. Key Findings: Survey respondents clearly use the public library as a key part of their utility infrastructure, or necessary function, for education, employment, families, etc. The top three recogni ed services of the library are: borrowing materials, internet access, and access to study/reading rooms. Survey respondents represented teenagers through seniors and across all ip codes. Key Recommendations: Analysis of the online survey, personal interviews, and town hall meetings identified ten key recommendations to address current and future needs: Staffing There is a direct correlation of staffing levels with circulation, visitation, and user satisfaction. 2. Open Hours & Days As a core level service, the library should be open daily. a 3. Computers & Internet Dedicated private or enhanced semi -private labs, enhanced Wi- c Fi, and wireless services should be a goal. "! 4. Technology Libraries should be the leader in introducing access to new technology. 5. Hub Libraries Regional and branch libraries should reflect specific areas of concentration, expertise, and programming based on community need. 6. Marketing Expand public relations, social media, community outreach, and < communications. 7. Quiet Space Study rooms, reading rooms, and/or designated quiet areas should be a goal at all locations. 8. Children to Young Adult Growth and expansion in materials, resources, programs, and staff dedicated to these age groups should be a goal. 9. Collections System should meet the LOSS of 1.87 items per capita. 10. Programming Balance A shift is programming to better balance adult programs with child, tween, teen, young adult, and family audiences is needed. Considerations: The identified recommendations were used to guide the development of the Library s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan along with the development of future Library AUIRs. A plan is being developed to increase the Library s material budget through a phased process to bridge the LOSS gap as a result of the Library s incremental recovery from the recession. At present, the Library s building LOSS is adequate through 2028 and beyond. However, twenty year population growth projections dictate we should consider a master plan study for future land development and library space allocations. 174 of 270 Packet Pg. 248 9.A.3 2018 AUIR Library Buildings LOSS: .33 sq ft per capita FISCAL YEAR POPULATION CO -WIDE SQ FT REQUIRED 0.33 SQ FT PLANNED IN AUIR SQ FT AVAILABLE SUIRPLUS/ (DEFICIENCY) VALUE OR (COST) AT $263.41 2018-19 5,469,158 2019-20 459,799 151,734 0 181,082 29,3487,730,636 2020-21 467,704 154,342 0 181,082 26,740 7,043,504 2021-2022 475,746 156,996 0 181,082 24,086 6,344,441 2022-2023 483,925 159,695 0 181,082 21,387 $5,b33,471 1st 5 -Year Growth (2019-2023) 32,622 10,765 2023-24 492,245 162,441 0 181,082 8,641 4,910,25 2024-25 499,928 164,976 0 181,082 16,106 $4,242,429 2025-26 506,954 167,295 0 181,082 13,787 3,631,686 2026-27 514,079 169,646 0 181,082 11,436 3,012,330 2027-2028 521,304 172,030 0 181,082 9,052 $2,384,308 2n 5 -Year Growth (2024-2028) Total 10 -Year Growth (2019-2028) 61,681 Packet Pg. 249 600,000 550,000 500,000 V = 3 o O. O a 450,000 400,000 350,000 2018 AUIR Library Building LOSS: 0.33 SQ. FT. / Capita 2018-19 2020-21 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 f Population & SQ. FT. Required t Square Feet Available T5 500 a 0 0. d 185,500 O c d c 175,500 ots d R v 0. 165,500 m 3 C d C a LL 155,500 2 co — R 3 c N ff M .. 145,500 M a moo 0 N 125,500 O 0 = R a 115,500 t R a Packet Pg. 250 � ►� 2018 LIBRARY BUILDING INVENTORY Packet Pg. 251 y DA II S PKWY E gR a2 1 a Gulf coasori i II t u I«.a lty Immokalee Library = �,y C CORKSCREW RD m Legend x LAKE TRAFFO /MMOKALE Q CR 846 Major Roads T ! 00 Existing Library 0 , LEE COUNTY! IMMOKALEE RD 9 C t O °.a..x M^u�EMEMOE��*.E ItoBO TAB CH Aa i n own --11X1 a Isty ............ 0 OIL WELL RD Headquarters Library MM K LEE RD Vanderbilt Beach Library V DERB T BEACH RD G LDEN GATE B VD Ir O OPIfER DGE > F V. N7 7 Estates Library NAPLES z RADIO RD DAVIS Naples Library 61 Golden Gate Library RA LES HAMMOCKRD South Regional Library 29" East Naples Library t m ��T R,9j< 951 Marco Island Library 6' 92 MARCO ISLAND'., Everglades City Library U841 Wd� b V RGLADES CITY a� TAMIAMI TRAIL 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 files , , 0 0 Packet Pg. 251 9.A.3 2018 AUIR SUMMARY LIBRARY COLLECTIONS Facility Type: Library Materials/Collections (Category B) Level of Service Standard (LOSS): 1.87 items/capita Unit Cost: $25.84 per volume Using the Countywide Peak Season population, the following is set forth: Available Inventory as of 9/30/18 Required Inventory as of 9/30/23 Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 5 -year Surplus or (Deficit) Expenditures Proposed AUIR FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 Total Expenditures Revenues Impact Fees allocated to new materials Grants and Donations Total Revenues Additional Revenues needed to maintain existing LOSS Items Value/Cost 568,553 $14,691,409 904,940 $23,383,649 336.387 $ 8,692,240 0 $ 0 $ 8,692,240 $ 8,692,240 $ 0 $ 8,692,240 $ 8,692,240 none Recommendation: That the CCPC forward a recommendation of approval to the BCC for the proposed Library Collections AUIR for FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 . Notes: Library inventory count increased by 2.6%, or 14,089 items, during FY 2018. This is a combination of growth and replacement books, still putting the Library behind in addressing the LOSS of 1.87 items per capita. The Library continues to supplement our growth expenditures with donation and grant funding. Available inventory includes items in progress of being purchased. In order to maintain the LOSS of 1.87 items per capita, Library needs to purchase approximately 40,600 `growth books' annually, at a cost of approximately $1,049,104. Approximately 4% - 5% of the library collection is no longer usable - due to age, condition, format, relevance, etc. - and must be replaced. In order to keep up with replacement of 5% of the collection annually (following the 2015 Florida Public Library Outcomes & Standards), the Library needs to replace on average 36,800 items annually, at a cost of $950,912. The average cost per item is currently $25.84. Current Library funding levels are insufficient to cover the total annual cost of growth and replacement of materials. 178 of 270 Packet Pg. 252 2018 AUIR Library Collections LOSS: 1.87 Items per Capita FISCAL YEAR POPULATION CO -WIDE COLLECTION REQUIRED 1.87 NEW ITEMS PLANNED IN AUIR COLLECTION AVAILABLE SURPLUS/ (DEFICIENCY) VALUE OR (COST) AT $25.84 Current 568,553 2018-19 451,303 843,937 67,987 636,540 (207,397 5,359,128 2019-20 459,799 859,824 67,100 703,640 (156,184) ($4,035,798) 2020-21 467,704 874,606 67,100 770,740 103,866 2,683,910 2021-22 475,746 889,645 67,100 837,840 (51,805) (1,338,642) 2022-2023 483,925 904,940 67,100 904,940 1st 5 -Year Growth (2019-2023) 32,622 61,003 336,387 2023-24 492,245 920,498 15,558 920,498 0 0 2024-25 499,928 934,865 14,367 934,865 0 0 2025-26 506,954 948,004 13,139 948,004 0 0 2025-26 514,079 961,328 3,32 96 ,328 0 0 2026-2027 521,304 974,838 13,511 9749838 0 To - 2n ear Growth (2024-2028)29,059 54,340 69,898 Total 10 -Year Growth (2019-2028) 61,681 115,343 406,285 Following the 2015 Florida Public Library Outcomes & Standards recommendations to keep up with replacement of 5% of the collection annually, Library needs to replace an average of 36,800 items annually, at a cost of $950,912 annually. Based on the current LOSS of 1.87 items per capita, the Library needs to purchase approximately 40,600 'growth books' annually, at a cost of $1,049,104. Average cost of an item is currently $25.84. Cost of ebooks, audio books and downloadable audio books can be 2-3 times higher than print decreasing the Library's purchasing based on current funding. Current available collection total includes items in progress of being purchased. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 253 530,000 507,000 484,000 47r" O •R TTM 7 CL0 o � a 346,00M 323,000 2018 AUIR Library Collections, LOSS: 1.87 Items / Capita 14,367 new items 13,511 new items 17,100w 67,987 new items 2018-19 2019-20 762-0-21 20-29 M 1525-26 2025-26 2026-2027 F-- Population & Collections Required +Collections Available 9.A.3 R 990,000 d 0 0 CL 960,000 Z 930,000 d 90i d 870'bOtT a M 840,000 N = C = 810,000 0 ao V o d O — N 780,000 0 W) 750,000 M 720,000 Q 00 O 690,000 N 0 660,000 r R a 630,000' d E 600,000' v R a Packet Pg. 254 Library Building Inventory as of 9/30/18 Location Square feet East Naples Branch 6,600 Estates Branch 11,182 Everglades City Branch 900 Golden Gate Branch 24,000 Headquarters Branch 42,000 Immokalee Branch 8,000 Marco Island Branch 15,600 Naples Branch 35,800 Vanderbilt Branch 7,000 South Regional 30,000 TOTAL 181,082 Source: Collier County Library Library Materials Inventory as of 9/30/18 Location Items System -wide 568,553 Source: Collier County Library 9.A.3 LO 181 of 270 Packet Pg. 255 Library Operating Statistics Post Recession 5 -Year Trend (FY 2013 to FY 2017) LIBRARY VISITS (Door Counts) r M r FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 d d FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Headquarters 370,887 349,012 333,804 385,059 341,683 Naples Branch 282,096 238,569 240,456 225,169 214,559 South Regional 134,287 134,210 160,116 153,621 138,160 Marco Island 113,942 110,812 109,723 140,620 129,719 Vanderbilt Beach 76,890 87,720 88,408 86,994 95,006 Golden Gate 98,918 147,037 187,124 181,701 159,837 East Naples 59,631 81,004 81,397 82,385 76,115 Estates Branch 99,691 55,554 55,820 49,676 49,032 Immokalee 161,153 93,829 84,220 84,127 80,941 Everglades City - - - - TOTALS 1,397,495 1,297,747 1,341,068 1,389,352 1,285,052 Hours Open per Week 476.5 484.5 484.5 rd r M r FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 d d dr 200,651 r r 217,478 d r d d d r r rr r d r d r dd d FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 d d r 200,651 r r 1 196,0501 217,478 d r r r r r d r r rr r d r r d I VIRTUAL VISITS FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 TOTALS 1 1,016,388 1,160,541 1,851,200 2,373,691 2,556,383 rr r d r r r r r r r r r r d REGISTERED BORROWERS (CARD HOLDERS) FY13 I FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 TOTALSI 200,651 1 196,496 1 177,073 1 196,0501 217,478 Library cards expire every 3 years unless renewed by patron. r r r d rr r rr r d d d r d rr r d r M r d r dr rr 182 of 270 r rd r rr rd d r d r 9.A.3 0 CL O O c m c 06 m m a c c Q 00 0 N LO r - m Q 00 0 N z O a c a� E U ca Q Packet Pg. 256 9.A.3 CIRCULATION d d FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Headquarters 775,836 736,743 666,410 679,319 813,127 Naples Branch 429,520 420,495 355,559 314,526 193,423 South Regional 255,965 250,651 224,310 210,648 166,360 Marco Island 184,629 176,559 161,496 158,138 118,749 Vanderbilt Beach 174,622 158,640 154,508 147,391 112,089 Golden Gate 217,392 204,798 171,812 152,637 122,566 East Naples 113,396 107,873 101,055 102,634 82,002 Estates Branch 146,621 140,342 127,964 114,232 85,757 Immokalee 71,091 73,249 58,631 56,810 53,954 Everglades City 15,016 15,548 14,556 12,199 10,005 Jail 20,202 15,373 23,871 17,289 14,556 Electronic Counts* 174,299 250,758 242,121 383,588 402,336 Total 2,578,589 1 2,551,0291 2,302,293 1 2,349,411 1 2,042,199 Circ per Employee 30,336 1 30,5511 26,927 1 27,161 1 23,609 FTEs (Full Time Equivalents) 85.01 83.51 85.5 1 86.51 86.5 electronic Counts include: downloadable audio books and e -books; Mango language downloads; newspaper archives; genealogy resources; and Zinio e -magazines. In FY17 we added Brainfuse. d r r r d r r r rr r d r r r d d r r r r d d PUBLIC USE OF WiFi d d FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Headquarters 16,480 30,395 49,786 50,638 55,731 Naples Branch 7,477 13,006 21,944 25,169 26,016 South Regional 4,299 9,314 17,893 19,070 21,171 Marco Island 2,726 3,949 5,034 5,277 7,790 Vanderbilt Beach 1,890 2,477 2,064 2,567 2,479 Golden Gate 7,108 11,828 12,988 13,616 12,635 East Naples 182 1,097 3,116 3,395 3,381 Estates Branch 1,269 2,128 2,496 2,578 2,726 Immokalee 3,483 5,229 4,434 3,708 3,833 Everglades City - - - - 348 TOTALS1 44,914 79,423 119,755 126,018 136,110 r r r d d r d r d d r r r r r d r d r r r r r r r r r d r r r r r r rd d r 0 CL 0 0 c m c 06 m M a 3 c c Q 00 0 N r m Q 00 0 N 7- 0 a c a� E U M Q 183 of 270 Packet Pg. 257 r d r d d r MEETING ROOM USE BY PUBLIC - ATTENDANCE FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Headquarters* 1,865 3,619 2,654 2,138 844 Naples Branch 4,477 5,142 4,915 3,809 4,764 South Regional 4,473 7,914 7,571 9,109 4,017 Marco Island** 6,873 4,327 5,841 7,051 1,053 Vanderbilt Beach - 200 134 65 156 Golden Gate 203 236 153 532 2,994 East Naples 3,591 4,666 2,814 3,321 2,238 Estates Branch 684 1,474 1,282 1,030 758 Immokalee 2,084 1,484 991 876 989 TOTALS 24,250 29,062 26,355 27,931 17,813 Total # of Programs 1,318 1,852 1,641 1,972 1,200 r r r r r r d d r d d r r rr r d r r r d * HQ had over 22,000 count for voting in solarium area * MI had over 8,000 count for voting in Rose Hall r r r d d PUBLIC INTERNET USAGE FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Headquarters 51,408 50,369 47,302 34,966 29,907 Naples Branch 45,421 42,153 40,060 25,783 21,754 South Regional 25,559 27,131 25,371 18,023 16,936 Marco Island 13,263 12,194 10,638 11,829 10,990 Vanderbilt Beach 10,865 9,751 9,343 7,778 6,799 Golden Gate 38,493 44,606 30,800 24,399 22,810 East Naples 14,764 15,034 14,197 12,534 10,145 Estates Branch 10,630 10,425 10,110 8,890 7,152 Immokalee 14,292 14,1931 11,675 1 11,433 1 10,046 Everglades I 1 1 839 TOTALS 224,695 225,8561 199,496 1 155,635 1 137,378 d r r r library computers r r r r r r 184 of 270 r r d r r 9.A.3 0 CL 0 0 c m c 06 m M a 3 c c Q 00 0 N r LO r - m Q 00 0 N z 0 a c a� E U M Q Packet Pg. 258 r d r d r r r r r r d r r r d d 26,972 23,462 r r d d r 19,152 r M r r South Regional rr r r d 29,458 M r 6,936 r 5,853 r r d r r r r d r FY15 FY16 FY17 r 31,367 26,972 23,462 r 89,661 dd d d 19,152 20,108 M r South Regional 15,249 10,444 r r 29,458 rd d 6,936 r 5,853 24,908 r 21,844 d 13,787 rd d r r r r d 32,279 d 24,015 13,740 7,519 rr 14,573 r 6,515 rr r d 6,552 Immokalee r r d 3,464 1 11,193 email reference d 522 363 1 231 312 d r d 136,792 115,554 91,145 314,483 r REFERENCE QUESTIONS r r r r r FY13 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Headquarters 31,367 26,972 23,462 15,674 89,661 Naples Branch 32,881 19,152 20,108 23,385 47,944 South Regional 15,249 10,444 16,014 6,478 29,458 Marco Island 5,819 6,936 3,412 5,853 24,908 Vanderbilt Beach 21,844 40,577 13,787 13,815 57,525 Golden Gate 23,199 8,327 15,201 12,168 32,279 East Naples 24,015 13,740 7,519 4,623 14,573 Estates Branch 6,515 5,912 7,292 5,454 6,552 Immokalee 3,264 1 4,210 8,396 1 3,464 1 11,193 email reference 1,077 522 363 1 231 312 TOTALS 165,230 136,792 115,554 91,145 314,483 ADULT PROGRAMS ATTENDANCE r r r r r FY13 rd d r FY17 r 4,584 r r r r 5,343 r rr r r 6,169 r d r r 22,049 22,959 r r r r d 1,204 d r r 169 177 308 721 2,419 Golden Gate r 248 r r 290 961 d d rd dr r 88 392 r d r r r d r r r Immokalee 200 54 6 49 97 Everglades City - - - - ADULT PROGRAMS ATTENDANCE FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Headquarters 4,584 4,343 4,627 5,343 7,120 Naples Branch 5,386 5,917 6,169 4,362 5,203 South Regional 17,339 22,049 22,959 19,839 16,838 Marco Island 1,014 1,178 1,204 1,632 1,333 Vanderbilt Beach 169 177 308 721 2,419 Golden Gate 261 248 455 290 961 East Naples - - 88 392 417 Estates Branch 147 60 39 56 449 Immokalee 200 54 6 49 97 Everglades City - - - - TOTALS 29,100 34,026 35,855 32,684 34,837 Total # of Programs 559 741 812 839 735 0 9.A.3 0 CL 0 0 c m c 06 m M a 3 C C Q 00 r 0 N u� m Q 00 0 N 0 a c a� E U co Q 185 of 270 Packet Pg. 259 9.A.3 r r d d r r d r r d r r r r r r r r r FY17: The eclipse program 8/21/17 brought in over 5000 attendees system wide CHILDRENS PROGRAMS ATTENDANCE r r r rr r d r FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Headquarters 15,714 14,304 16,514 14,119 13,189 Naples Branch 3,032 7,765 6,596 7,838 4,538 South Regional 5,475 6,172 4,603 3,969 3,816 Marco Island 2,038 1,278 1,615 1,956 3,205 Vanderbilt Beach 2,374 2,217 1,594 1,717 2,215 Golden Gate 3,569 4,029 4,379 4,076 4,968 East Naples 1,528 1,718 1,594 1,072 2,124 Estates Branch 4,739 4,411 4,816 4,609 6,877 Immokalee 2,319 2,887 3,352 3,213 6,470 Everglades City* 15** 13 - - Comm Outreach 3,677 1,614 2,210 2,063 6,106 TOTALS 44,465 46,408 47,273 44,632 53,508 Total # of Programs 1,751 1,630 1,786 d r r r r rr r d r d r d d d r d r r r r r r d d r d r d r r r r r r r d r rr d r r d r r d d d d r r r r r d r r d r r r r r d dr d d r r 1,591 1,675 d r r d d d r r r d d d VOLUNTEER HOURS FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 I FY17 r- 0 CL m 0 c m c od a� w M 0. Ta 3 C c Q 0 0 N r ti tC Q 0 T- Q N 0 w L M a c as E ca Q 186 of 270 Packet Pg. 260 Headquarters 3,144 3,098 2,729 2,991 2,726 Naples Branch 5,990 5,496 4,974 3,855 2,895 South Regional 1,825 2,094 1,927 2,174 1,647 Marco Island 1,467 1,075 903 819 757 Vanderbilt Beach 956 759 746 720 677 Golden Gate 2,795 2,649 2,419 1,979 1,689 East Naples 1,438 1,183 870 942 720 Estates Branch 960 858 862 776 640 Immokalee 564 817 832 903 651 Everglades City 174 139 88 46 284 * Experience Works 972 - - - Q Genealogy 1,131 1,129 746 781 635 TOTALS 21,416 1 19,2971 17,096 1 15,986 1 13,364 Full-time equivalents: 10.30 1 91 8.22 1 7.691 6.4 Total # of Volunteers 2,428 1 2,2451 1,965 1 1,838 1 1,691 r r rr CL r r r r r r r r r d r r r d r r r d m d d d r rd r r r 3 c C Q 00 rr 0 r d r r r d r r d 0 9.A.3 187 of 270 Packet Pg. 261 0 CL O O c m c 06 m m r r a 3 c C Q 00 0 N r LO r - Q a0 r O N O i R a C a> E U Q 187 of 270 Packet Pg. 261 COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES CONTENTS • COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS) - SUMMARY • TABLE • CHART • EMS STATIONS - EXISTING, LEASED & PROPOSED INVENTORY - MAP • EMS STATIONS INVENTORY - TABLE • COLLIER EMS COST PER OWNED AND SHARED STATION TABLES, INCLUDING EQUIPMENT REPLACE- MENT COSTS • ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (ALS) AGREEMENT - MAP • EMS TRAVEL TIMES - CHARTS • EXISTING EMS ZONES - MAP Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 262 9.A.3 2018 AUIR SUMMARY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FACILITIES Facility Type: Emergency Medical Services (Category B) Level of Service Standard (LOSS): Approximately 1 unit (vehicle, equipment, station space) per 16,400/population, or 0.000061/capita. The Advanced Life Support (ALS) response time goal is 8 minutes travel time 90 of the time (urban) and 12 minutes travel time 90 of the time (rural). Unit Cost (Blended): The blended cost is based on owned and co -located units at a rate of two-thirds owned ($2,791,057 per station, vehicle & equipment), and one-third co -located ($1,671,057 per new co -located station, vehicle & equipment). 2 Using the Countywide Peak Season population, the following is set forth: Expenditures Debt Service Payments for 2013 Bond $ 599,500 Debt Service Payments for 2010 and 2011 Bonds $ 1,831,900 Proposed AUIR FY 2018-19 - FY 2022-23 $ 6,453,082 Total Expenditures $ 8,884,482 Revenues Impact Fees $ 1,865,400 Interest $ 30,000 Loan from Countywide Capital Projects (Gen Fund) $ 626,400 Available Cash $ 125,800 Total Revenues $ 2,647,600 Surplus or (Deficit) Revenues $ (6,236,882) Additional Revenues Required or LOSS Reduction $ 6,236,882 (5) Recommendation: That the CCPC forward a recommendation of approval to the BCC for the proposed Emergency Medical Services AUIR for FY 2018-19 FY 2022-23 capital improvement projects. 191 of 270 Packet Pg. 263 Units Value/Cost Available Inventory 26.5 $ 39,243,011 (3) Required 9/30/23 29.5 $ 46,496,182 Proposed AUIR FY 2017-18 - FY 2021-22 3.0 $ 6,453,082 (4) 5 -Year Surplus or (Deficit) 0.0 $ 0 Expenditures Debt Service Payments for 2013 Bond $ 599,500 Debt Service Payments for 2010 and 2011 Bonds $ 1,831,900 Proposed AUIR FY 2018-19 - FY 2022-23 $ 6,453,082 Total Expenditures $ 8,884,482 Revenues Impact Fees $ 1,865,400 Interest $ 30,000 Loan from Countywide Capital Projects (Gen Fund) $ 626,400 Available Cash $ 125,800 Total Revenues $ 2,647,600 Surplus or (Deficit) Revenues $ (6,236,882) Additional Revenues Required or LOSS Reduction $ 6,236,882 (5) Recommendation: That the CCPC forward a recommendation of approval to the BCC for the proposed Emergency Medical Services AUIR for FY 2018-19 FY 2022-23 capital improvement projects. 191 of 270 Packet Pg. 263 9.A.3 Notes: The LOSS was changed from 1/15,000 population to 1/16,400 population along with the ALS response time goal of 8 minutes travel time countywide to 8 minutes travel time 90% of the time urban and 12 minutes travel time 90% of the time rural. These changes were approved by the BCC on 11/5/07 at the 2007 AUIR. Zone 23 and Zone 25 are split between the rural and urban boundaries; therefore, both zones were split to show true urban and rural responses within those zones. A LOSS of .000029 units per capita or 1 unit/34,652 population is the Impact Fee Study level of service and the basis for the collection of impact fees, which is based on only the EMS stations owned by the County. (2) Emergency Medical Services Department Unit Values (1.0) Unit = 24 hour advance life support emergency ground transport apparatus with station/building. (0.5) Unit = 12 hour advanced life support emergency ground transport apparatus using existing ambulance, staffed with overtime personnel. (3) Calculated based 9 owned stations, 4 co -located stations and on 13.5 units equipment only (4) Desoto Blvd. station assumes blended cost of $2,117,634 (excluding ambulance which was purchased in 2014 for EMS expansion), Immokalee/CR 951 and Old 41 stations assume blended cost less land at $2,189,334. (5) Sources of funding for revenue deficit could include a loan from the General Fund, additional user fee categories, reduction of service level, or other sources not yet identified. ALS Engine agreements and programs were instituted in 2013 in East Naples, in 2014 in the City of Naples and Golden Gate. There are numerous circumstances which may affect response times. For example: • Call location • Travel times to and from rural/remote locations • On -scene times • Call volume • Concurrent calls • Treatment times • Hospital off load times • Road construction • Traffic • Weather • Restocking supplies 192 of 270 Packet Pg. 264 9.A.3 2018 ( Peak Season) EMS UNITS LOSS: 1 Unit / 16,400 Population (0.000061) LOSS of 1 Unit/16,400 Population reflects an 8 minute response time for Urban and 12 minute for Rural and factors in ALS Engine response. FISCAL YEAR POPULATION CO -WIDE REQUIRED 0.000061 PLANNED AUIR EMS UNITS AVAILABLE SURPLUS/ (DEFICIENCY) avrtrLUatUrriUMNUT/ $2,417,724 2017-18 442,240 2 .0 0 26. 2018-19 451,303 27.5 1 27.5 0.0 0 2019-20 459,799 28.0 0 27.5 (0.5) ($1,208,862) 2020-21 467,704 28.5 1 28.5 0.0---------- $0 2021-22 475,746 29.0 0 28.5 (0.5) ( 1,208,862) 2022-23 483,925 29.5 1 29.5 0.0 0 1st 5 -Year Growth (2018-2022) 41,685 2.5 2023-24 1 492,245 ) 30.0 ) 0 ) 29.5 1 (0.5) 1 ($1,208,862) " It has not yet been determined which MUM Units will be Owned and which will be co -located. Therefore, for purposes of this chart, the values above represent a blended cost of owned and co -located units at a rate of two-thirds owned ($2,791,0577) and one-third co -located ($1,671,057), which equals $2,417,724. X d t O CL d 0 O w C d c ej R O. R 7 C C a 00 0 N Packet Pg. 265 600,000 550,000 500,000 _ 2 A (Q 450,000 N C. o IL 400,000 350,000 2018-2019 AUIR Emergency Medical Services (Peak Season) L 1 Units apita DeSoto BI id. I mokalee/ 51 Old 41 Fiddlers Creek TBD FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 FY24-25 FY25-26 FY26-27 FY27-28 f Population & Units Required --*--Units Available Locations = Units Added r d d d r r r d r d r r rr r d d r r Mr r dr r d 9.A.3 35.3 33.3 31.3 29.3 N 27.3 25.3 23.3 21.3 19.3 0 0 CL d Z 0 c d c a� d is v CL R 3 _ a CO 0 N a 00 CDN N w 0 R a c d E t R a Packet Pg. 266 0 -4 CD CA., 2018 EMS STATIONS - EXISTING, LEASED, PLANNED AND PROPOSED INVENTORY W MEDIC 2 S C r T Legend O MEDIC 31 MEDIC 03 \� m iU (i MEDIC 411 O Coa solr ni erslity CORKSCREW RD IMMOKALEE MEDIC /4 [MEDIC • T l. MED — IC 46 I MEDIC 2 MEDIC 1 MEDIC 20 MEDIC 32 MEDIC 21 8 MEDIC 01 =MEDI MARCO ISLAND W�r�E VGS M 01.53 6 9 12 TT BEAD MEDIC l6 Ijl J w O O RD MEDIC 24 MEDIC It MEDIC TO MEDIC'S I• HACIENDA LAKES STATION MEDIC 25 FIDDLERS CREEK STATION rqM MEDIC RES 90 92 MEDIC RES SO l S[ MEDIC RESCUE 60 EVERGLADES CITY / Packet Pg. 267 i Legend MEDIC 31 iU Coa solr ni erslity CORKSCREW RD IMMOKALEE m Major Roads • i LAKE TRAFFO I MEDIC 30 CR 846 i r•.....as.... oRo O EMS Owned Stations I � I O O EMS Leased Stations EE COUNTY! IMMOKALEERD 9IEEE C MEDIC 48 ; MEDIC 32 VI --1 EMS Proposed Stations RD MEDIC 49 E MEDIC 10 MEDIC 42 N J aV ed 4i' s ty I11 111111G: — Y11G, ACT GRMTH MAN—MENT DEFT. OILWELI RD i KALE W a D—BLVD z STAT. STATION MEDIC 1 MEDIC 20 MEDIC 32 MEDIC 21 8 MEDIC 01 =MEDI MARCO ISLAND W�r�E VGS M 01.53 6 9 12 TT BEAD MEDIC l6 Ijl J w O O RD MEDIC 24 MEDIC It MEDIC TO MEDIC'S I• HACIENDA LAKES STATION MEDIC 25 FIDDLERS CREEK STATION rqM MEDIC RES 90 92 MEDIC RES SO l S[ MEDIC RESCUE 60 EVERGLADES CITY / Packet Pg. 267 2018 EXISTING EMS STATIONS NAME STATION NO. ADDRESS TYPE TYPE MEDIC 1 1 801 8th Ave South, Naples 34102 Leased EMS MEDIC 2 2 977 26th Ave North, Naples 34103 Leased EMS HOC Medflight 3 2375 Tower Drive, Naples 34104 Owned EMS MEDIC 10 10 14756 Immokalee Rd, Naples 34120 Owned EMS MEDIC 20 20 4798 Davis Blvd, Naples 34104 Leased` EMS MEDIC 21 21 11121 Tamiami Trail East, Naples 34113 Owned EMS MEDIC 22 22 4375 Ba shore Dr, Naples 34112 Owned EMS MEDIC 23 23 6055 Collier Blvd, Naples 34114 Leased* EMS MEDIC 24 24 2795 Airport Road North, Naples 34105 Owned EMS MEDIC 25 Tem - Hacienda Construction 25 8320 Collier Blvd PRMC , Naples 34114 Leased EMS MEDIC 30 30 112 South 1st St., Immokalee 34142 Owned EMS MEDIC 31 31 11067 Carson Road, Immokalee 34142 Leased` EMS MEDIC 32 (Temporary Facility) 32 4819 Ave Maria Blvd, Ave Maria 34142 Leased* EMS MEDIC 40 40 1441 Pine Ridge Rd, Naples 34109 Leased* EMS MEDIC 42 42 7010 Immokalee Rd, Naples 34119 Owned EMS MEDIC 43 43 16325 Vanderbilt Dr, Naples 34134 Leased* EMS MEDIC 44 44 766 Vanderbilt Beach Rd, Naples 34108 Owned I EMS MEDIC 46 46 3410 Pine Ridge Rd, Naples 34105 Leased EMS MEDIC 48 48 16280 Livingston Rd, Naples 34110 Leased* EMS MEDIC RESCUE 50 50 1280 San Marco Rd, Marco Island 34145 Leased* EMS MEDIC RESCUE 60 60 201 Buckner Ave, Everglades City 34139 Leased* EMS MEDIC 70 70 4741 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples 34116 Owned EMS MEDIC 71 71 195 13th St SW, Naples 34117 Owned EMS MEDIC 75 75 4590 Santa Barbara Blvd Naples 34104 Owned EMS MEDIC 76 76 1790 Logan Blvd N Naples 34119 Owned EMS MEDIC RESCUE 90 90 1175 Isle of Capri Blvd, Naples 34113 Leased * EMS PROPOSED THRU FY22-23 STATION NO. ADDRESS TYPE MEDIC TBD TBD DeSoto Blvd. EMS MEDIC 49 49 Immokalee Road/CR951 - Heritage Bay EMS OLD 41 411 Old 41 and Performance Way EMS PROPOSED THRU FY 20-24 STATION NO. ADDRESS TYPE MEDIC TBD I TBD IFiddlers Creek I EMS MEDIC TBD I TBD JTBD I EMS * For these stations, no rent is paid but rather a shared monthly utility charge. Source: EMS 9.A.3 ti co D Q 00 N N 0 0 R a Packet Pg. 268 Collier County EMS Cost Per Owned Station Description Cost Percent of Total Building Replacement Cost perStation* $1,990,000 71% Land Replacement Cost per Station ** $250,000 9% Equipment & Vehicle Replacement Cost per Unit *** $551,057 20% Total Cost per Station $2,791,057 100% Collier County EMS Cost Per Shared Station Description Cost Percent of Total Building Replacement Cost per Station * $995,000 60% Land Replacement Cost per Station ** $125,000 8% Equipment & Vehicle Replacement Cost per Unit $551,057 32% Total Cost per Station 1 $1,671,057 100% * Source: Facilities Management ** Source: Impact Fee Study ••• Source: EMS 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 269 All ALS Resources Travel Time- Time Enroute to Time Arrive on Scene Zone Under 4 Under 5 Under 6 Under 7 Under 8 Under 9 Under 10 Under 11 Under 12 Over 12 1 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 42 43 44 46 48 50 70 75 761 1 90 10 30 31 32 60 71 r r r d d d d d r rr r r rr M r d rr r d r r rr d r d r d d 9.A.3 Q 0 CL 4) 0 c m c 06 a� R C CL D 7i c c Q O N rn co Q 0 N 0 0 a c m E M L) R Q Packet Pg. 270 9.A.3 All ALS Resources (GPS) Travel Time- Time Enroute to Time Arrive on Scene Zone Under 4 Under 5 Under 6 Under 7 Under 8 Under 9 Under 10 Under 11 Under 12 Over 12 1 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 42 43 44 45 46 48 50 70 73 75 76 90 10 23 25 30 31 32 60 70 71 73 �1 r d d d d d r d rr r r rr r d r d M r d rr r d r r rr d Packet Pg. 271 Urban Under 8 Rural Under 12 9.A.3 5 a NN w O R CL Packet Pg. 272 COUNTY GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS CONTENTS • GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS — SUMMARY • TABLE • CHART • GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS — SUPPLEMENTAL 2017 MASTER SPACE PLAN -BASED PROJECTIONS • TABLE • CHART • GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN • GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS EXISTING INVENTORY — MAP • GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS INVENTORY • GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS LEASED SPACE INVENTORY — MAP • GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS LEASED SPACE INVENTORY Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.3 O CL a) O c m 0a CL _ _ a 00 0 N a 00 0 N 7- 0 i R CL _ a� E U ca a Packet Pg. 273 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARY FORM Facility Type: Government Buildings (Category 13) Level of Service Standard: 1.7 sq. ft. per capita (peak season population)* Unit Cost: ** Square Feet Value/Cost r 927,620 $320,956,520 r d r 808,768 $279,833,728 r d 0 $0 r r r 118,852 $41,122,792 d r r d $0 r $30,459,900 d r $30,459,900 $12,176,800 r $ 100,000 r r r r $ 2,426,400 r r d $ - r d r r d $ 15,756,700 $30,459,900 r d $0 Total Revenues $30,459,900 Recommendation: That the CCPC forward a recommendation of approval to the BCC for the proposed Government Buildings AUIR for FY 2018/19 FY 2022/23 . Notes: BCC adopted Level of Service Standard is 1.7s . ft. per capita. LOSS identified within BCC approved Dec 20th 2011 Impact Fee Study is 1.52 s . ft. per capita. The 1.7sf per capita only covers owned facilities and does not cover leased facilities which currently meet approximately 5% of the space re uired available . The unit cost utili ed is based upon actual pro ect costs for representative pro ects divided by the total s uare footage and is rounded to the nearest dollar. The calculated average unit cost on the CIP is skewed higher due to the cost of the mergency Services Center SC . The Capital Improvement Plan CIP future costs are based on preliminary individual estimates, not on past costs. Although there are still no representative pro ects since the economic downturn, the utili ed s .ft. cost represents a 5% reduction from the comparable Courthouse Annex pro ect for the proposed future buildings. G: Administration AUIR AUIR 2018 2018 DRAFT AUIR GOVT BLDGs 20 Percent Peak rev1 203 of 270 9.A.3 r- 0 Q m O w c m c oto a� w M Q. �a 3 c c a 0 0 N In r- 00 0 0 N O w L M a c CD E U ca Q Packet Pg. 274 9.A.3 2018 AUIR Government Buildings LOSS: 1.7 sf / capita (Peak Season Population) FISCAL YEAR POPULATION CO -WIDE (Peak) SQUARE FEET REQUIRED 1.7 SQUARE FEET PLANNED IN AUIR CIP* SQUARE FEET AVAILABLE SURPLUS/ (DEFICIENCY) VALUE OR (COST) AT $346 2015 416,402 707,88 0 894,889 187,005 64,703,730 2016 424,603 721,825 0 927,620 205,795 71,205,070 2017 433,359 736,710 0 927,620 190,910 66,054,860 2018 442,240 751,808 0 927,620 175,812 60830952 2019 ,303 6 ,2 0 927,620 60, 0 00, 30 2020 459,799 781,658 0 927,620 145,962 50,502,852 2021 467,704 795,097 0 927,620 132,523 45,852,958 2022 475,746 808,768 0 927,620 118,852 41,122,792 2023 483,925 822,673 137,800 1,065,420 242,747 83,990,462 1st 5 -Year Growth (2019-2023) 33,506 72,058 0 0 2024 492,245 836,817 0 1,065,420 228,603 79,096,638 2025 499,928 849,878 0 1,065,420 215,542 74,577,532 2026 506,954 861,822 0 1,065,420 203,598 70,444,908 2027 514,079 873,934 0 1,065,420 191,486 66,254,156 2028 521,304 886,217 0 1,065,420 179,203 62,004,238 2nd 5 -Year Growth (2024-2028) 45,558 77,449 0 137,800 Total 10 -Year Growth (2019-2028) 79,064 149,507 0 137,800 2029 528,631 898,673 104,841 1,170,261 271,588 93,969,448 2030 535,541 910,420 0 1,170,261 259,841 89,904,986 2031 542,022 921,437 0 1,170,261 248,824 86,093,104 2032 548,582 932,589 0 1,170,261 237,672 82,234,512 2033 555,221 943,876 0 1,170,261 226,385 78,329,210 3rd 5 -Year Growth (2029-2033) 33,917 57,659 104,841 47,182 o a ear GrowtH * Based on projected service space needs developed from population projections in the Master Space Plan. Population trends are volatile and planned completions may vary in future AUIRs. ** Projected Additional Area Shown on AUIR CIP for New Hedtage Bay GSC Building Based on 2008 Master Space Plan *** Projected Additional Area Shown on AUIR CIP for New BCC Building Based on 2008 Master Space Plan F s R G:\Administration\AUIR\AUIR 2010\2010 DRAFT AUIR GOVT BLDG, 20 Percent Peak -I Packet Pg. 275 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 0 1,000,000 o as N L � LL O L M 800,000 CO 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 9.A.3 2018 AUIR Government Buildings ( Peak Season Population) I ' New BCC Building (Bldg. "N") and "PA" Parking Deck (By the Church)*' New Heritage Bay Govt. Serv. Center and Supervisor of Elections Parking* Relocation i i I I FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 --D--SF Required at 1.7 sf / capita —@--SF Available R d r- 0 0. O c c oi5 m M 0. �a c c Q CO O N N Q CO Co N O 1= R IL c d E t M M G Packet Pg. 276 Government Buildings Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2018 AUIR Projects Recently Completed 9.A.3 GG BCC Fleet Facility* 18,075 284 11,736,021 2003 900,212 2006 10,835,809 2008 GG Emergency Services Complex** 57,274 412 23,596,888 20031,504,510 870,000 2007 23,641,652 2009 GG Courthouse Annex 137,984 364 50,226,176 2000 3,038,750 2006 47,187,426 2009 GG New Property Appraiser Office and Relocationt 27,556 204 5,608,133 2009 231,000 2010 1,857,073 2010 GG New SOE Office and Relocationt 32,034 172 5 514 808 2015 217 000 2016 1 962 808 2016 1 Purchased Building and Remodel Projects Under Contstruction Projects Approved for Construction N O O o N Proposed AUIR CIP FY19-23 V 0 SUBTOTAL 213,3331 362 85,559,085 5,443,472 85,484,768 346 without ESC skew and SOE & Prop.Appr. Remode SUBIOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 Lon Total AUIR CIP FY16-20 0 0 Planned Projects Beyond FY2020 (some items pending 2018 Master Space Pian) GG Herita a Bay GSC 7.7 Acres**** 137,800 1 400.00 55,120,000 2021 5,512,000 2022 49,608,000 2023 GG Heritage Bay Parking Garage 320 s aces NA 8,700,000 2021 870,000 2022 7,830,000 2023 GG Building "N" (BCC Building)*** 104,841 440.00 46,130,040 2026 4,613,004 2027 41,517,036 2029 GG Parkin Deck (By the Church 1,000 spaces NA 23,400,000 2026 2,340,000 2027 21,060,000 2029 GG Ave Maria Public Safetyand Gov.Svcs. TBD TBD TBD ***** TBD ***`* TBD ***** Q 0 N w SUBTOTAL 2 2,6 17.23 133,350,040 3,335,00 20,0 5,036 O r TOTALI 455,9741 1 218,909,1251 R NOTE: Highlighted projects are notfunded with Impact Fees a * BCC Fleet Facility includes constructing 41,316 sf when replacing 23,241 sf of existing facilities per 2007 AUIR CIP = " Emergency Management sq. ft. only - not CCSO, 911, or EMS 41 BCC Building includes demolition of Building "B", 7,159 sf; the 2008 Master Plan shows this project in 2015. Unit Cost represents 2 % /yr inflation 2016 to 2023 t **`* Heritage Bay GSC. The 2008 Master Plan shows this project in 2020. Unit Cost represents 3%/yr inflation 2016 to 2027 w The timing & funding for construction of a permanent Public Safety Facility and a Gov. Svcs. Facility at Ave Maria is To Be Determined (TBD) in the future _ Q Packet Pg. 277 9.A.3 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 2018 AUIR Inventory Owned Facilities - Space & Value to be included in 2016 Impact Fee Study Name of Structure Address Square Fef CAT Operations (ex-Morande Dealership) 8300 Radio Road 32,14 Transportation Department (Arthrex) ** 2885 Horseshoe Drive South 34,23 Golden Gate Government Service Center 4829 Golden Gate Parkway 7,27 Marco Tax Collector 1040 Winterberry 2,69 Immokalee Courthouse & Gov't Center 106 S. 1st Street 10,49 Immokalee Health Department (CHSI) 419 N. 1st Street 14,77 Immokalee Barn (First Floor) 425 Sgt. Joe Jones Road 7,26 Immokalee Barn (Second Floor) 425 Sgt. Joe Jones Road 7,26 Immokalee Transportation Bldg. ** 550 Stockade Road 8,83 Immokalee Code Enforcement Bldg. 310 Alachua Street 1,99 Medical Examiners Office 3838 Domestic Avenue 13,23 Building "B" Human Resources 3303 E. Tamiami Trail 7,16 Building "C-1" Tax Collector 3291 E. Tamiami Trail 14,74 Building "C-1 Addition" Tax Collector 3291 E. Tamiami Trail 3,40 Building "C-2" Supervisor of Elections 3295 E. Tamiami Trail 10,19 Building "C-2 Addition" Supv. of Elections 3295 E. Tamiami Trail 2,41 Building "D" Risk / Jail Visit / AS Admin 3311 E. Tamiami Trail 8,38 Building "F" Admin. 1st Floor Security Lobby 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 2,13 Building "F" Administration 1 st Floor ** 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 10,85 Building "F" Administration 2nd Floor ** 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 10,85 Building "F" Administration 3rd Floor ** 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 10,85 Building "F" Administration 4th Floor ** 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 10,85 Building "F" Administration 5th Floor ** 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 10,85 Building "F" Administration 6th Floor ** 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 10,85 Building "F" Administration 7th Floor ** 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 10,85 Building "F" Administration 8th Floor ** 3299 E. Tamiami Trail 10,85 Building "G" Wellness Center ** 3327 E. Tamiami Trail 5,51 Building "H" Health 1st Floor 3339 E. Tamiami Trail 24,38 Building "H" Health 2nd Floor 3339 E. Tamiami Trail 29,77 Building "L" Courthouse 1st Floor ** 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 24,76 Building "L" Courthouse 2nd Floor ** 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 23,53 Building "L" Courthouse 3rd Floor ** 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 22,02 Building "L" Courthouse 4th Floor 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 22,21 Building "L" Courthouse 5th Floor 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 22,04 Building "L" Courthouse 6th Floor 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 22,04 Building "L" Courthouse Roof Penthouse 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 7,09 Building "L" Courthouse Mezz. ** 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 5,05 Building "W" General Services - 1st Floor 3335 E. Tamiami Trail 21,78 Building "W" General Services - 2nd Floor 3335 E. Tamiami Trail 9,27 New BCC Fleet Management ** 2901 County Barn Road 41,59 Animal Control Admin. 7610 Davis Boulevard 8,93 Ir - 0 CL m 0 c m c od a� M 0. �a 3 c c Q 0 0 N LO ti W 95 Q 0 0 N 0 w L M tZ c a>' E ca a G:1Adnninistration\AUIR1AUIR 2018\2018 DRAFT AUIR GOVT BLDGs 20 Percent Peak rev1 207 of 270 Packet Pg. 278 9.A.3 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 2018 AUIR Inventory Owned Facilities - Space & Value to be included in 2016 Impact Fee Study - continued Name of Structure Address Square Fee Animal Crt'I Sally Port 7610 Davis Boulevard 6,72 Golden Gate Supv of Elections Bldg. 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard 7,00 Agriculture Building 14700 Immokalee Road 13,36 Emergency Services Center 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway 57,27 Building "L-1" Courthouse Annex ** 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 134,78 New Property Appraiser ** 3950 Radio Road 27,59 North Collier Government Services Center ** 2335 Orange Blossom Dr. 13,92 New Supervisor of Elections Facility ** 3750 Enterprise Avenue 31,53 SubTotal Owned Facilities - Space & Value to be included in 2016 Impact Fee Study 857,73 Owned Facilities - Not included in 2016 Impact Fee Study Name of Structure Address Square Fee Building "E" Snack Bar * 3307 E. Tamiami Trail 71 GMD Extension * 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr 21,93 GMD Main Building */** 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr 41,02 Airport Place - Tax Collector * 725 Airport Rd. S 6,20 SubTotal wne Facilities - Not included in 2016 Impact Fee Study 69,88 SubTotal Owned Facilities - Space included in AUIR 927,62 Owned Ancillary Facilities - Value to be included in 2016 Impact Fee Study Name of Structure Address quare ee 800 MGHZ Generator Bldg. 312 Stockade Road 23 Imm. Animal Control Kennel 402 Stockade Road 1,57 Animal Crt'I Kennel 1 7610 Davis Boulevard 3,94 Animal Crt'I Kennel 2 7610 Davis Boulevard 3,94 Animal Crt'I Kennel 3 7610 Davis Boulevard 3,94 Animal Ctr'I Stable 7610 Davis Boulevard 3,15 Immokalee Radio Tower Shed 312 Stockade Road 1 Road & Bridge Shed 402 Stockade Road 10 Road & Bridge Fuel Island 402 Stockade Road 81 Building "K" Chiller Building 3323 E. Tamiami Trail 5,52 Electric Substation "A" 3315 E. Tamiami Trail 82 Electric Substation "B" 3339 E. Tamiami Trail 1,08 CDES Parking Garage * 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr 101,95 Courthouse Annex Parking Deck** 3355 E. Tamiami Trail 420,49 800 MGHZ Generator 2901 County Barn Road 36 800 MGHZ Repeater Building 2901 County Barn Road 6 Vehicle Wash Rack 2901 County Barn Road 1,95 Fuel Island/Canopy 2897 County Barn Road 3,60 Fuel Tanks & Slab 2897 County Barn Road 1,55 Generator / Fuel Tank 2897 County Barn Road 12 SubTotal Owned Ancillary Facilities - Value to be included in 2016 Impact Fee Study 555,30 AUIR & Impact Fee Study - TOTAL Owned Facilities G:1Adnninistration\AUIR1AUIR 2018\2018 DRAFT AUIR GOVT BLDGs 20 Percent Peak rev1 208 of 270 1,482,92 r- 0 CL W 0 c m c 06 a� M 0. �a 3 C c Q 0 N ti cc Q 0 0 N 0 w M tZ c a>' E a Packet Pg. 279 9.A.3 GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 2018 AUIR Inventory LEASED FACILITIES (Subject to AUIR) Name of Structure Address Square FeE Tax Collector's Office - Greentree 2348 Immokalee Rd. 7,60 Transp. Dept - Davis Boulevard Maintenance Facility Davis Blvd. (former FDOT) 11,20 GG City WIC Office 4945 Golden Gate Parkway 2,10 Tax Collector's Office - Eagle Creek 12668 E. Tamiami Trail 3,08 Tourism and Economic Development 2660 Horseshoe Drive, North 4,84 Horseshoe Square - Growth Management Department 2685 Horseshoe Drive South 7,20 Tax Collector's Office - Golden Gate Estates 50 South Wilson Boulevard 2,77 Human Resources - Health Dept. - Court Plaza III 2671 Airport Road South, Unit 202 2,50 Sub Total Leased Facilities 41,31 TOTAL Owned & Leased Facilities The General Government Buildings Inventory includes those facilities not otherwise covered by an impact or user fee. * Removed from inventory per Impact Fee consultant's recommendation ** Square Footage has been updated 1,524,23 G:1Adnninistration\AUIR1AUIR 2018\2018 DRAFT AUIR GOVT BLDGs 20 Percent Peak rev1 209 of 270 Packet Pg. 280 CA—, 2018 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS - EXISTING INVENTORY � Floi IImna,t CORKSCREW RD F—ee—aa_I. COUNTY Agricult �al Builtling r I Immokalea Code Enforcement Ii ! LAKE TRAFFORD 1 Immokalea GowrnmeM � roao Center Immokalea Bam , IMMOKALEE RD Immokalea Animal Control Aee M p ntl�.Cl aJ g�ItY m OIL WEL GG Government Services Center Property Appraiser Office AT Opera[iona Animal Control Admin. 1 BCCFleet Maintenance, Fuel StMlon and Wash Rack I Emergan.Y Servlees Center I Legend Major Roads ffi Existing Government Buildings HENDRY COUNTY Packet Pg. 281 v ' G T { O T � A m BO TAB 0 O ��- North Collier Government Services Center TransPorUtion GrovRh Management Builtling a NAPLE Medical Examiner's office Supervisor of Elections FGovernment Airport Tax Collector Center Complex (Building B, O, E, F, G, N, K, L, W and CAT Transfer Sb[lon) Courthouse Annex MARCO /SLANL «�t S Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 CORKSCREW RD F—ee—aa_I. COUNTY Agricult �al Builtling r I Immokalea Code Enforcement Ii ! LAKE TRAFFORD 1 Immokalea GowrnmeM � roao Center Immokalea Bam , IMMOKALEE RD Immokalea Animal Control Aee M p ntl�.Cl aJ g�ItY m OIL WEL GG Government Services Center Property Appraiser Office AT Opera[iona Animal Control Admin. 1 BCCFleet Maintenance, Fuel StMlon and Wash Rack I Emergan.Y Servlees Center I Legend Major Roads ffi Existing Government Buildings HENDRY COUNTY Packet Pg. 281 ca„ 2018 GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS - LEASED SPACE INVENTOR "•�. ' Legend y ,• AS � Floritla GUM uiiEea•�Ga��ara CORKSCREW RD /MMOKALEE 1. LAKE TRAFFO Ma or Roads ••----••—. ' A Leased Government Buildings 1 LEE COUNTY! B owmm�xncexervToevnxT IMMOKALEERD w 1 0 � Ave M • U SO TAB CH I y and I ItY A Greentree Tax Collectors Office t7 r OIL WELL RD G)51 IMMOKALEE RD w Tax Collectors Office I HENDRY COUNTY � �..�..� Tb K o N RBIL BEACH ,-.....................�.. �..�.. �..�..�..�.. 0 o GOLDEN GAT'. O VD T PI R GE R 1' a z GG City WIC Office j N x NAPLES[ o RADI RD IS D FDOT Office Horseshoe Square-GMD g ", S"� HAMMOCK RD Tourism and Economic Development Office 9 � 4 �b HR - Health Dept: Court Plaza IIIA 'ap 41 _ -r A,y4fi Eagle Creek Tax Collectors Office Packet Pg. 282 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES 2018 CATEGORY "C" FACILITIES 1. County Coastal one reas Management Beac es nlets Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 283 9.A.3 2018 AUIR FACILITY SUMMARY COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT Area Type: Coastal Zone (Category "C") Using the adopted Beaches and Waterways Master Plan, and the Standards established for Sustainability (see Attachment "A" --Coastal Zones), the following is set forth for FY 2018/19 to FY 2022/23. Expenditures Project & Program Costs Reserves - Unrestricted Reserve - Catastrophe (1) SUB TOTAL Revenues TDC Revenue - Category A Interest & Misc. Sources Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service Revenue Reserve TOTAL Surplus or (Deficit) Revenues for 5 -year Capital Program Revenue needed to maintain Sustainability $82,394,100 $11,098,700 $1,500,000 $94,992,800 $54,973,900 $6,397,500 $34,175,700 ($554,300) $94,992,800 $0 $0 Recommendation: That the BCC approve the proposed Coastal Zone Management AUIR for FY 2018/19 --FY 2022/23. Notes: (1) Catastrophe funds are accumulated at a rate of $500,000/yr, up to a maximum of $10,000,000. 215 of 270 Packet Pg. 284 N TDC Beach Renourishment Capital Fund (195) 2018 AUIR FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 5 Year Description Adopted Proforma Proforma Proforma Proforma FY 19 - FY 23 Expenditures Project & Program Costs 14,877,200 41,873,700 4,935,500 8,117,700 12,590,000 82,394,100 Reserves - Unrestricted 22,258,300 4,637,800 10,242,400 12,835,700 11,098,700 11,098,700 Reserve for Catastrophe (1) 7,570,000 - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Total Expenditures/Uses 44,705,500 46,511,500 15,677,900 21,953,400 25,188,700 94,992,800 Revenue TDC Taxes 10,777,100 10,884,900 10,993,700 11,103,600 11,214,600 54,973,900 Interest & Misc. 307,000 5,798,300 46,400 107,400 138,400 6,397,500 Carry Forward 34,175,700 29,828,300 4,637,800 10,742,400 13,835,700 34,175,700 Revenue Reserve (554,300) - - - - (554,300 Total Revenue/Sources 44,705,500 46,511,500 15,677,900 21,953,400 25,188,700 94,992,800 Notes: (1) Catastrophe Reserves are accumulated at a rate of $ 500,000 per year up to a maximum of $ 10 million. 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 285 9.A.3 Beach Re nourishment Caoital Fund 11951 Packet Pg. 286 m----------- � ommmmmmmmm� Packet Pg. 286 APPENDIX I CONTENTS: • COUNTYWIDE PERMANENT POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PRO- JECTIONS (APRIL 1 & OCTOBER 1) • COUNTY PERMANENT POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJEC- TIONS BY PLANNING COMMUNITY (APRIL 1 & OCTOBER 1) • COUNTYWIDE PEAK SEASON POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS • COUNTY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICTS POPULATION ESTI- MATES AND PROJECTIONS — FULL DISTRICTS & AREAS SERVED MAPS — ♦ COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMUNITIES ♦ DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL CO's BY PLANNING COMMUNITY ♦ DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL CO's 2005 - 2018 — SUMMARY ♦ POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) ♦ DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL CO's WITHIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD) — 2017-2018 ♦ DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL CO's WITHIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD) — 2016-1017 ♦ DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL CO's WITHIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUD) — 2015— 2016 • TABLES — IMPACT FEE FUND AND DEBT SERVICE EXPENSE Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 287 COLLIER PERMANENT POPULATION ESTIMATES M PWJEMONS -- COUNTYWIDE FIS- YEM M7 S COUNTYWIDE 1 25],926 3221- 1 S..,... 1 3311- 1 1 -70 1 1 308,534 1 , 1 353,166 1 SUN,— 1 -,UM I 4UU,ZBZ I 4U5,581 I 41Z,UZ I 417,SUU] I Packet Pg. 288 1 Yi Pa y ne. county C----mg dune 14,201& I- L oo 04 2 couNNIm -,553 43.1- 1 44J,SUI I 44S,USS 1 4.1- 4SH,438 473,5UU 478,326 4B3,201 488,IZ5 I 493,10U 1 4S7,714 1 5UI,VW 5Ub,Z41 51U, S 514,.14] 05 COLLIER COUNTY PERMANENT POPULATION ESTIMATES a PROJECTIONS -- COUNTYWIDE CENSUS Y- (D.- .1) -911, I;zl Ml '_ P_ CL COUN—IME 1 251,377 4, (Ub 3U3,076 1 39Z,374 1 2- 39b,455 2024 4U3,271 2D25 2D26 2.21 410,2orTITM I Packet Pg. 288 1 Yi Pa y ne. county C----mg dune 14,201& oo 04 0 R 12- LL I Packet Pg. 288 1 Peak Season COLLIER COUNTY PEA SEASON POPULATION ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS 2000 d 2010 - 2044 9.A.3 2(IOD 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2076 2017 2018 2019 2020 2027 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Unincorporated Area 1 265,366 1 343,593 1 348,497 1 354,268 1 358,404 1 364,414 1 372,134 1 379,740 1 387,921 1 396,342 1 404,945 1 412,953 1 420,342 1 427,866 1 435,530 1 443,333 1 450,504 1 457,023 L - COUNTYWIDE 1 309,577 1 387,183 1 392,180 1 398,107 1 402,268 1 408,351 1 416,402 1 424,603 1 433,359 1 442,240 1 451,303 1 459,799 1 467,7041 475,746 1 483,925 1 492,245 1 499,928 1 506,954 1r0„ C 7v C 05 N prolectlons prolectlons prolectlons prolectlons prolectlons prolectlons prolectlons prolenlona prolacllona prolacllons proJectlona proJecibns praJectlanc p,aJectl- p,oJ-1- prolectlons prolectlons prolectlons 2027 2026 2029 2030 2511 2032 2033 2D34 2035 2036 2037 2038 2099 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 t% Unincorporated Area 463,639 470,356 477,175 483,548 489,464 495,457 501,530 507,684 513,384 518,619 523,913 529,266 534,681 539,937 545,027 550,160 555,337 560,558 COUNTYWIDE 514,079 521,304 528,631 535,541 542,022 548,582 555,221 561,940 568,201 573,991 579,841 585,750 591,720 597,256 602,351 607,489 612,671 617,896 3 C C Q 7b nd� O 1)Edina! mdprojedionsaeded edfrandslsoblanedfran:2000Cenasad2010Cer Burealor Em rrioad Budness Rens3ch(BEBR)papuldionbulledn;Cdlia Coi LyC rprdlendv Ra iingstdf;and,Ramirg99ffran Naol arld Ma ldmd. fV N 2)Pe*3 rpopulgimisdaivelkyina,�drgwchyeWs Oddw1parransnpopulgimby2OP/.(.20). N O 3)Ba9d upon BEBR Malum RagegroMh rde pryatiare r {.) r N 4 O Q 00 Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Plannirsg Seclion June 14,20A p 04 w O R a c a� E s Q 1CoESPI.�nlngaer,l.�pr,hen,I,201aAu18-CIB,aapp,.dla-Populatlo .."Id-1a,l.andpro,.PRINT Packet Pg. 289 9.A.3 COLLIER CWNW WATER DISTRICTS POPULATION ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS —bar I Per ane. B Pea -- 2000 A 2010 - 20 I- L O Fs I 05 d CL C COLLIER CWNW SEWER DISTRICTS POPULATION ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS Oc , I ., ane. B Pea se — 2000 6 2010 - 20 N T d EAST CENTRAL SEV awo I�C::7 Sldii7i['i,,:3�iCiE�iii['Y�LiCkLiiif{:dki�i['F,.ii7fff63t7iftSii'�ifkE�7�ifltrSi7ifFd':'kifEi69t�fEtilCifCdCiliF3�i�iF3�YF�iCi%ii�fEi6'kiifC3kl�it:StiifCk�::iit:d4Y�itid".i7iC3'ikifGiGPiifGtRFiifGiL'iJfG:L"lifG3LLi Packet Pg. 290 Pu"","gCamma Apr COU LER COUNTY PERMANEW POPULATION ESTIMATES — PROJE-5 By Pkmiv Cdmmmity dM City pmMnt 9.A.3 N A "ds p i)s000 as solo rvmlm Maur lame.Ewvlmesan.umpsnm c..n"N mean"N-wlae�ddaaemlmd�rra"ina u.s curveear®u crosaz000 mecrosamio Rmldndl"v oeatwm"um vdml. Ns)smo meelNdlmaoare�epmcm"NRm r. m map .,. a v a)Ma lxere mgmlmawaeprwlam glnaoyaRmning dem In mil ^n sya.lnamanaln-ndwmry�sa q�lmaprmam nycanry Rmmng ddr. � al rvs, awes prRam McamNannmt ppm mm pgmlm pulam MrneaNananninganln moa. 5) [vaglatm C�iry pryaalmcwae prepam gCmny Raining ddl. el �o1fl-mss cm"ywMertld.aeprgalmar®t ym eeery Mmwm rvmgegmin rmnFawsn urn-�rco, mzo-�ozs, loxsm>], mamvo-�ms, {a aeaR eaudl"p1eo,.�nurymle. 7) Rsning Commonly prgeelmcxrepra�el W Canry Ranm ng tldl u®ng Cetlfraed Oxµanq ada8 pavrspa awdllrg unll rdlar dalveltrem mW Cmac al Rm"I"g Cunmunlypymlmaeo "tl rMm pgmaf wllev peprlalm ggarA mprmerm I",gg,ane mgg. g)Fomad McTddc may nd evd �M1eam d�M1elndWeW fgureeue �o randrg. Repo by C"Bier—a Cm"preAe"erve —mg Sema"June 11,-8. Packet Pg. 291 r O ormm_ or -mm Norm N A "ds p i)s000 as solo rvmlm Maur lame.Ewvlmesan.umpsnm c..n"N mean"N-wlae�ddaaemlmd�rra"ina u.s curveear®u crosaz000 mecrosamio Rmldndl"v oeatwm"um vdml. Ns)smo meelNdlmaoare�epmcm"NRm r. m map .,. a v a)Ma lxere mgmlmawaeprwlam glnaoyaRmning dem In mil ^n sya.lnamanaln-ndwmry�sa q�lmaprmam nycanry Rmmng ddr. � al rvs, awes prRam McamNannmt ppm mm pgmlm pulam MrneaNananninganln moa. 5) [vaglatm C�iry pryaalmcwae prepam gCmny Raining ddl. el �o1fl-mss cm"ywMertld.aeprgalmar®t ym eeery Mmwm rvmgegmin rmnFawsn urn-�rco, mzo-�ozs, loxsm>], mamvo-�ms, {a aeaR eaudl"p1eo,.�nurymle. 7) Rsning Commonly prgeelmcxrepra�el W Canry Ranm ng tldl u®ng Cetlfraed Oxµanq ada8 pavrspa awdllrg unll rdlar dalveltrem mW Cmac al Rm"I"g Cunmunlypymlmaeo "tl rMm pgmaf wllev peprlalm ggarA mprmerm I",gg,ane mgg. g)Fomad McTddc may nd evd �M1eam d�M1elndWeW fgureeue �o randrg. Repo by C"Bier—a Cm"preAe"erve —mg Sema"June 11,-8. Packet Pg. 291 r O 9.A.3 Plaeaing - i" - COLLIER COUNTY PERMANENT POPULATION ESTIMATES and PRXECTIONS By Planning Comma pity and City MM MM M MM Everglades city 484 pt- 411 t404 Mt" ZIt409 301418 NtM 2016M17Mt] MIS "' ptul 80 455 0.58 N 462 Ofi5 mZ469 x 4]2 4]6 ] 4]9 MS 406 490 m3494 0.9] A 501 x 505 I.- -- 14,9]3 16,428 16,482 16,539 16,582 16,6fi8 16,829 16,983 1],062 1],113 1],164 1],239 1],338 1],436 1],534 1],633 1],]28 1],819 1],910 18,001 18,092 10,208 18,34] 18,48] 18,fi26 18,]fi5 Naples 21,332 19,494 19,518 19,590 19,583 19,519 11 !1 19,906 20,359 21, 81 21,016 81,345 81,613 22,002 22,330 22,fi59 22,987 23,316 23,614 23,973 24,301 24,629 24,958 25,288 85,815 85,943 ]nrorpw(ed- 36,788 36,325 36,403 36,533 36,553 36,814 36,890 3],386 3],888 38,249 38,632 39,039 39,469 39,899 40,330 40,760 41,187 41,610 42,033 42,458 42,880 43,327 43,799 44,2]0 44,]42 45,214 COUNT DETO 257,926 322,653 325,817 331,756 335,223 340,293 347,002 353,836 381,133 368,534 376,088 383,166 389,754 396,455 1 403,211 1 410,204 416,60] 1 4Ya,462 1 428,399 1 434,420 440,526 N6,284 451,605 457,151 462,684 468,283 O O tl Tndemnra®am Prolmiorearenaan upon rnee,r®aemmpemernr popwmim p�mar=l for npni t, za0o era z016zaae. aaaaocen 7notacnev eu,m,o<Emnam�cara fi.da®6�rx IfiE691 popu�s�on nu��elre co���acoumycamprteaveRnn�ngaarr;..a,�m�rg..rtmmuy�®..aNsm �.ena. 3) 6omeof aK]meamry ror aloe 1ne�,m of 1ne'imi.ia,a ngorna,ero wndr0. vr:vwed nr eMlln eonan ernaP�eeadK riaa,dax semaa ✓e,� ] a, aaaa. Q Q 1-211. Packet Pg. 292 a�o COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMUNITIES 9•A.3 I Florid Gulgf coast un , Cry BO TAE T 0 T1 m n 0 CITY OF NAPLES CITY OF MARCO ISLAND W+>v SSSS Miles 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 COUNTY RD OIMMOKALEE RD FHRD q m 7 DEN GATE BLVD � tt A I HAMMOCKRD O EVERGLADES CITY 1 US 41 ¢ TAMIAMI TRAIL 0 Packet Pg. 293 PLANNING COMMUNITIES O Z 1 - North Naples 7 - Royal Fakapalm 0) 2 - Central Naples 8 - Rural Estates 3 - Golden Gate 9 - Corkscrew 4 -East Naples 10 - Immokalee C7 5 - South Naples 11 - Big Cypress 0 6 - Marco 12 - Urban Estates z U FII E 7 in GIS MAPPING: B^^ H 1 US 41 ¢ TAMIAMI TRAIL 0 Packet Pg. 293 2018 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR UNINCORPORATED COLLIER AOUNTX Total Residential Building Permit C.O: 2,497 9.A.3 Total DUs: 2,884 (SF DUs: 2,440; MF DUs: 444) er C---ty N V O N o CITY OF A Marco CITY OF/ MARCO ISLAND Corkscrew rc r •' i 1S �•iLjnl Estates • 4'�• Marco SR R2 z1 NI IMMOKNLEE RD E •at Royal Fakapalm CITY OF LEGEND ResmeHluLco. �mrovn-mnwe� oNING WMMUN m L� �a tures. =um�E �c� I+ad=. o Ra„� F,�oalre Miles 0 2.5�,aw„Ma5 e.e,�oeoan,e.� 10 Big Cypress Packet Pg. 294 2005-2018 RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DATA m�+o• ndmi i�nnc_nzizi i�ni Q� 7 •• 1 00 • � ,�;► to � j• IMMOKaLa,RO •• •••• • m � ••• • 3 • . r -M •� .: • �.o. w , • . • .= ti . N. • Ea oERear eac oExr • •Nt da, i ••e y •+• •LLLi aM MRo• • oaN•we•so MR• .�_ •• • • r•y _. _ 109. t _yo - 00 • i•i N• • •• • ic�ome«w •• • •• <� • •.< • S w• •• • •% •• •• i••••• •}s CL US T o�• Me Rio o • • i • i• � • M •• . • • • 3 i • • •• % •� •i� • i d .• > • 0a • : r • M a o„� • Q CITY OF ~• 10AD NAPLES o � • •a M • •• s 00 �' o •ti p •MMo • y Ma � c_x m, LO � � ice• � .r a w �z CO 0 • N Dwelling Units CO'd Countywide YEAR* SF MF SF & MF 2005-2006 2,572 2,144 4,716 2006-2007 2,850 2,963 5,813 2007-2008 1,403 2,732 4,135 2008-2009 433 638 1,071 2009-2010 563 459 1,022 2010-2011 588 692 1,280 2011-2012 747 480 1,227 2012-2013 806 454 1,260 2013-2014 1,436 286 1,722 2014-2015 2,065 1,010 3,075 2015-2016 2,548 777 3,325 2016-2017 2,776 980 3,756 2017-2018 TOTAL 2,440 21,227 444 14,059 2,884 35,286 *YEAR = Ap ri I 1 -March 31 �i rJIM �,�11 r h5� Legend EV Residential Multi Family !' 0 Residential Single Family oTop 15 Development Sites CITY OF tCO ISLAN Planned Unit Development (PUD) Packet Pg. 295 COLLIER COUNTY 2018 AUIR POPULATION (PEAK SEASON) DISTRIBUTION BY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE Packet Pg. 296 2017-2018 RESIDENTIAL CO's WITHIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P (Date: 04/01/2017-03/31/2018) NAME I#UNITS # O.o ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES 177 128 NAPLES RESERVE GOLF CLUB (EX) 139 139 MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'S CRK 135 135 LANDS END PRESERVE 128 123 PARKLANDS 128 128 WENTWORTH ESTATES 110 16 WINDING CYPRESS 106 106 SABALBAY 93 91 FIRSTASSY. MINST. EDU. &REHAB. 80 2 HACIENDA LAKES 71 68 TUSCANY RESERVE 67 26 GOLF CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES 65 65 TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE RPUD 64 64 WARMSPRINGS 60 60 WOLF CREEK 47 47 LELY RESORT 42 21 AVALON OF NAPLES COLLIER 36 RPUD 40 38 5 38 BENT CREEK PRESERVE 36 36 BRANDON 35 35 FAITH LANDING 31 31 ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH 28 28 QUAILWEST 26 26 LIVINGSTON LAKES 24 3 ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONALACADEMY 23 23 WALN UT LAKES 23 23 HAMILTON GREENS 22 22 ARROWHEAD 18 18 ABACO CLUB RPUD 16 2 PALERMO COVE RPUD 13 13 QUAILII 13 13 LEGACY LAKES 11 11 BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE 10 10 MEDITERRA 9 9 VINEYARDS 8 2 BUCKLEY MIXED USE 7 7 TUSCANY POINTE RPUD 7 7 COCOHATCHEE BAY (EX) 6 2 PELICAN BAY 5 5 LELY BAREFOOT BEACH 4 4 MERCATO 4 4 NAPLES VI EW 4 4 HERITAGE BAY 3 3 TH E LAN DI NGS AT BEARS PAW 3 3 AUDUBO N COUNTRY CLUB 2 2 GREY OAKS 2 2 MARSILEA VILLAS 2 2 EAST GATEWAY 1 1 MONTEREY 1 1 NAPLES MOTORCOACH RESORT 1 1 PELICAN MARSH 1 1 RIVER REACH 1 1 TOLL PLAZA RV PARK 1 1 i N�l A • r Q Mot RQ* 4 r m LO Q •F CO fl Q { , N O b �af Q L - (Q a • • n R Fo vo c oR Legend m4 Residential Certificate of Occupancy (CO) CITY OF O Top 10 Development PUDs MARCO ISLAND PUD GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICP MilES GR -h Manag,m.nt Dep,—nt 0 0.5 1 2 3 230 of 27 - Packet Pg. 297 2016-2017 RESIDENTIAL CO's WITHIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICP IJ IMiles GD -h Management Dep,D,,,t . 0.5 1 2 3 CITY OF MARCO ISLAND 4 low l N Packet Pg. 298 Legend Residential Certificate 40 of Occupancy (CO) OTop 12 Development PUDs PUD NAME ,I #Units #CO GREY OAKS 225 17 TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE RPUD 225 225 WENTWORTH ESTATES 222 64 ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES 179 130 SABAL BAY 153 139 LANDS END PRESERVE 131 106 BRADFORD SQUARE 130 1 MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'S CRK 120 120 WINDING CYPRESS 119 119 LIVINGSTON LAKES 106 16 PARKLANDS 101 101 TUSCANY RESERVE BRISTOL PINES 97 79 61 79 LELY RESORT 72 54 RETREAT TUSCANY POINTE RPUD TERAFINA WALNUT LAKES 72 67 66 53 1 67 66 53 PALERMO COVE RPUD 52 52 GOLF CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES 51 51 NAPLES RESERVE GOLF CLUB (EX) 50 50 ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH 47 47 BRANDON 45 45 LEGACY LAKES 32 32 BENT CREEK PRESERVE RM 30 BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE 30 30 QUAILWEST 30 30 FAITH LANDING 19 19 MERCATO 18 18 QUAIL II 18 18 a r. ► _ I� 18 Ii■i �� 17 17 HAMILTON GREENS 17 17 HERITAGE BAY 16 16 ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 15 15 ARROWHEAD 12 12 MARSI LEA V I LLAS 12 12 WARM SPRI NGS 12 12 i *00 AFI SEA— DO —^ _.....' 1 ■I! ■119111; i� 7 ' CITY OF' rte..■ \` NAPLES IIS■ ' 1 GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICP IJ IMiles GD -h Management Dep,D,,,t . 0.5 1 2 3 CITY OF MARCO ISLAND 4 low l N Packet Pg. 298 Legend Residential Certificate 40 of Occupancy (CO) OTop 12 Development PUDs PUD NAME ,I #Units #CO GREY OAKS 225 17 TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE RPUD 225 225 WENTWORTH ESTATES 222 64 ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES 179 130 SABAL BAY 153 139 LANDS END PRESERVE 131 106 BRADFORD SQUARE 130 1 MARC.SHRS/FIDLR'S CRK 120 120 WINDING CYPRESS 119 119 LIVINGSTON LAKES 106 16 PARKLANDS 101 101 TUSCANY RESERVE BRISTOL PINES 97 79 61 79 LELY RESORT 72 54 RETREAT TUSCANY POINTE RPUD TERAFINA WALNUT LAKES 72 67 66 53 1 67 66 53 PALERMO COVE RPUD 52 52 GOLF CLUB OF THE EVERGLADES 51 51 NAPLES RESERVE GOLF CLUB (EX) 50 50 ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH 47 47 BRANDON 45 45 LEGACY LAKES 32 32 BENT CREEK PRESERVE 30 30 BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE 30 30 QUAILWEST 30 30 FAITH LANDING 19 19 MERCATO 18 18 QUAIL II 18 18 WOLF CREEK 18 18 HACIENDA LAKES 17 17 HAMILTON GREENS 17 17 HERITAGE BAY 16 16 ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 15 15 ARROWHEAD 12 12 MARSI LEA V I LLAS 12 12 WARM SPRI NGS 12 12 GIS Mapping: Beth Yang, AICP IJ IMiles GD -h Management Dep,D,,,t . 0.5 1 2 3 CITY OF MARCO ISLAND 4 low l N Packet Pg. 298 2015-2016 RESIDENTIAL CO's WITHIN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (P (Date: 04/01/2015-03/31/2016) ri _ � • 2 F • El � � � • • e 3 .00r�. • MI _ a _ yip w,y L �3 • `i _ IMMOKALEE RO . l • % _ i nN N E-0 r A 3 GOLDEN GALE BLVpw fg • 8 urerm. L �� € • G CL SEAG• 3 - • GR• GREEN • • 9 •Lp • 05 M CITY OF 7—Ft ro, NAPLES $""" • Q- Legend a 00 o c Residential Certificate • y N of Occupancy (CO) MMoe.R G� _ Top 10 Development PLIDs4 LO PUD •,µC , �o PUD NAME #COs #units WENTWORTH ESTATES 99 226 Q TERAFINA 196 196 00 LELY RESORT 156 187 �= r SABALBAY 170 182 • N TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE RPUD 167 167 _ MARC.SHRS/FIDLRS CRK 148 163 • �• VANDERBILT TRUST, THE 2 156 WINDING CYPRESS 123 123 O ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES 86 114 LANDS END PRESERVE 93 105 L - f0 LIVINGSTON LAKES 18 104 d GREY OAKS 22 97 TUSCANY RESERVE 48 83 = PALERMO COVE RPUD 74 74 s • • ...e,.,.� OLDE CYPRESS 7 62 (3° • FE BRISTOL PINES 54 54 .. QUAIL WEST 49 49 4 r HERITAGE BAY 33 48 HACIENDA LAKES 44 44 REGAL ACRES 44 44 WALNUTLAKES 44 44 ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 41 41 BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE 40 40 TUSCANY POINTE RPUD 37 37 BENT GREEK PRESERVE 30 30 H.D. DEVELOPMENT 30 30 FAITH LANDING 25 25 2v ARLINGTON LAKES 24 24 PELICAN MARSH 5 20 BRANDON 19 19 NAPLES RESERVE GOLF CLUB (EK) 19 19 ems MEDFERRA 17 17 QUAIL II 17 17 _ VINEYARDS 12 12 CITY OF PARKLANDS 10 10 MARCO ISLAND o9 4 GIS Mapping: Bdh Yang, AICP Miles GN -h Management Department 0 0.5 1 2 a 232 of 27 Packet Pg. 299 Total Impact Fee Related Debt as of December 2017 (Principal and Interest) Fund 411 - Fund 413 - Total Utilities Water System Sewer System System Dev Development Development Fee Related Fee Fund Fee Fund Debt 8,013,787 M5,688,307 13,702,094 7,821,564 5,472,285 13,293,849 7,812,911 5,483,543 13, 296, 455 8,965,163 4,163,663 13,128,826 5,954,610 3,815,436 9,770,045 5,944,802 3,824,270 9,769,072 6,045,270 3,137,514 9,182,785 6,106,498 1,507,4197,613,917 5,834,040 185,32505,386,153 6,019,364 5,746,800 185,3255,932,125 7,578,825 573,2718,152,096 4,814,441 573,5225,387,963 4,817,998 573,9455,391,944 4,812,824 573,329 4,811,854 573,2135,385,067 4,814,441 573,522 5,387,963 4,813,471 573,406 5,386,877 4,815,088 573,599 5,388,686 9.A.3 Total Impact Fee / System Dev Fee Debt by Year 27,095,813 27,050,786 27,049,441 26,866,104 22,850,707 22,841,220 22,317,176 21,377,590 16,627,692 16,531,017 18,744,933 15,983,629 16,082,466 16,073,689 16,051,435 16,048,618 10,388,046 10,387,374 Totals (19-36) 26,882,348 8,380,801 13,882,290 31,371,209 33,168,122 102,984,766 216,669,535 117,355,649 43,487,143 160,842,792 377,512,327 Totals (20-36) 21,004,589 7,512,513 11,659,799 27,674,825 29,575,728 91,971,281 189,398,735 101,510,600 32,362,586 133,873,186 323,271,921 N Collier Reg Pk ESC ESC ESC 2011 Bond -last payment FY25 Parking Garage 2011 Bond -last payment FY30 for fd 381 Naples Jail 2013 Bond -last payment FY36 old US41 land S Regional Lib SO Fleet Annex 2017 Bond -last payment FY34 t Spec Ops BCC Fleet 20108 Bond -last payment FY22 NN Regional Lib NN Satellite Office W) ti a 00 CD O N w O R a c d E t cc R a Packet Pg. 300 Fund 346 - Fund 390 - P Regional & General Total Gen Fund 381 - Community Fund 350 - Fund 355 - Correctional Parks Impact EMS Impact Library Impact Fiscal Year Fees Fees Fees 1,837,9 2,938,142 A 421,585 071,070 2020 2,939,428 442,687 1,135,890 2021 2,947,982 442,838 1,133,117 2022 2,941,793 444,520 1,130,358 2023 2,943,934 444,840 688,647 2024 2,952,269 445,418 688,405 2025 2,981,347 447,391 688,432 2026 3,297,835 463,199 688,525 2027 - 472,506 688,310 2028 10,608,328 472,208 688,140 2029 10,598,892 472,079 688,178 2030 10,592,836 472,606 688,401 N 2031 10,595,666 466,198 687,891 w 2032 10,690,522 466,156 688,446 2033 10,687,536 465,275 688,402 4 2034 10,666,368 464,984 688,657 CD 2035 10,660,655 314,882 - 2036 5,001,169 314,725 761,985 Fund 411 - Fund 413 - Total Utilities Water System Sewer System System Dev Development Development Fee Related Fee Fund Fee Fund Debt 8,013,787 M5,688,307 13,702,094 7,821,564 5,472,285 13,293,849 7,812,911 5,483,543 13, 296, 455 8,965,163 4,163,663 13,128,826 5,954,610 3,815,436 9,770,045 5,944,802 3,824,270 9,769,072 6,045,270 3,137,514 9,182,785 6,106,498 1,507,4197,613,917 5,834,040 185,32505,386,153 6,019,364 5,746,800 185,3255,932,125 7,578,825 573,2718,152,096 4,814,441 573,5225,387,963 4,817,998 573,9455,391,944 4,812,824 573,329 4,811,854 573,2135,385,067 4,814,441 573,522 5,387,963 4,813,471 573,406 5,386,877 4,815,088 573,599 5,388,686 9.A.3 Total Impact Fee / System Dev Fee Debt by Year 27,095,813 27,050,786 27,049,441 26,866,104 22,850,707 22,841,220 22,317,176 21,377,590 16,627,692 16,531,017 18,744,933 15,983,629 16,082,466 16,073,689 16,051,435 16,048,618 10,388,046 10,387,374 Totals (19-36) 26,882,348 8,380,801 13,882,290 31,371,209 33,168,122 102,984,766 216,669,535 117,355,649 43,487,143 160,842,792 377,512,327 Totals (20-36) 21,004,589 7,512,513 11,659,799 27,674,825 29,575,728 91,971,281 189,398,735 101,510,600 32,362,586 133,873,186 323,271,921 N Collier Reg Pk ESC ESC ESC 2011 Bond -last payment FY25 Parking Garage 2011 Bond -last payment FY30 for fd 381 Naples Jail 2013 Bond -last payment FY36 old US41 land S Regional Lib SO Fleet Annex 2017 Bond -last payment FY34 t Spec Ops BCC Fleet 20108 Bond -last payment FY22 NN Regional Lib NN Satellite Office W) ti a 00 CD O N w O R a c d E t cc R a Packet Pg. 300 Fund 390 - P Fund 385 - General Total Gen Fund 381 - Law Governmental Gov'tal Impact Correctional Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee Related Impact Fees Impact Fees Fee Debt 1,837,9 393.919 13,393,720 1,832,883 1,830,807 5,575,242 13,756,938 1,822,010 1,831,281 5, 575, 758 13, 752, 986 1,789,860 1,835,267 5,595,480 13,737,278 1,774,961 1,836,474 5,391,806 13,080,661 1,749,393 1,837,606 5,399,057 13,072,148 1,751,169 1,842,413 5,423,641 13,134,392 1,812,711 1,880,789 5,620,613 13,763,672 1,807,785 1,903,085 5,736,641 10,608,328 1,803,395 1,902,177 5,732,970 10,598,892 1,799,324 1,901,906 5,731,350 10,592,836 1,793,368 1,903,427 5,737,864 10,595,666 1,990,953 1,887,351 5,658,129 10,690,522 1,987,588 1,887,861 5,657,485 10,687,536 1,980,494 1,885,680 5,646,516 10,666,368 1,978,931 1,885,256 5,642,827 10,660,655 - 762,363 3,923,925 5,001,169 - 761,985 3,921,978 4,998,688 Fund 411 - Fund 413 - Total Utilities Water System Sewer System System Dev Development Development Fee Related Fee Fund Fee Fund Debt 8,013,787 M5,688,307 13,702,094 7,821,564 5,472,285 13,293,849 7,812,911 5,483,543 13, 296, 455 8,965,163 4,163,663 13,128,826 5,954,610 3,815,436 9,770,045 5,944,802 3,824,270 9,769,072 6,045,270 3,137,514 9,182,785 6,106,498 1,507,4197,613,917 5,834,040 185,32505,386,153 6,019,364 5,746,800 185,3255,932,125 7,578,825 573,2718,152,096 4,814,441 573,5225,387,963 4,817,998 573,9455,391,944 4,812,824 573,329 4,811,854 573,2135,385,067 4,814,441 573,522 5,387,963 4,813,471 573,406 5,386,877 4,815,088 573,599 5,388,686 9.A.3 Total Impact Fee / System Dev Fee Debt by Year 27,095,813 27,050,786 27,049,441 26,866,104 22,850,707 22,841,220 22,317,176 21,377,590 16,627,692 16,531,017 18,744,933 15,983,629 16,082,466 16,073,689 16,051,435 16,048,618 10,388,046 10,387,374 Totals (19-36) 26,882,348 8,380,801 13,882,290 31,371,209 33,168,122 102,984,766 216,669,535 117,355,649 43,487,143 160,842,792 377,512,327 Totals (20-36) 21,004,589 7,512,513 11,659,799 27,674,825 29,575,728 91,971,281 189,398,735 101,510,600 32,362,586 133,873,186 323,271,921 N Collier Reg Pk ESC ESC ESC 2011 Bond -last payment FY25 Parking Garage 2011 Bond -last payment FY30 for fd 381 Naples Jail 2013 Bond -last payment FY36 old US41 land S Regional Lib SO Fleet Annex 2017 Bond -last payment FY34 t Spec Ops BCC Fleet 20108 Bond -last payment FY22 NN Regional Lib NN Satellite Office W) ti a 00 CD O N w O R a c d E t cc R a Packet Pg. 300 PARKS: Parks Impact Fee District Fund Regional Parks - Incorporated Areas (345) Naples & Marco Permanent Population Population Increase % Revenues Impact Fees -Regional Interest/Misc. Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service Total Revenues: Project Expenses: Caxambas Community Center Debt Service Expense (fund 345): Fd 298 - 2011 and 2013 band Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees. Parks Impact Fee District Fund Community and Regional Parks - Unincorporated Area (346) County Wide Peak Population - Regional Parks Population Increase % Unincorporated Peak Population - Community Parks Population Increase % Revenues Impact Fees -Regional Impact Fees -Community Interest/Misc. Loan/Transferfrom County -Wide Capital Improv Fund (301) Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service Total: Project Expenses: Eagle Lake Comm Ctr/Pool Big Corkscrew Park Park Master Plan & Other on-going projects Total Project expenses Debt Service Expense (fund 346): 2013 Bond N Regional Pk Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 2011 bond N Regional Pk Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees Based on 6 21 2018 Bud Workshop 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 37,866 38,249 38,632 39,039 39,469 39,899 40,330 1.01% 1.00% 1.05% 1.10% 1.09% 1.08% FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected 200,000 325,000 325,000 328,400 332,000 335,600 339,200 4,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 791,900 1,136,500 1,213,000 5,982,500 6,085,400 6,190,000 6,296,400 30,426,300 995,900 1,473,500 1,550,000 340,400 344,000 347,600 351,200 1,500,000 150,000 150,000 50,000 FY 19 -FY 23 Total 1,660,200 60,000 1,213,000 2,933,200 1,500,000 an nnn 150,000 150,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 433,359 442,240 451,303 459,799 467,704 475,746 483,925 2.05% 2.05% 1.88% 1.72% 1.72% 1.72% 387,921 396,342 404,945 412,953 420,342 427,866 435,530 2.17% 2.17% 1.98% 1.79% 1.79% 1.79% FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 19 - FY 23 Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected Total 5,743,600 5,872,000 5,872,000 5,982,500 6,085,400 6,190,000 6,296,400 30,426,300 2,556,400 2,128,000 2,128,000 2,170,100 2,208,900 2,248,400 2,288,700 11,044,100 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,134,900 25,394,200 3,011,500 3,011,500 11,534,900 33,494,200 11,111,500 8,252,600 8,394,300 8,538,400 8,685,100 44,981,900 0 7,433,000 0 6,198,100 19,710,700 5,525,800 5,313,200 5,446,300 5,596,600 5,494,300 27,376,200 0 114,400 100,000 100,000 6,198,100 27,258,100 5,625,800 5,313,200 5,446,300 5,596,600 5,494,300 27,476,200 123,470 123,470 123,470 123,470 123,470 123,470 123,470 679,050 61,700 2,665,830 2,665,830 2,764,730 2,815,930 2,824,530 2,818,330 2,820,430 16,826,650 2,782,700 - 2,789,300 2,789,300 2,888,200 2,939,400 2,948,000 2,941,800 5,788,300 17,505,700 Page 1 9.A.3 7/20/2018 Packet Pg. 301 9.A.3 Based on 6 21 2018 Bud Workshop Emergency Medical Services EMS Impact Fee (350) 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 599,500 N Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 County Wide Peak Population 433,359 442,240 451,303 459,799 467,704 475,746 483,925 744,100 Population Increase % 180,200 2.05% 2.05% 1.88% 1.72% 1.72% 1.72 1,087,800 Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 19 - FY 23 Revenues Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Impact Fees 430,000 360,000 360,000 366,800 373,100 379,500 386,000 1,865,400 Interest/misc 4,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 30,000 Loan/Transferfrom County -Wide Capital Improv Fund (301) 1,962,800 1,962,800 428,000 69,900 63,700 59,000 5,800 626,400 Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service 330,400 483,200 125,800 125,800 Total: 2,727,200 2,812,000 919,800 442,700 442,800 444,500 397,800 2,647,600 Project Expenses: EMS Station 2,065,000 2,146,300 216,200 216,200 Debt Service Expense (fund 350): 2013 bond Em Sery Ctr 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 109,000 599,500 N Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 54,500 2010/2017 band ambulances, Old US41 land & ESC 159,200 159,200 132,000 153,000 153,000 153,000 153,100 744,100 0 2011 bond Em Sery Ctr 180,200 180,200 180,600 180,700 180,800 182,500 182,800 1,087,800 Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 180,400 C) Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees. 448,400 448,400 421,600 442,700 442,800 444,500 679,800 2,431,400 7/20/2018 Page 2 Packet Pg. 302 Collier County Library Department Library Impact Fee Fund (355) County Wide Peak Population Population Increase % Revenues Impact Fees Interest/Misc. Grants & Donations (Books) Loan/Transferfrom County -Wide Capital Improv Fund (301) Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service Total: Project Expenses Books Debt Service Expense (fund 355): w 2010B bond N N Regional Lib 0 2010/2017 bond South Regional/exp GG Libraries Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees. 0 Based on 6 21 2018 Bud Workshop 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 433,359 442,240 451,303 459,799 467,704 475,746 483,925 2.05% 2.05% 1.88% 1.72% 1.72% 1.72% FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected 950,000 825,000 825,000 840,500 855,000 869,700 884,700 5,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0 1,732,000 1,733,900 1,733,900 1,733,900 1,758,500 311,600 311,600 333,500 181,500 0 0 0 610,800 898,500 334,200 FY 19 -FY 23 Total 4,274,900 35,000 8,692,200 515,000 zan Onn 1,877,400 2,042,100 3,231,700 2,762,900 2,595,900 2,610,600 2,650,200 13,851,300 300,000 416,500 1,732,000 1,733,900 1,733,900 1,733,900 1,758,500 8,692,200 444,300 444,300 443,600 447,700 444,800 442,100 0 1,778,200 714,600 714,600 627,500 688,200 688,300 688,300 688,600 3,380,900 1,158,900 1,158,900 1,071,100 1,135,900 1,133,100 1,130,400 688,600 5,159,100 total book budget for FY19-FY23 Page 3 9.A.3 7/20/2018 Packet Pg. 303 GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FACILITIES: General Governmental Facilities Impact Fees (390) County Wide Peak Population Population Increase % Revenues Impact Fees Interest/Misc. Loan/Transferfrom General Fund (001) Loan/Transferfrom County -Wide Capital Improv Fund (301) Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service Total: Debt Service Expense (fund 390): Loan from Solid Waste ($4,618,900) P/Ns Elks Club Loan from Water Sewer Fund 408 ($1,500,000) SOE Bldg 2013 bond CH annex, garage, ESC, Fleet N Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 2011 bond CH annex, garage, ESC, Fleet ° Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 0 2010/2017 band Annex, Fleet, ESC 2010B bond N N Satellite Offices Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees. Based on 6 21 2018 Bud Workshop 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 433,359 442,240 451,303 459,799 467,704 475,746 483,925 2.05% 2.05% 1.88% 1.72% 1.72% 1.72% FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected 2,800,000 2,350,000 2,350,000 2,394,200 2,435,400 2,477,300 2,519,900 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 325,000 321,800 0 0 0 0 0 3,032,400 3,032,400 3,505,900 3,161,100 3,120,400 3,098,100 2,871,200 3,222,600 3,488,100 2,426,400 13,556,600 9,400,000 9,212,300 8,302,300 5,575,300 5,575,800 5,595,400 5,411,100 FY 19 -FY 23 Total 12,176,800 100,000 0 15,756,700 2,426,400 30,459,900 325,000 321,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 510,000 510,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,358,400 1,358,400 1,358,400 1,358,400 1,358,400 1,358,400 1,358,400 7,471,200 679,200 2,249,500 2,249,500 2,251,000 2,251,800 2,253,400 2,274,500 2,277,400 13,556,600 2,248,500 1,888,600 1,888,600 1,576,200 1,754,900 1,755,200 1,755,000 1,756,000 8,597,300 208,700 208,700 208,300 210,200 208,800 207,500 0 834,800 6,540,200 6,537,000 5,393,900 5,575,300 5,575,800 5,595,400 8,319,500 30,459,900 Page 4 9.A.3 7/20/2018 Packet Pg. 304 Based on 6 21 2018 Bud Workshop CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES: Correctional Facilities Impact Fees (381) Debt Service Expense (fund 381): 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2013 bond EOC County Wide Peak Population 433,359 442,240 451,303 459,799 467,704 475,746 483,925 1,570,800 Population Increase % 2.05% 2.05% 1.88% 1.72% 1.72% 1.72 1,172,700 2011 bond Naples Jail expansion FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 19 - FY 23 Revenues Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Impact Fees 1,700,000 1,460,000 1,460,000 1,487,500 1,513,100 1,539,100 1,565,600 7,565,300 Interest/Misc. 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 60,000 Loan/Transferfrom County -Wide Capital Improv Fund (301) 0 0 657,500 333,400 297,000 238,900 254,200 1,781,000 Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service 1,581,900 1,835,500 1,125,100 2017 2018 1,125,100 Total: 3,293,900 3,307,500 3,254,600 1,832,900 1,822,100 1,790,000 1,831,800 10,531,400 Debt Service Expense (fund 381): 2013 bond EOC 2013 bond Naples Jail expansion 285,600 285,600 285,600 285,600 285,600 285,600 285,600- 1,570,800 Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 132,000 2010/2017 bond Spec Ops, Fleet, EOC 142,800 1,172,700 2011 bond Naples Jail expansion 1,572,900 1,572,900 1,552,400 1,547,300 1,536,500 1,504,400 1,489,500 8,960,600 Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 437,800 441,900 442,500 2,634,000 Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 1,330,500 Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees. 1,858,500 1,858,500 1,838,000 1,832,900 1,822,100 1,790,000 3,248,400 10,531,400 1,831,300 1,835,200 2,405,400 9,633,800 LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITY: Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees (385) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Unincorporated Area Peak Population 387,921 396,342 404,945 412,953 420,342 427,866 435,530 Everglades City Population 445 448 451 455 458 462 465 total 388,365 396,790 405,396 413,407 420,800 428,328 435,995 Population Increase % 2.17% 2.17% 1.98% 1.79% 1.79% 1.79% FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 19 - FY 23 Revenues Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Impact Fees 1,575,000 1,310,000 1,310,000 1,335,900 1,359,800 1,384,100 1,408,900 6,798,700 Interest/misc 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 Loan/Transferfrom County -Wide Capital Improv Fund (301) 0 0 146,500 474,900 451,500 431,100 450,500 1,954,500 Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service 882,000 1,573,100 780,600 780,600 Total: 2,477,000 2,903,100 2,257,100 1,830,800 1,831,300 1,835,200 1,879,400 9,633,800 Debt Service Expense (fund 385): 2013 bond EOC 263,900 263,900 263,900 263,900 263,900 263,900 263,900 1,451,500 Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 132,000 2010/2017 bond Spec Ops, Fleet, EOC 1,172,700 1,172,700 1,029,800 1,129,400 1,129,600 1,129,400 1,130,100 5,548,300 2011 bond EOC 437,100 437,100 437,400 437,500 437,800 441,900 442,500 2,634,000 Reserve for (10/1/23) debt service payment 436,900 Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees. 1,873,700 1,873,700 1,731,100 1,830,800 1,831,300 1,835,200 2,405,400 9,633,800 Page 5 9.A.3 7/20/2018 Packet Pg. 305 OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT Ochopee Fire Control District Impact Fees (372) Based on 6 21 2018 Bud Workshop 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Debt Service Expense (fund 372): FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 19 - FY 23 Revenues Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Impact Fees 1,000 5,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 25,000 Interest / misc 100 200 200 200 200 200 200 1,000 Loan Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loan/Transferfrom County -Wide Capital Improv Fund (301) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Available Cash for Future Projects 11,100 18,600 19,000 19,000 Total: 12,200 24,300 24,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,200 45,000 Debt Service Expense (fund 372): FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 2010/2017 bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010B bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT 0 0 0 0 0 Available Cash for Future Projects 60,900 Isle of Capri Fire Control District Impact Fees (373) 0 0 Total: 66,200 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Page 6 9.A.3 7/20/2018 Packet Pg. 306 FY 18 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 19 - FY 23 Revenues Adopted Actual/Forecast Tentative Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Impact Fees 4,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest / misc 600 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loan Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loan[Transferfrom County -Wide Capital Improv Fund (301) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Available Cash for Future Projects 60,900 60,500 0 0 Total: 66,200 61,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 Debt Service Expense (fund 373): 20102017 bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010B bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2013 bond 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Debt Service Payments to be made from Impact Fees. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Page 6 9.A.3 7/20/2018 Packet Pg. 306 APPENDIX II CONTENTS: RECREATION FACILITY TYPE GUIDELINES • CURRENT COUNTY RECREATION FACILITIES - INVENTORY PLANNED COUNTY RECREATION FACILITIES • CONSERVATION COLLIER — TRAIL LIST PARKS RECREATION DATA Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities 9.A.3 LO r - Packet Pg. 307 9.A.3 Recreation Facility Type Guidelines M a 00 10N N 0 R a Packet Pg. 308 2018 Po ulation: 442,240 2023 Po ulation: 483,925 Required Required Anticipated LOS Guideline Inventory Current Surplus/ Inventory Inventory Surplus/ Facility Guideline per 1000 2018 Inventory Deficit 2023 2023 Deficit Water Access Points 1/10,000 0.1 44 98 54 48 99 51 Athletic Fields* 1/6,000 0.167 74 88 14 81 93 12 Hard Courts 1/4,000 0.25 111 229 118 121 259 138 Indoor Recreation Facility (sq ft) .45/capita 450 199,008 221,843 22,835 217,766 231,843 14,077 Pathways (miles) ** 1/10,000 0.1 44 52.91 9 48 54.91 7 Water Access Points Includes public beach access points, boat ramp lanes, fishing access points, canoe/kayak launches, and any other fresh or saltwater access facilities Note: Inventory includes 45 City of Naples beach, water accesses fishing access points. LOSG was determined with projected build -out population taken into consideration. Acquisition and development of surplus water access is advisable in consideration of its dwindling availability Athletic Fields Includes softball, baseball, Little League, football/soccer/field hockey/lacrosse fields, and any other grass -surfaced playing fields (Master Plan states that we need additional athletic fields due to location and demand). Hard Courts Includes basketball, racquetball, shuffleboard, bocce, tennis, pickleball, and any other hard -surfaced playing courts Note: Current LOSG is approximately 1/2,500. LOSG was lowered in response to a significant quantity of hard courts available in the private sector Indoor Recreation Facility Includes community centers, fitness centers, gymnasiums, and other public indoor recreation facilities Pathways Includes stand-alone recreational pathways and recreational pathways removed by a physical separation from vehicular right-of-ways; does not include sidewalks and bike lanes * Athletic Fields show a surplus county -wide but does not take into consideration the deficits experienced at some of our park sites. **951 Pathway along Golden Gate Canal is 100% designed but there is no funding budgeted for construction M a 00 10N N 0 R a Packet Pg. 308 9.A.3 2018 AUIR Collier County Recreation Current Facilities Inventory Packet Pg. 309 -• • m■®�mmmoo■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � • • I�IIIIIIIIIIIII�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■IIIII� � ... m•m��mom©©■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■®■m � �m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � Im•m>mml�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � m•m��moom©■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■�■m � • m•m��ommmo■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■�■m � • m■m��ommmo■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■�■m =- m•m��ommmo■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■�■m �::::::.. m•m��omom©■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■�■m � --... m•m��omom©■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■�■m � .. m■m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � • I�m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � Im•m�ml�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmlllllll�■m■■m � • _ - Im•m�ml�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmm �■m■■m m■��mommo■mommmm■mmmmmmmmm ■■�■m �—MUM, I�m�ml�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmm �■m■■m �.:::. �+,�m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■�■m � .:. Im•m>mml�mmmmm■mmmmm©■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m �- - �m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � • m•m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■ommmmmmmmm■�■m � •. �+,�m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmm©■�■m � • - • Im•IIIIIIIIIII�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � • �• m■m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � .. - Im•m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � _ _ - Im•�m�mmmmm■m©mmmo■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � _ _ - - m•��mmmmm■mmmmm©■omo©ommmom■m■■m � m■m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmo■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � ' ' I�m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m :. �+,�m>m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■©mmmmmm©mo■�■m � ... I�;�m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � m■m�m�mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � Im•m>mml�mmmmi� ■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■IIIIIi� � •. �- ::'. © I�m�m�mmmm I�+,��m�mmmm Im•m�ml�mmmm ■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m ■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m ■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � � m•m��mmmm I��m�ml�mmmm ■mmmmmllo■mmmllollommom©■�■m ■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m � • •= �= •= Im•IIIIIIIIIII�ml�mmmm Im•�m�mmmm ■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m ■m©mmmo■©mmmmmmmmm■�■m � • - �- Im•IIIIIIIIIIIII3E�m�mmmm I��m�ml�mmmm ■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m ■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm■m■■m Packet Pg. 309 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 310 mum_F,.dW-- -.: . - m•���om�o■mm�mmm■mmm����m�m�m■■m ... m■m�mmomm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � .. - .. m•m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m .. •. m•m��mmmmm■mommmo■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � m•m��momo©■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m • ©��mmmmm■ommmmo■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � m•m��mmmmm■m©oomo■©mm©©mmmmo��■m � m■m��mmmmm■ommmmo■mmmommmmmo�m■■m � • m•m��mmmm�■m000m©■omm©©mmmmo��■m � �®�mmmmi■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � . m•m��mmmmm■mmm©m©■©mmommmmm©��■m �•.." ' m•m��mmmmm■ommmmo■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � •... m•m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � ... •' m•m��mmmmm■m©m©mo■mmm©mmmmm©��■m � - • • m•m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � ��©��®mom®■iu • ���mommm■omomm©■ommommmmm©��■m �©mo®■� �o®mo©mo®��■� E��=� m•��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m �� m•m��mmmmm■mmmomo■mmmomm©©mm��■m r� m■m��mmmmm■©m©m©o■mmm©ommmom�m■■m �� • • m•m��ommmo■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � • _ m•m��mmm©©■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m � - m•m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m �=.. - m■m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm��■m �- ., m•��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmommmmmo��■m ���. �,�� i�m��moo©o■©m©v©o■mmm©omo©o©��■m - m•m��mmmmm■ommmmo■mmm©mmmomo�� m � ���mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm�� m � • • �m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm�� m �•... _ m•m��mmmmm■mmmmmm■ommm©mmmmm�� m � me���mmmmm■©mmmm©■mmmmmmmmmm�� m � • �m��mmmmm■mmmomo■mmmmmmmmmm�� m � • - �m��00000■©00000■ommo©m000m�� m Wim• • m•��mmmmm■mmmmmm■mmmmmmmmmm�� m � •• m•��mmmmm■mmmmmm■©mmommmmm©�� m � _ •" ���00000■000000■©mmoom000©��■o ���mmmmo■mmmmmo■mmmmmmmmmm��■m Packet Pg. 310 9.A.3 2018 AUIR Collier County Planned Recreation Facilities (2018/19 through 2022/23) 2018 AUIR Collier County Planned Recreation Facilities (2024/25 through 2027/28) o -9 a _ a N i 21 m N U U E m U a 2 Q $ <a E o = �,o a BA >`m U v T T On c $ Q ¢' _ Z V Odo ALL. y = ti tiff tiF rc K`. y -E! E Location — m r Bi Dorksuew lslantl RP-Facili Development 2020/2021 1 1 2 4 6 2 2 6 10 10,000 2.00 Easl Naples community Park 2019/2020 0 -1 -1 20 20 _ H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ti tia tia 0 ¢¢ oaena-mono - 09 ti 1 5 30 10,000 2 2018 AUIR Collier County Planned Recreation Facilities (2024/25 through 2027/28) I R Q 06 0) m O. R 7 C C Q CO C. N N Q 00 CO CO N y..ra�.izo�er�a- aanns 1 5 30 10,000 2 w O 1= R a c d E t m m Packet Pg. 311 a N i 21 m N U U 8 >`m On c $ -E! U E m r _ _ H y - ti tia tia rc ¢¢ in - 09 ti Location Pass Beach LM2.4—aam 022-2023 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 mn4-8 0 0 0 0 0 I R Q 06 0) m O. R 7 C C Q CO C. N N Q 00 CO CO N y..ra�.izo�er�a- aanns 1 5 30 10,000 2 w O 1= R a c d E t m m Packet Pg. 311 I Packet Pg. 312 1 I Packet Pg. 313 1 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 314 Future Attribute Inventory 9.A.3 Water Access Poin&9 Athletic Fields cNn Hard Courts 0 0 N V O r N Packet Pg. 315 n a a N U N � U U O m r r pN - $ oU d � U U _ O - - -2? _ m `Y' E o' m Y « O vs oz mE .92 uc am a` m moLi ya "LpDistrict X m c a N n" EC E cv` ca` c M c o m v o Location ¢` m m m m m m m u v v v o = a a a xaw U) in 0 m m w m F Big Corkscrew Island RP 20/21 2 2 6 4 1 2 East Naples Community Parl19/20 -1 20 > Clam Pass Beach 22/23 350 = d lC County -wide Total 2 2 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 6 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 j 0 Water Access Poin&9 Athletic Fields cNn Hard Courts 0 0 N V O r N Packet Pg. 315 9.A.3 Conservation Collier - Trail List 1. Alligator Flag Preserve — 2,600 Linear Feet 7875 Immokalee Rd. Naples, FL 34119 2. Caracara Prairie Preserve —14,800 Linear Feet 2320 Corkscrew Rd. Immokalee, FL 34142 3. Cocohatchee Creek Preserve —1,200 Linear Feet 1880 Veterans Park Dr. Naples, FL 34109 4. Freedom Park — 2,000 Linear Feet 1515 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Parks and Rec portion — 7,800 Linear Feet 5. Gordon River Greenway Park — 3,400 Linear Feet 1596 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Parks and Rec portion — 8,100 Linear Feet 6. Logan Woods Preserve— 1,000 Linear Feet 831 Logan Blvd. Naples, FL 34119 7. Nancy Payton Preserve —10,000 Linear Feet 1540 Blue Sage Dr. Naples, FL 34117 8. Otter Mound Preserve - 1,000 Linear Feet 1831 Addison Ct. Marco Island, FL 34145 9. Panther Walk Preserve— 1,600 Linear Feet 2845 60th Ave NE Naples, FL 34120 10. Pepper Ranch Preserve — 87,800 Linear Feet 6315 Pepper Rd. Immokalee, FL 34142 11. Red Root Preserve — 3,300 Linear Feet 1330 Limpkin Rd. Naples, FL 34120 Approx. Total = 128,700 Linear Feet OR 24.4 Miles 251 of 270 Packet Pg. 316 9.A.3 _ ISSUED2015 FY 15 Ql FY 15 Q2 FY 15 Q3 I FY LS Q4 FY 15 Y CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY FY 15 Ql FY 15 02 FY 15 03 FY 1S Q4 FY 15 YE CENTRALAVE LIBRARY 2,630 3,583 2,989 2,206 11,408 ELCP 660 842 156 264 420 ENCP 3,337 6,296 3,345 1,780 14,758 EVERGLADESCITY 28 88 68 44 228 FREEDOM PARK 277 436 495 136 11208 GGCC 3,616 4,568 3.886 3,655 25,725 IMCP 63 98 104 76 341 MARCO LIBRARY 2,715 2,080 1,697 1,110 6,602 MHCP 592 939 1,190 809 3,530 NCRP 960 1,261 982 643 3 846 NORTH COLLIER SERVICE CENTER 8,022 7,247 6.159 5,117 26,545 TAX COLLECTOR 3,626 3,868 3,564 3,007 140SS VTCP 4,769 6,218 5,096 3,435 19,518 VYCP 1,405 2.227 1,738 897 6,267 TOT 31,030 1 36,909 31,469 23,043 124,451 9.A.3 _ ISSUED2015 FY 15 Ql FY 15 Q2 FY 15 Q3 I FY LS Q4 FY 15 Y CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY FY 16 Ql FY 16 Q2 FY 16 Q3 FY 16 Q4 FY 16 YE CENTRAL AVE118RARY 2,488 3,258 3,030 2,052 10,828 ELCP 660 842 428 415 2,345 ENCP 4,323 49 357 1,306 61035 EVERGLADES CITY 47 102 67 41 257 FREEDOM PARK 326 535 494 136 1,491 GGCC 1,628 4,448 2,302 1,941 10,319 IMCP 88 lit 88 119 407 MARCO LIBRARY 1,690 2,200 1,758 997 6,645 MHCP 572 843 1,949 983 3,447 NCRP 770 1,705 996 779 4,250 NORTH COLLIER SERVICE CENTER 6,363 7,237 6,611 5.221 2S,432 TAX COLLECTOR 3,876 4,074 3,978 3,147 15,075 VTCP4,519 3,813 449 - 4,972 VYCP 533 1,207 1,184 8 2.6871 5,615 TOi 27,083 1 27,061 1 22,350 I 19,824 1 97,116 9.A.3 _ ISSUED2015 FY 15 Ql FY 15 Q2 FY 15 Q3 I FY LS Q4 FY 15 Y CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY FY 17 Ql FY 17 Q2 FY 17 Q3 FY 17 Q4 F7 17 YE CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY 2,012 2.371 2,897 2,016 9,296 ELCP B21 1,322 759 432 3,334 ENCP 2,769 4,451 2,040 1,212 10,472 EVERGLADES CITY 66 55 79 33 233 FREEDOM PARK 381 314 292 242 1,229 GGCC 2,297 3,862 4,290 2,326 12,77S IMCP 86 145 138 88 457 MARCO LIBRARY 1,916 1,604 1,680 1,076 6,276 MHCP 676 956 1,177 931 3,740 NCRP 1,502 1,524 1,071 745 4,842 NORTH COLLIER SERVICE CENTER 6,540 7,449 5,796 4,378 24,163 TAX COLLECTOR 4,7601 3,164 2,306 2,947 13,177 VTCP 3,813 6,2204,967 2.370 17,370 VYCP 1,606 2,125 1.771 9I7 6,419 TOTAL 29,245 35,562 29,263 19,713 113,763 9.A.3 _ ISSUED2015 FY 15 Ql FY 15 Q2 FY 15 Q3 I FY LS Q4 FY 15 Y CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY 148 517 281 91 1,0: ELCP 25 89 7 4 11 ENCP 175 496 94 24 T. FREEDOM PARR GGCC 33 163 42 15 Z IMCP 3 6 3 1 1 MARCO LISRARY - - MHCP 2 12 1 2 1 NCRP 467 972 386 223 201 NORTH COLLIER SERVICE CENTER 157 460 164 I10 a9 TIGERTAII 64 282 180 48 51 VTCP 891 1,747 757 446 3 VYCP 21 82 26 25 1! IOTAIJ 1,961 1 4,737 1 1,9241 969 1 9,61 FY 16 Ql FY 16 Q2 FY 16 Q3 FY 16 Q4 FY 16 Y CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY 145 461 263 92 9E ELCP 25 89 7 3 11 ENCP 141 406 73 11 65- 5FREEDOM FREEDOMPARK GGCC 59 197 38 26 3; IMCP 7 4 2 1 7 MARCO LIBRARY - - MHCP 6 18 10 6 4 NCRP 629 11009 456 238 2,3 NORTH COLLIER SERVICE CENTER 194 425 158 120 81 TIGERTAIL 72 287 154 21 53 VTCP 1,022 1,716 775 437 3,99 VYCP 28 51 36 25 14 TOTALS 2X71 4,663 1 1,972 1 960 9,93 BEACH PARKING PERMITS NON-RESIDENT ISSUED 2017 FY 1701 I FY 17 O2 1 FY 17 Qi I FY 17 Q4 I FY 17Y CENTRAL AVE LIBRARY 152 450 277 95 97 FLCP 34 91 12 11 14 ENCP 148 405 72 16 64 FREEDOM PARK GGCC 131 177 26 21 35 IMCP 5 6 2 1 MARCO LIBRARY - MHCP 4 9 8 5 2 NCRP 592 1,059 488 233 2,37 NORTH COWER SERVICE CENTER 169 475 155 103 9C TIGERTAIL 71 299 158 64 55 VTCP 652 1,795 801 320 3,56 VYCP 25 67 23 15 1.2 TOTALI 1,978 t 4,9291 2,026 1 685 9,71 i r Q 252 of 270 Packet Pg. 317 BAREFOOT ACCESS BAREFOOT PRESERVE CLAM PASS CONNER PARK N GULF SHORE SO MARCO SUGDEN TIGERTAIL VANDERBILT Walkers/Bike Visitors TOTAL BEACH USERS 9.A.3 Beach Users FY16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY16 YE 19,245 24,447 22,856 12,422 781970 66,886 119,987 89,091 50,568 326,532 27,509 54,118 41,483 30,720 153,830 3,520 13,296 7,400 3,379 27,595 17,201 20,899 23,004 18,614 79,718 7,260 7,656 9,225 8,438 32,579 4,596 6,466 5,433 4,627 21,122 31,562 58,651 41,758 24,220 156,191 78,069 104,700 102,520 71,275 356,564 10,067 26,536 10,488 5,011 52,102 265,915 436,756 353,258 229,274 1,285,203 Beach Users FY17 d Q r- 0 CL a� 0 r _ m c d a _ _ Q w 0 N LO co oG Q 00 0 N 4- 0 R a a� E t u 2 a 253 of 270 Packet Pg.318 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY17 YE BAREFOOT ACCESS 39,161 52,205 21,405 98,828 211,599 BAREFOOT PRESERVE 115,216 194,617 86,019 363,951 759,803 CLAM PASS 58,150 95,475 44,790 173,155 371,570 CONNER PARK 5,459 10,735 6,317 22,329 44,840 N GULF SHORE 28,438 36,433 21,288 86,238 172,397 SO MARCO 12,601 14,459 3,026 25,865 55,951 SUGDEN 1,217 5,424 7,723 18,365 32,729 TIGERTAIL 57,437 95,065 38,964 178,691 370,157 VANDERBILT 152,162 195,821 93,425 403,275 844,683 Walkers/Bike Visitors 10,720 11,690 11,820 4,435 38,665 TOTAL BEACH USERS 480,561 711,924 334,777 1,375,132 2,902,394 d Q r- 0 CL a� 0 r _ m c d a _ _ Q w 0 N LO co oG Q 00 0 N 4- 0 R a a� E t u 2 a 253 of 270 Packet Pg.318 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY18 YE BAREFOOT ACCESS 17,950 57,038 57,387 - 132,375 BAREFOOT PRESERVE 60,372 233,094 225,482 - 518,948 CLAM PASS 7,262 96,715 80,712 - 184,689 CONNER PARK 2,983 27,612 22,465 - 53,060 SO MARCO 16,439 53,051 62,100 - 131,590 N GULF SHORE 5,899 17,906 19,954 - 43,759 SUGDEN 8,006 22,054 28,542 - 58,602 TIGERTAIL 29,338 149,536 148,217 - 327,091 VANDERBILT 73,359 237,418 250,298 - 561,075 Walkers/Bike Visitors 7,403 23,064 7,151 - 37,618 TOTAL BEACH USERS 229,011 917,488 902,308 - 2,048,807 d Q r- 0 CL a� 0 r _ m c d a _ _ Q w 0 N LO co oG Q 00 0 N 4- 0 R a a� E t u 2 a 253 of 270 Packet Pg.318 9.A.3 Boat Launch Users FY16 Boat Launch Users FY17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY16 YE Ann Olesky/LAKE TRAFFORD 2,421 2,966 1,865 1,570 8,822 BAYVIEW 11,794 11,122 13,750 11,580 48,246 CAXAMBAS 10,409 16,331 13,773 9,242 49,755 COLO 8,289 9,870 10,138 9,067 37,364 GOODLAND BOAT PARK 3,199 4,756 3,677 2,800 14,432 SR 951 5,285 4,581 8,947 6,152 24,965 PORT OF THE ISLANDS 5,043 7,905 4,608 3,264 20,820 TOTAL BOAT LAUNCH 46,4401 57,5311 56,758 1 43,675 1 204,404 Boat Launch Users FY17 Ln 1- 254 254 of 270 Packet Pg. 319 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 FY17 YE Ann Olesky/LAKE TRAFFORD 1,277 2,472 1,244 1,269 6,262 BAYVIEW 11,402 14,606 17,202 8,585 51,795 CAXAMBAS 11,570 20,630 14,268 8,318 54,786 COLO 6,380 11,343 9,869 5,496 33,088 GOODLAND BOAT PARK 4,872 7,524 5,578 3,710 21,684 SR 951 5,373 6,323 7,343 5,265 24,304 PORT OF THE ISLANDS 5,169 6,860 4,277 2,587 18,893 TOTAL BOAT LAUNCH 46,043 69,758 59,781 35,230 210,812 Ln 1- 254 254 of 270 Packet Pg. 319 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY18 YE Ann Olesky/LAKE TRAFFORD 1,202 2,644 979 4,825 BAYVIEW 12,149 13,697 9,747 35,593 CAXAMBAS 10,804 18,170 9,887 38,861 COLO 8,479 12,979 8,582 30,040 GOODLAND BOAT PARK 4,773 7,500 3,811 16,084 SR 951 4,651 4,147 4,507 13,305 PORT OF THE ISLANDS 4,786 6,158 3,007 - 13,951 TOTAL BOAT LAUNCH 46,844 65,295 40,520 - 152,659 Ln 1- 254 254 of 270 Packet Pg. 319 9.A.3 Ranger Information FY16 Ranger Information FY17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY16 YE PARK SITES VISITED 6,281 6,812 6,808 7,011 26,912 PERSONAL CONTACTS 16,949 22,164 18,784 18,292 76,189 INTERPRETIVE PROJECTS 10 36 21 13 80 INTERPRETIVE PARTICIPANTS 626 359 374 329 1,688 VERBAL WARNINGS 1,249 1,376 1,793 1,895 6,313 WRITTEN WARNINGS 188 174 338 185 885 PARKING CITATIONS 437 446 386 332 1,601 ORIDNANCE CITATIONS 2 2 1 2 7 TRESPASS WARNINGS 2 3 8 1 14 COURT APPEARANCES 3 4 3 - 10 RANGER BIKE HOURS 31 - - 3 EXOTIC REMOVAL 2001 150 50 - 250 WILDLIFE RESCUES 3 2 5 2 12 Ranger Information FY17 r - O CL m 0 c m c od m CL Ta c c a 0 0 N 255 of 270 Packet Pg. 320 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 FY17 YE PARK SITES VISITED 7,053 7,239 7,456 6,511 28,259 PERSONAL CONTACTS 19,929 24,767 21,438 14,959 81,093 INTERPRETIVE PROJECTS 9 32 34 4 79 INTERPRETIVE PARTICIPANTS 547 557 1,057 59 2,220 VERBAL WARNINGS 2,073 1,996 2,444 1,773 8,286 WRITTEN WARNINGS 471 429 405 192 1,497 PARKING CITATIONS 441 470 347 251 1,509 ORIDNANCE CITATIONS - 5 2 12 19 TRESPASS WARNINGS - 4 2 8 14 COURT APPEARANCES 1 4 2 1 8 RANGER BIKE HOURS 5 - - 5 EXOTIC REMOVAL 150 150 26 44 370 WILDLIFE RESCUES 2 41 511 2 1 13 r - O CL m 0 c m c od m CL Ta c c a 0 0 N 255 of 270 Packet Pg. 320 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 FY18 YE PARK SITES VISITED 6,876 7,229 4,889 - 18,994 PERSONAL CONTACTS 18,683 24,523 13,922 - 57,128 INTERPRETIVE PROJECTS 3 29 10 - 42 INTERPRETIVE PARTICIPANTS 354 179 54 - 587 VERBAL WARNINGS 1,880 2,800 1,448 - 6,128 WRITTEN WARNINGS 259 431 157 - 847 PARKING CITATIONS 311 322 126 - 759 ORIDNANCE CITATIONS 4 1 2 - 7 TRESPASS WARNINGS 1 1 - - 2 COURT APPEARANCES 3 3 2 - 8 RANGER BIKE HOURS - 3 - 3 EXOTIC REMOVAL 84 52 - - 136 WILDLIFE RESCUES 2 3 2 - 7 r - O CL m 0 c m c od m CL Ta c c a 0 0 N 255 of 270 Packet Pg. 320 9.A.3 BAREFOOT BCH PRESERVE CLAM PASS PARK TIGERTAIL BEACH VANDERBILT BEACH TOTAL TURNAROUNDS Turnarounds FY16 Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 FY16YE 1,788 4,236 1,778 1,062 8,864 901 2,927 2,087 656 6,571 838 1,859 1,232 1,012 4,941 776 550 555 512 2,393 4,303 9,572 5,652 1 3,2421 22,769 Turnarounds FY17 T Ln rl- SO- 256 of 270 Packet Pg. 321 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY17 YE BAREFOOT BCH PRESERVE 2,013 3,970 2,377 1,073 9,433 CLAM PASS PARK 791 2,839 1,583 527 5,740 TIGERTAIL BEACH 1,241 2,049 1,395 1,093 5,778 VANDERBILT BEACH 956 703 633501 4,580 - 2,793 TOTAL TURNAROUNDS1 5,0011 9,561 5,988 3,194 23,744 T Ln rl- SO- 256 of 270 Packet Pg. 321 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY18 YE BAREFOOT BCH PRESERVE 1,542 4,828 2,422 - 8,792 CLAM PASS PARK - 2,148 797 - 2,945 TIGERTAIL BEACH 1,161 1,459 860 - 3,480 VANDERBILT BEACH 651 712 501 1,864 TOTAL TURNAROUNDS 3,354 9,147 4,580 - 17,081 T Ln rl- SO- 256 of 270 Packet Pg. 321 9.A.3 Days at Capacity FY 16 BAREFOOT ACCESS BAREFOOT PRESERVE CLAM PASS CONNER PARK SQ MARCO N GULF SHORE SUGDEN TIGERTAIL VANDERBILT Days at Capacity FY 17 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY16 YE BAREFOOT ACCESS 8 44 29 1 82 BAREFOOT PRESERVE 4 21 12 1 38 CLAM PASS 4 19 7 21 30 CONNER PARK 15 3 3 1 7 SO MARCO 9 57 38 39 143 N GULF SHORE 1 10 19 2 30 SUGDEN 39 - 5 82 - TIGERTAIL 3 7 - 1,113 10 VANDERBILT 7 39 17 5 68 TOTAL DAYS AT CAPACITY 36 200 1 125 47 408 BAREFOOT ACCESS BAREFOOT PRESERVE CLAM PASS CONNER PARK SQ MARCO N GULF SHORE SUGDEN TIGERTAIL VANDERBILT Days at Capacity FY 17 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY17YE 12 109 221 248 590 4 45 109 118 276 5 43 94 108 250 CONNER PARK 4 21 27 17 15 150 353 454 972 3 33 90 96 222 SUGDEN - - 2 11 34 39 86 5 82 191 213 491 46 477 1,113 1,303 1,250 LO I- 257 257 of 270 Packet Pg. 322 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY18 YE BAREFOOT ACCESS 10 53 7 70 BAREFOOT PRESERVE 6 24 5 35 CLAM PASS 6 3 9 CONNER PARK - - SO MARCO 34 102 23 159 N GULF SHORE 7 18 2 27 SUGDEN - - TIGERTAIL 3 8 3 14 VANDERBILT 5 36 5 46 TOTAL DAYS AT CAPACITY 65 247 48 - 360 LO I- 257 257 of 270 Packet Pg. 322 9.A.3 PARK VISITORS 2016 ELCP ENCP GGCC GGCP IMCP I MSC IMSP MHCP NCRP TOTAL PARK VISITORS PARK VISITORS 2017 ELCP ENCP GGCC GGCP IMCP IMSC IMSP MHCP NCRP VTCP VYCP TOTAL PARK VISITORS PARK VISITORS 2018 FY 16 Q FY 16 Q2 FY 16 Q3 FY 16 Q4 FY 16 YE 18,370 36,487 23,633 18,058 96,547 75,002 106,721 86,662 47,371 315,756 50,772 34,471 49,994 56,964 192,202 63,682 53,573 78,528 74,347 270,130 21,920 22,088 21,003 19,704 84,715 42,137 32,650 38,207 45,272 158,266 10,072 10,578 10,925 13,864 45,439 23,071 20,995 22,855 22,246 89,167 85,925 41,089 85,446 112,655 325,115 45,989 62,914 52,181 22,767 183,851 14,239 10,999 15,566 8,930 49,735 451,179 432,565 1 485,0001 442,1781 1,810,923 FY 17 Q FY 17 Q2 FY 17 Q3 FY 17 Q4 FY 17 YE 11,414 9,619 6,864 - 27,898 76,910 171,806 134,998 26,530 410,244 35,105 33,173 37,152 33,463 138,893 68,458 62,107 72,569 - 203,134 20,024 20,619 19,460 - 60,103 39,028 33,871 37,169 39,844 149,912 7,514 7,585 11,761 11,448 38,308 22,303 24,307 25,054 16,481 88,145 480,561 557,187 100,101 84,755 1,222,604 18,567 23,470 18,653 8,123 68,813 15,936 14,602 13,152 - 43,690 795,820 958,347 1 476,932 1 20,644 2,451,743 258 of 270 Packet Pg. 323 FY 18 Q1 FY 18 Q2 FY 18 Q3 FY 18 Q4 FY 18 YE ELCP 10,443 21,717 22,761 54,921 ENCP 81,133 164,671 285,294 531,098 GGCC 40,369 37,677 34,246 112,292 GGCP 18,469 17,790 19,196 55,455 IMCP 17,974 20,741 20,550 - 59,265 IMSC 28,101 23,568 37,856 - 89,525 IMSP 6,681 6,347 9,441 - 22,469 MHCP 17,494 15,698 14,586 - 47,778 NCRP 80,910 105,975 68,017 - 254,902 VTCP 14,224 33,835 72,127 - 120,186 VYCP 26,759 16,634 19,397 - 62,790 TOTAL PARK VISITORS 342,557 464,654 603,471 - 1 1,410,681 258 of 270 Packet Pg. 323 FEE-BASED FAGUTY RENTALS 2016 Aaron Lutz Barefoot Beach Bayview Park Caxambas Park Clam Pass Cocohatchee River Park Corkscrew Middle & Elem School Cypress Palm Middle School Eagle Lakes Community Park East Naples Community Park East Naples Middle School Eden Park Freedom Park Golden Gate Aquatic and Fitness Golden Gate Community Center Golden Gate Communuity, Park Golden Gate Middle School Goodland Boat Park Gulf Coast Communitv Park Gulf Coast High School Immokalee Airport Park Immokalee Community Park Immokalee High School Immokalee South Park Immokalee Sports Complex M argood Harbor Park Max Hasse Community Park NCRP Admin NCRP Exhibit Hall NCRP Pavilions NCRP Rec Plex NCRP Soccer NCRP Soccer Pavilions NCRP Softball North Gulf Shore Access Osceola Elementary School Palmetto Elementary Pelican Bay Community Park Pepper Ranch Sabal Palm Elementary South Marco Beach Access Starcher Pettey Sugden Regional Park Tigertail Tony Rosbourgh Vanderbilt Beach Veterans Community Park Veterans Memorial Vineyards Community Park Total Facility Rentals 9.A.3 FY 16 Q1 FY 16 Q2 FY 16 Q3 FY 16 Q4 FY 16 YE 4 2 8 1 15 2 2 3 7 - 10 5 4 19 221 18 10 249 57 105 125 118 405 149 257 139 125 670 - 6 22 8 3 - 2 2 7 82 - - - 82 240 300 209 190 939 204 388 355 137 1,084 - 2 2 16 7 5 7 35 79 13 9 29 130 53 12 24 9 98 93 22 27 44 186 94 160 128 79 461 31 - - 31 1 - 16 3 20 141 92 90 91 414 13 40 59 74 186 23 33 19 4 79 150 67 46 37 300 2 - 2 98 40 24 82 244 8 24 2 34 59 3 15 10 87 14 6 7 1 28 65 15 41 121 308 - 2 22 332 3 2 6 2 13 74 SD 71 352 547 2 2 4 1 10 1 12 397 165 180 33 775 31 - - - 31 1,502 362 245 237 2,346 4,220 2,213 1,896 1,703 10,032 259 of 270 Packet Pg. 324 9.A.3 r- T" N F- m OG Q 00 T- CD N w O R a c m E t v M a 260 of 270 Packet Pg. 325 FY 17 Q1 FY 17 Q2 FY 17 Q3 FY 17 Q4 FY 17 YE Aaron Lutz - - Barefoot Beach 4 2 3 9 Bayview Park - Caxambas Park - - Clam Pass 4 4 3 - 11 Cocohatchee River Park 6 14 11 6 37 Corkscrew Middle & Elem School 30 106 84 134 354 Cypress Palm Middle School - - - - - Eagle lakes Community Park 254 186 148 19 607 East Naples Community Park 157 352 41 90 640 East Naples Middle School 100 100 Eden Park 28 31 20 4 83 Freedom Park 1 - 1 Golden Gate Aquatic and Fitness - - - - - Golden Gate Community Center 197 263 208 259 927 Golden Gate Communuity Park 243 420 441 152 1,256 Golden Gate Middle School - - - - - Goodland Boat Park - Gulf Coast Community Park - - Gulf Coast High School - - Immokalee Airport Park 8 9 10 6 33 Immokalee Community Park 53 38 22 19 132 Immokalee High School - - Immokalee South Park 17 21 20 11 69 Immokalee Sports Complex 19 14 9 1 43 Margood Harbor Park - - - Max Hasse Community Park 159 149 178 14 S00 NCRP Admin - - - - NCRP Aquatic 30 1 48 3 82 NCRP Exhibit Hall 119 131 124 98 472 NCRP Pavilions 44 58 40 12 154 NCRP Rec Plex 17 19 33 24 93 NCRP Soccer 45 93 33 12 183 NCRP Soccer Pavilions 21 - 21 NCRP Softball 146 34 8 34 222 North Gulf Shore Access 1 - 1 Osceola Elementary School 2 24 10 36 Palmetto Elementary 15 17 31 63 Pelican Bay Community Park 8 27 3 61 99 Pepper Ranch 8 59 6 73 Sabal Palm Elementary 43 93 61 14 211 South Marco Beach Access 55 10 5 2 72 Starcher Pettey - - - Sugden Regional Park 46 31 45 17 139 Tigertail 1 3 1 5 Tony Rosbourgh - - - Vanderbilt Beach 1 8 4 13 Veterans Community Park 109 302 160 153 724 Veterans Memorial - - 4 32 36 Vineyards Community Park 1 387 1,184 961 1,177 3,709 Total Facility Rentals 1 2,278 3,703 2,843 2,386 11,210 r- T" N F- m OG Q 00 T- CD N w O R a c m E t v M a 260 of 270 Packet Pg. 325 9.A.3 FEE-BASED FACILITY RENTALS 2018 .r Q 261 of 270 Packet Pg. 326 FY 18 Q1 FY 18 Q2 FY 18 Q3 FY 18 Q4 FY 18 YE Aaron Lutz 3 3 Barefoot Beach 7 2 4 13 Bayview Park Caxambas Park - - - Clam Pass 1 2 2 5 Cocohatchee River Park 6 94 184 284 Corkscrew Middle & Elem School 228 35 50 313 Cypress Palm Middle School - - - - Eagle Lakes Community Park 32 266 203 501 East Naples Community Park 388 124 98 610 East Naples Middle School - - - Eden Park 23 32 24 79 Freedom Park 1 1 Golden Gate Aquatic and Fitness - - - - Golden Gate Community Center 271 368 357 996 Golden Gate Communuity Park 189 367 378 934 Golden Gate Middle School - - - - Goodland Boat Park Gulf Coast Community Park 6 6 Gulf Coast High School - Immokalee Airport Park 10 8 7 25 Immokalee Community Park 26 37 38 101 Immokalee High School - Immokalee South Park 17 20 17 54 Immokalee Sports Complex 9 12 1 22 Margood Harbor Park 1 1 Max Hasse Community Park 12 125 91 228 NCRP Admin - - - - NCRP Aquatic 19 1 17 - 37 NCRP Exhibit Hall 127 171 139 - 437 NCRP Pavilions 47 44 38 129 NCRP Rec Plex 38 63 80 - 181 NCRP Soccer 29 26 30 - 85 NCRP Soccer Pavilions - - - - NCRP Softball 69 52 93 214 North Gulf Shore Access 1 - 1 Osceola Elementary School 18 60 88 - 166 Palmetto Elementary 72 22 18 - 112 Pelican Bay Community Park 53 12 6 - 71 Pepper Ranch 21 30 36 - 87 Sabal Palm Elementary 8 50 57 - US South Marco Beach Access 6 1 8 - 15 5tarcher Pettey - - Sugden Regional Park 33 41 88 162 Tigertail 1 2 - 3 Tony Rosbourgh - - - Vanderbilt Beach 2 8 3 13 Veterans Community Park 331 586 524 - 1,441 Veterans Memorial 53 S7 - 110 Vineyards Community Park 1,591 1,264 1,286 4,141 Total Facility Rentals 3,737 3,986 3,973 - 11,696 .r Q 261 of 270 Packet Pg. 326 9.A.3 Field Usage Hours FY16 Site FY16 Q1 FY16 Q2 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q4 FY16 YE Corkscrew Elementary/Middle School 1.907 423 141 549 3.0: Eagle Lakes Community Park 71 1.262 680 246 2,2! East Naples Community Park 1.170 390 1,122 787 3.44 Eden Elementary School 40 211 291 - 5d Golden Gate Community Park 1,480 1,820 1.750 118 5.1f Cindy M sets Community Park Gulf Coast 360 660 780 180 1.9E Immokalee Community Park 105 476 281 - 84 Immokalee Sports Complex 787 1.170 50 482 2.4E Max Hasse Community Paris 231 386 284 73 9 Naples Park Field (Starcher Pett) 120 376 228 - 7, North Collier Regional Park - Soccer 1.357 1.770 2,379 1.249 6.7' North Collier Regional Park - Softball 1.977 896 1.172 431 4.4 Osceola Elementary School 350 428 455 88 1,3, Palmetto Elementary School 461 227 18 107 8: Sabal Palm Elementaa School 1,950 389 154 440 2.9, Tony Rosbou h 52 500 52 8 6' Veterans CP 915 1,635 1,217 263 4,0, Veterans Memorial 110 275 220 92 64 Vineyards CP 5.130 2.845 4.664 1.703 14.3< 0 a a� 0 c a� E 06 m Totalsi 18,571 16,138 15,938 6,816 57,4E a Field Usage Hours FY17 3 C Site FY17 Q1 FY17 Q2 FY17 Q3 FY17 Q4 FY17 YE a Corkscrew Elementary/Middle School 1 657 - - 168 1, & Ea le Lakes Community Park 881 781 658 74 2 34 East Naples Community Park 214 790 362 57 1,4; Eden Elementary School 575 650 240 160 1,6: Golden Gate Community Park 945 1,054 1,055 - 3,0` Gulf Coast 514 630 300 38 1.4E Irnmokalee Community Park 404 898 390 92 1.7E lmmokalee Sports Complex 690 893 244 109 1,9: Max Hasse Community Park 285 376 411 68 1.11 Naples Park Field (Starcher Petty) 170 269 230 18 6E North Collier Regional Park - Soccer 1,242 1.812 1,734 249 5.0; North Collier Regional Park - Softball 869 2,401 1,091 704 5,0E Osceola Elementary School 510 733 360 116 117' Palmetto Elementary School 307 300 144 42 7C Saba! Palm Elementary School 1.176 1,856 1,096 505 4,61� Tony Rosbough 448 760 406 160 1,7. Veterans CP 1.794 2.189 1.096 441 5,5� Veterans Memorial 261 404 161 84 9" Vineyards CP 4,945 3,911 2,961 1.748 13,5E Totalsi 17,886 1 20,705 1 12,939 1 4.832 1 56,3( 00 0 N m Q 00 0 N 0 0 a r c m E U M w r Q 262 of 270 Packet Pg. 327 9.A.3 Site FY18 Q1 FYI Q2 FYI Q3 FYI Q4 FYI YE Corkscrew Elementa /Middle School 1,328 - - - 1,K Eagle Lakes Community Park - 455 - - 4,1 East Naples Community Park 665 180 - - 8z Eden Elementary School 650 600 18 - 1,2E Golden Gate Community Park - 1,011 756 - 1,7E Gulf Coast - 572 - - 57 Immokalee Community Park 509 1,170 - - 1,67 lmmokalee Sorts Complex 1,440 975 58 - 2,4-1 Max Hasse Communi Park 2,129 - 137 - 2,2E Naples Park Field Starcher Petty)- - - - - North Collier Regional Park - Soccer 855 - 152 - 1,0( North Collier Regional Park - Softball 807 1,725 112 Osceola Elementary School 280 - - - 2E Palmetto Elementafy School 355 390 124 - 8E Sabal Palm Elementary School 1,661 - - - 1,6E Tony Rosbough 260 780 - - 1, N Veterans CP 995 240 - - 1,222 Veterans Memorial 220 - - - Z Vineyards CP 3,990 4,355 - - 8,32 Totaisl 16,1431 12,4531 1,3551 - I 29,9: 0 CL am OC 0 C m c otS m CL C a CO 0 N r Ln ti t0 263 of 270 Packet Pg. 328 MEMBERSHIPS SOLD FY 2017 FY 16 Q1 FY 16 Q2 FY 16 Q3 FY 16 Q4 FY 16 YE ELCP 167 312 144 121 744 ENCP (Pickleball) 191 370 106 82 749 GGCP (Aquatic and Fitness) 653 755 548 496 2,452 GGCC (Wheels) 130 92 60 71 353 Home Based 1 - - - 1 IMSC 489 712 746 597 2,544 MHCP 112 139 162 160 573 NCRP Aquatic (Sun -N -Fun) 21 55 316 195 587 NCRP Rec Plex 710 1,198 795 542 3,245 Payroll Deduction 236 148 112 134 630 vTCP (Pickleball) 28 119 24 22 193 Total Memberships Sold 2,738 3,900 3,013 2,420 12,071 MEMBERSHIPS SOLD FY 2017 MEMBEMIPS SOLD FY 2018 FY 17 Q1 FY 17 Q2 FY 17 Q3 FY 17 Q4 FY 17 YE ELCP 171 327 162 100 760 ENCP (Pickleball) 376 607 117 37 1,137 GGCP (Aquatic and Fitness) 524 832 579 421 2,356 GGCC (Wheels) 77 124 58 42 301 Home Based - - - - - IMSC 605 803 844 541 2,793 MHCP 99 162 164 135 560 NCRP Aquatic (Sun -N -Fun) 274 52 232 158 716 NCRP Rec Plex 501 1,292 826 670 3,289 Payroll Deduction 182 186 171 129 668 VTCP (Pickleball) 164 271 48 22 505 Total Memberships Sold 2,973 4,656 3,201 2,255 13,085 MEMBEMIPS SOLD FY 2018 264 of 270 9.A.3 t L O CL d O C d C od O 41 to O_ O C c Q 00 0 N T - u7 I - co Q 00 0 N O 1= O a C N E t u O a Packet Pg. 329 FY 18 Q1 FY 18 Q2 FY 18 Q3 FY 18 Q4 FY 18 YE ELCP 188 389 189 766 ENCP (Pickleball) 228 - - 228 GGCP (Aquatic and Fitness) 541 798 535 1,874 GGCC (Wheels) 110 166 55 331 Home Based - - - - IMSC 673 1,228 913 2,814 MHCP 92 141 169 402 NCRP Aquatic (Sun -N -Fun) 11 69 331 - 411 NCRP Rec Plex 576 956 708 - 2,240 Payroll Deduction 166 148 175 489 VTCP (Pickleball) 139 508 89 736 Total Memberships Sold 2,724 4,403 3,164 10,291 264 of 270 9.A.3 t L O CL d O C d C od O 41 to O_ O C c Q 00 0 N T - u7 I - co Q 00 0 N O 1= O a C N E t u O a Packet Pg. 329 9.A.3 2016 Notes c *Brochure Section names changed with the system change to Active Net Co * ` with CLASS, Camp Collier weekies are counted as 1 registration - with Active Net, Camp Collier weeklies are N counted as 1 registration for each week Ln ti FEE-BASED PROGRAM REGISTRATIONS 2017 cv FY 16 Q1 FY 16 Q2 FY 16 Q3 FY 16 Q4 FY 16 YE Adaptive Programming 30 36 2 16 84 Afterschool Aquatic 49 52 122 477 268 49 919 Arts/Music 47 1,012 281 301 47 Athletics 600 1,229 455 838 3,122 Camps 605 197 3,178 1,926 5,906 Childcare 165 619 513 878 2,175 Cultural Arts 3 44 23 22 92 Dance 270 248 194 151 863 Educational 7 113 218 35 373 Extreme Sports 23 1 13 13 50 Fitness 73 25 30 34 162 Homeschool 13 - 5 12 13 Martial Arts 2 345 351 323 1,021 Nature/Science 7 14 7 22 50 Preschool 17 36 3 16 17 Social 1 4 1 - 6 Special Events 339 325 321 299 1,284 Sports Water Sports 768 24 35 1 80 768 140 Total by Type 3,095 3,357 5,784 4,9051 17,141 2016 Notes c *Brochure Section names changed with the system change to Active Net Co * ` with CLASS, Camp Collier weekies are counted as 1 registration - with Active Net, Camp Collier weeklies are N counted as 1 registration for each week Ln ti FEE-BASED PROGRAM REGISTRATIONS 2017 cv 265 of 270 Packet Pg. 330 FY 17 Q1 FY 17 Q2 FY 17 Q3 FY 17 Q4 FY 17 YE Adaptive Programming 32 51 6 1 90 Aquatic 26 140 479 100 745 Athletics 674 1,012 281 301 2,268 Camps 209 134 3,753 1,656 5,752 Childcare 697 832 375 393 2,297 Cultural Arts 34 28 21 17 100 Dance 165 228 183 100 676 Educational 12 101 208 13 334 Extreme Sports - - - - - Fitness 41 22 4 - 67 Martial Arts 302 362 340 153 1,157 Nature/Science 6 - 5 12 23 social - - - 1 1 Special Events 351 408 460 87 1,306 Water Sports 25 36 3 16 80 Total by Type 2,574 3,354 1 6,118 1 2,850 1 14,896 265 of 270 Packet Pg. 330 FEE-BASED PROGRAM REGISTRATIONS 2018 mm Camps Childcare Cultural Arts Dance Educational Extreme Sports Fitness Martial Arts Nature/Science Social Special Events Water Sports Total by Type 9.A.3 FY 18 Q1 FY 18 Q2 FY 18 Q3 FY 18 Q4 FY 18 YE 18 16 - 34 8 179 472 659 464 956 333 1,753 154 140 3,674 - 3,968 475 568 282 - 1,325 41 22 8 - 71 156 197 196 - 549 34 95 235 - 364 1 2 58 - 61 1 8 26 - 35 245 276 271 - 792 9 5 4 - 18 2 15 1 - 18 418 814 337 - 1,569 21 21 2 44 2,447 1 3,3141 5,899 1 11,260 266 of 270 Packet Pg. 331 AIR Beach and Water ELCP ENCP GGAF GGCC IMCP IMSC IMSP MHCP NCRP - Aquatics NCRP - Exhibit Hall NCRP - Rec Plex Sugden VTCP VYCP Proeram Drop In Numbers by Location *Drop Ins can only be pulled by location with new Active Net system Program Drop In Numbers by Location AIR Beach and Water ELCP ENCP GGAF GGCC IMCP IMSC IMSP MHCP NCRP - Aquatics NCRP - Exhibit Hall NCRP - Rec Plex Sugden VTCP VYCP FY17 Ql FY16,J3 53 FY16 Q3 FY16 Q4 72 FY17 YE 19 6 272 57 - 335 418 1,204 760 459 2,841 12,796 1,194 609 411 15,010 52 133 135 29,064 778 1,546 1,170 807 4,301 2,231 16 - - 2,247 - 372 55 - 427 - - 1 25 26 915 588 1,191 695 3,389 1,280 4 16 161 1,461 2,302 - - - 2,302 354 5,246 3,422 4,181 13,203 828 -j 70 50 286 829 160 172 1,447 579 522 493 86 1,680 21,945 11,793 7,934 6,997 48,669 *Drop Ins can only be pulled by location with new Active Net system Program Drop In Numbers by Location AIR Beach and Water ELCP ENCP GGAF GGCC IMCP IMSC IMSP MHCP NCRP - Aquatics NCRP - Exhibit Hall NCRP - Rec Plex Sugden VTCP VYCP FY17 Ql FY17 QZ FY17 Q3 FY17 Q4 FY17 YE 65 132 47 244 - 269 62 - 331 28 6 47 52 133 135 29,064 29,666 2.08 59,073 - 3 3 110 190 1,506 21 1,827 138 76 137 - 351 33 - 3 - 36 1,167 865 564 2,596 - 828 - 828 -j 70 50 23 143 3 25 301 - 329 71 897 - 968 74 779 220 1,073 - 506 407 - 913 1,753 32,053 34,735 307 68,604 267 of 270 Packet Pg. 332 AIR Beach and Water ELCP ENCP GGAF GGCC IMCP IMSC IMP MRCP NCRP - Aquatics NCRP - Exhibit Hall NCRP - Rec Plex Sugden VTCP VYCP 9.A.3 Program Drop In Numbers by Location FY18 Q1 FY18 Q2 FY18 Q3 FY18 Q4 FY18 YE 660 1,758 737 - 3,155 - 1,959 905 - 2,864 - 110 22 - 132 201 1,936 424 - 2,561 - - 8 - 8 7,820 16 - - 7,836 1,402 1,324 - 2,726 2 11 40 - 53 228 - - 228 - 4,861 2,564 - 7,425 - 531 32 - 563 - 548 476 1,024 8,683 13,360 6,532 - 28,575 T LO 268 of 270 Packet Pg. 333 Disabled Veterans Discount 6 - 13 61 7Y 80 Disabled Veterans Discount 84 n 140 187 417 SNF 3 Years and Under 468 428 2,509 2,782 6,187 SNF CCSO Events - - - - - SNF Group Over 48 Inches 231 10,052 12,443 4,073 26,799 SNF Group Under 48 Inches 100 868 993 535 2,496 SNF Over 48 Inches 5,527 703 13,779 25,957 45,966 SNF Party Over 48 in - - - - - SNF Party Under 48 in - - - SNF Private Dive 3 - - - 3 SNF Private Lessons 46 20 - - 46 SNF Promo Day Passes 15 4 196 189 404 SNF Raincheck Redeem Over 48 Inches 11 37 80 2,781 2,909 SNF Raincheck Redeem Under 48 Inches - 2 1 260 263 SNF Rentals - - 11,575 1,000 12,575 SNF Resident Over 48 Inches 1,824 260 10,550 14,719 27,353 SNF School Board Adult - - - 50 50 SNF School Lunch Program - - - - - SNF Senior Admission 688 84 1,299 2,261 4,332 SNF Special Event Free - 479 1,567 1,557 3,603 SNF Swim Team - - - - - SNF Under 48Inches 498 18 2,596 4,113 7,225 SNF Veterans Discount 55 4 222 328 609 Collier Camps - - 193 1,627 1,820 Drop Ins 1,280 4 16 161 1,461 Memberships Scans 9 35$ 720 3,444 4,531 Tota! Admissions 10,839 13,307 58,879 66,024 149,049 Disabled Veterans Discount 6 - 13 61 7Y 80 SNF 3 Years and Under 188 3 1,320 3,190 4,701 SNF CCSO Events - - - - - SNF Group Over 48 Inches 411 4,013 1,734 3,237 9,395 SNF Group Under 48 Inches 42 425 168 550 1,185 SNF Over 48 Inches 2,021 - 7,491 18,942 28,454 SNF Party Over 48 in - - - SNF Party Under 48 in - - - SNF Private Dive - SNF Private Lessons - - - SNF Promo Day Passes 12 20 229 1,389 1,650 SNF Raincheck Redeem Over 48 Inches 22 13 357 2,623 3,015 5NF Raincheck Redeem Under 48 Inches 27 282 309 SNF Rentals - - 4,000 3,789 7,789 SNF Resident Over 48 Inches 675 - 5,304 11,803 17,782 SNF School Board Adult - 768 - 768 SNF School Lunch Program - - - - SNF Senior Admission 233 - 720 2,097 3,050 SNF Special Event Free 411 4,003 14,988 2,504 21,906 SNF Swim Team - - - - SNF Under 48 Inches 250 - 1,382 3,474 5,106 SNF Veterans Discount 28 165 199 392 Collier Camps - - - 401 401 Drop Ins - 70 50 23 143 Memberships Scans 1,138 1,427 2,852 54,564 59,981 Total Admissions 5,437 9,9741 41,568 1 109,128 1 166,107 269 of 270 9.A.3 O d O C m S 06 m Itf IL its 3 C C Q eo T- CD 0 N LO I- 00 00 0 N O R a C d t v ca a Packet Pg. 334 9.A.3 SUN -N -FUN LAGOON ADMISSIONS 2018 FY 18 Q1 FY 18 Q2 FY18 Q3 FY 18 Q4 FY 18 YE Disabled Veterans Discount 1 10 11 SNF 3 Years and Under 74 375 449 SNF CCSO Events - - SNF Group Over 48 Inches 60 60 SNF Group Under 48 Inches - - SNF Over 48Inches 1,105 2,559 3,664 SNF Party Over 48 in - - SNF Party Under 48 in SNF Private Dive - - SNF Private Lessons - - SNF Promo Day Passes 21 23 - 44 SNF Raincheck Redeem Over 48 Inches 4 - 4 SNF Raincheck Redeem Under 48 Inches - SNF Rentals - - - SNF Resident Over 48 Inches 188 1,140 1,328 SNF School Board Adult - - - SNF School Lunch Program - - SNF Senior Admission 88 528 - 616 SNF Special Event Free - - SNF Swim Team - - - 5NF Under 48 Inches 121 509 - 630 SNF Veterans Discount 1 32 33 Collier Camps - - - Drop Ins 2 11 13 Memberships Scans 113 446 559 Total Admissions 1,718 5,693 - 7,411 T" u7 1` Q 00 T" O N O R a t: c m E t U M r a 270 of 270 Packet Pg. 335 RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN BASED ON THE 2018 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES (AUIR), AND INCLUDING UPDATES TO THE 5 -YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT (FOR FISCAL YEARS 2019 — 2023) AND THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT FOR THE FUTURE 5 -YEAR PERIOD (FOR FISCAL YEARS 2024 — 2028), PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20180000271] WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan ("GMP") on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 requires the local government to review the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP on an annual basis and to update the 5 - year Capital Improvement Schedule in accordance with Section 163.3177(3)(b), F.S., which may be done by Ordinance or Resolution; and WHEREAS, staff initiated a petition updating the Schedule of Capital Improvements within the Capital Improvement Element of the GMP based on the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR), and additional staff analysis, including update to the 5 -year Schedule of Capital Projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element (for Fiscal Years 2019 — 2023) and the Schedule of Capital Projects contained within the Capital Improvement Element for Future 5 -year Period (for Fiscal Years 2024 — 2028); and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and did hold a public hearing concerning the adoption of this Resolution to update the Schedule of Capital Improvement Projects on November 13, 2018; and [18 -CMP -0102611435693!1] 29 1 of3 2018 AUIR—CIE/CFP Resotution 9118118 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 336 WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 4, 2018 and provided a recommendation of approval; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: APPROVAL OF ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this update to the Schedule of Capital Improvement Projects in accordance with Section 163.3177, F.S. The Capital Improvement Projects are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY If any phrase or portion of this Resolution is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this update shall be upon Board adoption. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA En Deputy Clerk [ 18 -CMP -01026/1435643/11 29 2 of 3 2018 AUIR — CIE/CIP Resolution 9/18/18 ANDY SOLIS, Chairman 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 337 Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-C1cko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A — Capital Improvement Projects [18 -CMP -01026/1435693/1 1 29 3 of 3 2018 AU [R — CIEICIP Resolution 9118118 9.A.4 T" N ti Packet Pg. 338 SCHWtlWe 0 LRMA'Til,, In 1H A-j-rs E%HI9IT'A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEOOLE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2010-2023 9.A.4 WW VERATION VF_RS/ON I I I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT I t AMOUNT 1 S AMOUNT 1 i AMOUNT j I AMOUNT I T AMOUNT I i AMOUNT I CLIMMULRI IVE FOR FY 3 CAPITAL FUNOkNGTp T,p .gyp G.CDES P- mg !wncen[amprwnpw.Xi'% WTI IMI N—N1 C la A� CNE iv v-1 H Au CGPC+ M CIE - 10 Packet Pg. 339 Schadula of Capital Improvements Tables. 2019 Arnendmanis EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IM PR{)VE1r1ENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019.2023 9.A.4 C0N5lDERATf0N VF_RSfOh PARK$ & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS FY 2019 fY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 T6TAL IF - Impact Fear. f COA Revenue$8,325,OD0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT i VALUE S VALUE $ VALUE S VALUE $ VALUE $ VALUE PROJECT M.• PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL. 151 Aries - Sports Tourism Venue $0 $0 $0 $0 f0 Fund 296 Debt Service 201112013 Bonds Fund 348 fled[ Sero ce [2013 Bang 000 $123,470 g%$0 $123470 123470 $123470 185170 550 f I 979, u e ce $2r764.730i $2.815.930 $2,824,630 33 $5 603130 PARKS d RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECT TOTALS $2,936,200 $2,939,400 $2.948,000 --268-18- $2,941,800 55,766,3%1 $17,555, NUI; KEY - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2019 fY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 T6TAL IF - Impact Fear. f COA Revenue$8,325,OD0 $8,481,000 $6,626,300 $8,774,000 Sa.924,300 $43,130, D}F • Deferred Impact Fees $0 g% SD so $0 $ GR - Grants I Reimbursements $0 s0 SD IN - Interest I Mtso. $112,000 $112,006 $112,000 $112,000 $1 $560,RR •Revenue Reduction (fess 5%required by lawj $6 SO SO 5% CF • Available Cash 14f Future PreedsJPa l. of Nbt Service $4,224500 $0 5% nlvA $4,224,500 TR -Added Value thra h Commitments, Leases 8 Transfers S0 $0 S% GF - General Fund 001 0 S6 s0 REVENUE T4 AL $12,681,500 $9,563,000 S8.738300 s6.686.000 SA n£n7 ❑1S tnn NOTE: All Community Park Land and Reg lonal Park Land transactlons are taing factktated through intardaparlmental transfers exchanging land holdings for park lands, or using other methods not involving expondbure of capital funds. These lransactQm rawi0seril changes to the value of land heldinos onto, GICPE5 Pleming Servic CpmprpnOr bveWla AUIR-CI EU21Jgrwift Iw CCPC Ta AUIRl92 CIE FY Te -23_16 AUIR_CCPC —d FNL CIE - 17 Packet Pg. 340 9.A.4 Schedule of Capdal Imprflvements Tables: 2018 Amendments EXHIBIT "A" CONSIDERATION VERSIOA COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 Q STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS CAPITAL IMFROVEMENT $AMOUNT SAMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT SAMOUNT P WECT Nc. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2621 FY 2022 FY 2023 TOTAL Countywide Programs, Planning & Malnienance 5550,000 $750,000 $800,006 $850,000 $850,040 :3.660,660 Infrastructure & Capacity Pro' a $12,020,000 $13,862,000 $14.D45,000 $13,761.0170 $12,489,400 $66,152,000 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS $12,570,000 $14,612.000 $14,815,000 $14,611,000 $13,314,000 369,952,000 Stormater Managerneni Operaling 50,275,000 54,645,000 $4.865,040 S5A99,D00 $5,398,000 ¢26,280,006 Deb[ $BneipB f Transfers Reserves 51,282,000 57,735A00 $2.235,000 $2,735,000 $3,735,000 $11,222,Op0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS 0 727 000 SY9 9A 000 f 94S 000 522,446,2NI1945 000 107454 000 GAMES PWmIN 0 AIIIR-CEQ AkaA fkm for rCK 16 AUIRA2 CAE FY S&23_18 All IR_CCPC rvw FNL CIE - 18 Packet Pg. 341 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amandmema EXHIBIT "A^ CO LUER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMP ROVE ME HTS FISCAL YEARS 20142423 9.A.4 CON57DERA TION vFRs;oA POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT S AMOUNT 5 AMOUNT 5 AMOUNT $ AMOUNT S AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT Re PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2015 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 TDTAL DebtServlce $10,242,000 $13015,000 514,951,000 $14,389,500 S12,585,ODO Sfi5,1825DU Expansion Retailed Projects SW 000 SO S5 000 000 $0 $5,006 000 14 450,600 Reptacernairt d Rehabilitation Proiecis 514 870,004 $35,285,000 $21 325 W0 523,510,000 $21,980 000 5116 T70 060 Departmental Ca Ital 5T 135,000 51,158000 51181.444 _$1,205.0m $i 000 5g08,D00 Reserve for Conti arlcie9 - Re laoemenl G RehatAhaUDn Projects 51.459 040 53.529 000 $2.133.000 S2 351 004 2,190,000 ST 1 870.000 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECT TOTALS 527 556,000 S52 987 000 4.590 000 541 455,500 SO2 992 000 $209,580,500 Ln In I- 1:0 NOTE; Collkr County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System. Flgures pmvlded for years Ihrea, four and five of this Schedule OF Capital Improvements aro nal part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feaslbia with a dedicated revenue source or an alfemative revenue source if Oie dedlrated revenue source is not reallzed. F lgures provided for years six Through ten of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates Of revenues versus project costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. DATA S:URCES� - Exaanstan Re:, and Reohmcament 8 Rohabllilation Prometh: FY 2019 le o4taiaed from the 2019 Proposed Budges. - Daoarlment CandsH FY 2019 Is Obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget, split 50150 hsrwean Water and Wastewaler. FY 2020 to FY 2026 is a 2% inweew over each fiscal year from FY 2020 through FY 2028 [pursuant to GPI adjustments per Board pocky. - DakASf3rvwA FY 2019 to 2423 are obtained from the COINar County water and Sewer Distract Financial Slatsmsrds and other Reports. Summary of Debt service requirements to maturity. Debt Service far antictpated 2020 bods is estimated. Total Debt Service amount is spin 50!50 between Water and Wastewater. - R9sefve for Conynnencles -- Replacament and Re[otrylilatlon PrOillcts: As per Florida Statules, mserve for contingencies are up to 10% of expanses, G.4COES Pbnnmg Serr,caex'omprenen3lveI,T014 Al11R•CIE62 Kabioml� I0r CCP'C 1e AUIaWZ CIE FY 19.23_18 AVIR_CCPC rvad FHL CIE - 19 Packet Pg. 342 Schedule of Capital improvements Tablas: 2018 Amendmenls EXHIUR "A" COLLIER COUNTY SC NEDULE OF CAPITAL IM PROVE M ERTS F IS C:AL YDS 2018-2423 9.A.4 CONSIDERATION VERSION SOLID WASTrt D ISP69iAL c A ILRI ES PROJECTS PROJECT Nv. PROJECT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT i AMOUNT - NOTES SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2a19 $ AMOUNT FY 2020 1 S AMOUNT $ AMOUNT FY 2021 FY 2022 S AMOUNT FY 2023 $ AMOUNT TOTAL TBD Count Landfill Ce3I Construclwn $0 $t3 59 $0 0 SO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES P TOTAL R s O CL 41 O C N C REVENUE KEY •REVENUE SOURCE 1 FY 2019 FY 2020 1 FY 2021 1 FY 2922 1 FY 2023 1 TOTAL N LTF - Landfill TippIng Fees I so SG 0 1S4 is REVENUE TOTAL yo $0 1 $0 1G NOTE: Colisr County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management Syslem. Figures pmvJdW far years three. four and five of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are npt part of the Concurrency Managameril System bul must be financially feasible with a dedltatad ro�enue Source Or an aRemative revenue source If Me dedicated revenue source is not realized- Figures provided for years six Through len of the Scliedule of Capital ImpfeV0marils are e5tmales of revenues versus project cesls bul do npt Cornsiltule 0 1pnp term concurrency system. G.WXES Pln... V S— ss Gor p hennvaUO18 AWR CiEw2 r.1e[ mK fir CCPC $8 AUNi5W CIE FY 19-23 1! ALAR CCPC Grad FML Pursuant to the Landfill Opending Agreement {(,DA) with Waste Management, Inc- of Florida (WMIF), landfill cell construcflpn i5 scheduled and guaranteed by WMIF Over the We of the Collier County Landfill- Cohw County landfill expanslan costs are paid for by WMIF through agreed upon Collar County landfill tipping fees. By contact under the LOA, WMIF will consiruct any future required cells- Landflil Gets vary In sic and disposal Capacity. f:rE - 20 Packet Pg. 343 Schedule of Capital Improvements Tables: 2018 Amandments EXm IBIT "A - COLLIER COUNTY SC HEOULE OF CAP RAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEAR$ 2419-2023 9.A.4 CONSOOEAA rrON WRSION WASTEWATER COLLECTION a tkEATMU4T SYSTEM PROJECTS CAPrrAL IMPROVEMENT S AMOUNT S AMOUNT S AMOUNT S AMOUNT S AmOuNT $ AMOUNT PROJECT M.. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 7019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 9922 FY 21023 TOTAL Debt Service CAFR $10,242,000 13 Dis. 114,951, 000 S14,389,500 $12,585, 000 "5,102. Expansion Related PID acts SO 118 000 000 0 116 000 Replacement 6 Rehabilitation P ects $27,W,00 $42W,000 $57M5.004 $41,475,000 $36,0$0,typo 186 760 000 Departmental Capital Resolve W Conti encies - Re larsment b Rehabilitation P $1,IXOw 7 59 040 $1,158,40DO S4 209 5100 $1,181.004 S3 769 000 S1,205, 148 000 $11229, 000 3695 000 9oe 000 17.340 000 WASTEWATER COLLECTION TREATMEN YSTEM PRM OTA I-I 000 177 127 000 7 586 040 361 17540 S4 499 ❑04 5397 190 500 NOTE: Collier County has adopted a hw year Cdawmancy ManarJement System. Figures provided for years Mrae, four and live of this Sehwvin of Capital Improvements are not part of the C0110ufnw" Managemanl System but must be fim=iatly feasible vAlh a dedicated revenue Source or an a8ematroa revenue source if She dedicated revenue sours is not maized. Figures provided for years six through len of the Schedule of Capital Improvements are estimates of ravanues versus pro)ad casts but do not cons0lula a long term concurrency system. n:lCGE5 RWOirp 8ariwalCwnpoherune120tg ALJK{IC07 Mx1— for CCPC 18 ALrR,A2 GE FY t§-rj to ANN GGPG NW FNL DATA SOURCES: • Wansldn Related and Replacement 8 Rehabililfll Prel¢CI31 FY 2019 is obtaln9e from the 2019 Proposed Budget. FY 2019 ks obtained from the 2019 Proposed Budget, split 5W50 bel—n Waley and Wastewater. FY 2020 to FY 2028 is a 2% increase over each (scat year from FY 2020 tWuugh FY 2028 (pursuant to CPI adjuetment5 per Board policy). - Debt Servloa: FY 2019 10 2023 are obtained fmra the Cotlter County Water and Sewer District Financial Statements are other Reports, Surrlmery of Debt Service mquirements to maiunty. pebl Servlce for antia5mtod 2024 bonds is estimated. Total pebl Service amount Is SPIA 50150 bat.een Walar and WaeleWaMF - 6�93�tlry+f for CentlnoenGes - Replacement and Rehabllllaliar�g: A5 par Florida Slatutes Section 129.01 {c�, rasarva for contingencJes are up to 10% M expanses. CIE - 21 Packet Pg. 344 9.A.4 EXHIBIT "A" COLLIER COUNTY SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE FISCAL YEARS 2019-2023 The table below itemizes the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The 'Revenue Amount' column contains the 5 -Year amount of facility revenues. The right column m a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. The subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the del in order to maintain the Isvars of service standards as referenced in the Capital Improvement Element 17. " ARTERIAL & COLLECTOR ROADS AND BRIDGE PROJECTS 49,066,000 Revenues IF - Impact Fees 1 COA Revenue $72,600,000 Unfunded Needs $106,398,000 GA - Gas Tax Revenue $110,075,000 DCA I Interlccal62014 $2,700,000 OR - Grants 1 Reimbursements $5,500,000 AC - Avallable Cash for Future IoMects)Payment of Debt $32,500.000 Service $22,783,000 OF - General Fund (001) $45,756,000 Supplemental OMS Funding $5,361,000 IN - Interest Revenue - Fund 313 Gas Tax & Impact Fees $2,250,000 TR - MSTU General Fund 111 Transfers $21,250,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% requhed by few) 49,066,000 $385.605,000 Less Expenditaras: $3&5,605,000 $385,605,000 Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Feesllmpact Fees Balance $0 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS $0 Revenues: WIF - Water System Development Feesllmpacl Fees $32,500.000 Q RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $0 00 B - Band Proceeds $0 T— LOC - Commercial Paper 1 $0 N SRF - State Revolving Funtl Loans $0 $391,190.500 •• WCA - Water Cal Account $5.908,000 r $391,190,500 REV - Rete Revenue $171,172,500 $299,580,500 Less Expenditures: 5209.580.500 $209,580,500 Balance $0 WASTEWATER COLLECTION & TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS OR - Grants / Reimbursements $2,500,000 7 Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Feesllmpact Fees $29,000,000 C RR - Revenue Reduction (fess 6% required by law) $0 B - Bond Proceeds $116,000,000 Q SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 00 LOC - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien $0 T— SCA - Wastewater Capital Account, Transfers $5,906,000 N REV - Rate Revenue $240,202,500 $391,190.500 •• Less Expennitures: $391,190,500 $0 r $391,190,500 Less Expenditures, $107,454.000 Balance So t0 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS Balance CO TOTAL REVENUE T— Revenues LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees $0 r $0 CA 7of14 WCDES PL—,Saba Z—prtl,al-L016A111lMai,rials ld CCl 18 AUIR102 CF FY 1377_ 18 ALR_CCPC rvSE FNL O Less Expenditures, $0 $0 r Balance $0 C PARKS &RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS �+ � Revenues: IF - Impact Fees $43.130.600 N DIF - Deferred Impact Fees $0 OR - Grants / Re4mbursemenls $0 IN - Interest $560,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required by law) $0 = AC - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service 84,224,500 E TR - Added Value through Commitments, Leases & Transfers $0 OF - General Fund (001) $0 $47,915,100 V Less Expenditures: $17,555,700 $47,915,100 r Balance $30,359,400 Q STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS Revanues: OR - Grants / Reimbursements $2,500,000 BP/RESTORE Act $0 County Held Tax Certificate - OMB Funding SIM050,000 TR - Transfer from Naples Park Debt Service so CF - Available Cash for Future ProjecWPayment of Debt Service $5,132,000 W - Interest Revenue -$5,275,000 RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% required bylaw) $5,047,000 OF - General Fund (001) $0 OF - MSTU General Fund (111) $0 $107.454,000 Less Expenditures, $107,454.000 $107,454,000 Balance $0 TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL PROJECTS $1,111,385,700 SOURCES $1,141,745,100 7of14 WCDES PL—,Saba Z—prtl,al-L016A111lMai,rials ld CCl 18 AUIR102 CF FY 1377_ 18 ALR_CCPC rvSE FNL Packet Pg. 345 9.A.4 Capital Improvement Elnman) - Appendix T.W.: 2018 Amendmaras APPENDIX H CONSIDERATION VERSION FUTURE C057S AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2624-202R ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS FY 2024 fY 2025 FY 2D2a FY 2627 FY 2028 TOTAL IF - Fen I COA Revenue CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ;AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT -Od ECT ra. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 202a TOTAL COMNfFn $3579600 53,722,000 $3,360,006 53,521000 $3521,600 S17,694,000 56th Oparjl.oni ImpmmmtuPfogtams $9,310,000 $9778000 $19260040 5}9756541 $11257938 $51,372,519 Shin Daipirmwtal Ce tel $1,21A.000 51279000 51305006 51331000 $1,366,000 $0,527,000 E-ponslon Related Pro c% S0 65,000,000 55000.006 55006000 SO 416000006 F.ama rd A R h&I:AataUo Pro sdr. 535 095 000 537 000 533 $95.666 205 000 S35 006 5176 920 000 Dam Servos Pa wm 514,725,000 $17,514,000 518,727,004 515,990,500 $15,689,500 $80,552,000 ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PRRJECT TOTALS W.554.— 74 509 000 570 247 010 575 714 041 67 {M11 430 8 God 514 REVENUE KE - REVENUE SOURCE FY 2024 fY 2025 FY 2D2a FY 2627 FY 2028 TOTAL IF - Fen I COA Revenue 15 500 000 75 000 15,500,00) 15,50D.000 16 000 • Gee T Raw Le 000 000 22.000 000 22 000 000 22,000,000 22 000 000 110000 OR-"I"ts to so 50 $o $0 D lGA • AvailabW CmM Fx FuWro Pro udslPoymuM dr Dab) SBNtro SD SO TR •7nwaft s S4250 006 54,250 000 54250.00 SI,250 000 54 250 000 521 256 GF -General Fund 001 $9.300.06 $9,300,000 $9,300,006 59,300,000 $9,300,000 $46500 DC - Developer Ccn616ullon Agreements l ANarh ad {2eimbur ants 518.173,104 518.113.104 578.113.104 518,113.104 $18,113,103 $90,565,514 IN - Intereet - Fund 313 Gee Tax 8 Inrvreel lm act Fees S45D,0OD $450 000 $454,600 5450.040 $456.00 $2250,000 RR - Ra,— Re4ucllen Ieaa 5w uired lar io 0 50 0 $o REVENUE TOTAL 9513164 89813104 59513104 55981310. 69513103 34B 665519 G-IGDE3 Plaming Samoa%ComprgnerladvQD18 AUIR-CIE162 Matpnala Im CCPC 18 AUIRM Cie FY 14-25 18 AUIR-CCPC rvse PHI- CIE 15p nft- % Packet Pg. 346 Capital Improvement Element • Appendix Ta hle 2018 Amandmen is APPENDIX N FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT I $ VALUE I i VALUE 9.A.4 CONSIDERATIQN VERS10A Q i VALUE i $ VALUE 1 S VALUE $ VALUE o G.=tS Planning 5--MCp Qhen9iveVp 18 AUIR�CIEW Materials in CCPC 18 AIJ IR103 CIE FV 24-2$ 18 AMR CCPC n d FNL NOTE: All COmmenity Park Land and Regional Park Land uransactlons are being tadMated through interdapartmental transfers exchanging land holdings for park lands. or using other melhods not irnotving expenditure of Capital funds. These transactions represent rchanues to the value of land holdings only. CIE Appendix - 2 Packet Pg. 347 CROW Im provament Elam ent - Appendix Table: 20f8 Am9ndmenls Reserves APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PD ELIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 9.A.4 CQNSIDERATION VERSJW CAPITALIMPROVEMENT I $AMOUNT I SAMOUNT I SAMOUNT I $AMOUNT I ;AMOUNT I $AMOUNT Conlinuws 1 $20,000,000 REVENUE KEY -REVENUE SOURCE FY 2024 FY 2025 I FY 2026 1 FY 2027 I FY 2028 I'T TqL GR - Grants f Reimburaemenls 00 56 SO 4C - Available Gash for Future ectR7P ent of Dobt Serv�co 50 $0 SD S0 SO $0 DRA - Communl Redevolo went Area 1 Munlcipol Semce Taxing Unll S6 SO S0 50 $n §0 3F - General Fwd 001 $21000000 521 000 000 521 000 000 $21 000000 1000 000 5105.000 000 REVENUE TOTAL 521000 000 21,000000 27000000 $2100U D00 1000,900 $i05 OOD 000 0 O O. d 0 O C W C d R CL M 7 C C Q O N Ln N co Of G> 0 c O 0 N d C N E L M R Q GACOES Planning senaceglConpronenerveL2atb ALIM C 102 *.Wan rcr CCPC 16 AL F*CE FY 24,20_1B AUR CCFC Md FNL CIE Appendix - 3 Packet Pg. 3481 1 Capilal Impruvernant Element - Appendix Table, 2015 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 9.A.4 CONS70EFATfON VERS;OA POTABLE ER SVSTIM PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT $AMOUNT SAMOUNT 3AMOUNT $AMOUNT PROJECT No. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2023 FY 2025 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL E%pension Related Fro ecls $62,506,000 $5,000,DDp $❑ 5.000,000 $9 $92.500.000 Replacement fi Rehabilitation Proects $22.375.660 $17,755.000 $17,815,090 23.495,000 523,495.MO $104,935,000 Debi Service $14.725.000 T17,510,000 $16,727,000 $15,900,500 $15,559,590 $90,552,000 De artmenial Capital Reserve for Onlingencies - Replacemant & Rehabi'letion Projects $1,254,1506 2,238,0-9 $1,279,00 1.776,000 1,305,000 1, S1 331 000 2.350,000 1,358,000 ,350, $6,527,000 10.496,000 123,092,000 20, W I li41.W9,1100 I W.1576,50012,B92,5❑0 295, 10. 00 MOTE: Collier County has adopted a trvo-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Cepital Improvarrents are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible wrlh a dedicated revenue Source or an alternative revenue source If the dedicated revenue source Is not realized. Figures prewded for years el% through len of the Schedule of Capktal Improvements are ssfimalas Of revenues versus project costs bul do not constitute a Jong term concurrency System. &MES P4nnOg $orv-4C.mrgrehen—Q01s AUiR-QIE+W Nteier'iey fur GGPG 16 AWRM CIE FY 24-29_1$ ALNR GGPC rued FNL Cif: Appendut - a R s d m CL Packet Pg. 349 WIF • Water S tem Develc men! Fees fi,50 ,515❑,❑❑❑ ,500,009 5.500.600 6,506,066 500 venue ucteon ass mqur yaw $0 s❑ $0 $0 $❑ B- Bond Proceeds $82.500.❑❑❑ $9 $0 -$() ❑ $9 — ,,00 SRF - State RevolvinQ Loan Funds $0 20 $0 $0 VVCA - Water Ca Ital Account $1 254,060 51,279,000 1,305,000 $1,331.000 $1,358,060 ,527,000 R ala venue 532,538, 547,600 9.824,000 4 , 5 35,034,500 173, ❑ 7, MOTE: Collier County has adopted a trvo-year Concurrency Management System. Figures provided for years three, four and five of this Schedule of Cepital Improvarrents are not part of the Concurrency Management System but must be financially feasible wrlh a dedicated revenue Source or an alternative revenue source If the dedicated revenue source Is not realized. Figures prewded for years el% through len of the Schedule of Capktal Improvements are ssfimalas Of revenues versus project costs bul do not constitute a Jong term concurrency System. &MES P4nnOg $orv-4C.mrgrehen—Q01s AUiR-QIE+W Nteier'iey fur GGPG 16 AWRM CIE FY 24-29_1$ ALNR GGPC rued FNL Cif: Appendut - a R s d m CL Packet Pg. 349 9.A.4 Capital Improvement Element - Appendix Tabta: 2018 Amendrngn% APPENDIX H CONSIDERATION VERSION FUTURE COSTS ANO REYENVE8 BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024.202$ VO WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT S AMOUNT S AMOUNT $ AMOUNT $ AMOUNT PROIECTIty. PROJECT SCHEDULE NOTES FY 2024 FY 2025FY 2826 FY 2027 FY 2028 TOTAL TBD Coup Landfill Cell Consiructlon $ 6 0 $0 0 $o SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PRQJECT TOTALS $01 s0 I $0 I Sol VI50 N 0 j, NOTE: Collier County has adopted a two-year Concurrency Management System Figures provided for years three, Four and five of This Schedule of Capital improvements are not part of the Concurrency Management Syetem but must be financially faasibla with a dedicated revenue source or an allernative revenue source if the dedicated revenue source is not reallxad, Figures provided for years six thmugh ten of the Schedule of Capital Impro emgnts are estimates of revenues versus proJeci costs but do not constitute a long term concurrency system. ' Pursuant to the Landfill Operating Agreement (LOA) with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida (WMi F), landfill Cell construction Is scheduled and guaranteed by W MIF over the life of the Collier CountyLandfill. C01Ik1 County landfill expansion cost& ora POW for by WMIF through agreed upon Collier County landfill fipping fees. 8y —tract under the LOA, W MIF will construct any future required calls - 0 =ES AI&nnnp AUR-CIEw2 muienuft ror CCPC 18 AUIRID3 CIE FY 24-29 IS AtJIR_CCFC rvsd FIS CIE Appendix - 5 Packet Pg. 350 CeOal Improvement Element - Appandix Table 2018 Amendments APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES 9Y TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY FISCAL YEARS 2024 - 2028 9.A.4 CONS10ER471Oiv VERSIOA WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEME2FY L AMOUNT S AMOUNT $ AMOUNT S AMOUNT S AMOUlR PRaiECr Ib• PROJECT SCHEDULE VOTES FY 2M FT 2026 27 FY 2029 TOTAL Fat noon Related Pro'e1,ts la�ement 8 R"bWlauon P 220M S5 004,000 5772'10 000 33595,000535,205OW 55.000 00043,11 s0 S15 400 990Rs Si 76 920.000Ce IIN h rrrJea - Rep:ac�emenl d ltenabintaton F "acts 1,219,000 517,5f0,000 3,722, S1305.099 576727,040 309900 1,350,000 516609,500Reserve 3,521, l7.89d,Op0 WASTEWATER NT YSTEhd pRD,7£CT i A 5 NOTE: Geller County has adopted a Nvo-year Concurrenry Management System. Fkjumi provided far ynera Ihree, }our and Frye of this Schedule of Capital Improvements are net pad co ale CQKurrency Management Syetem hof must be Anancialty teaslble with a demra7od revenue source or an allernabve ferenue source if tte dedkatsd revenue souroa is not rel&ed Figures provided For Years six through tan of the Schedule d Cspllal ImprovarMnta are aetlrnates of revenues versus Pr*ct coats bul do nol corlLOtute a Torg ww concurrency system. u:1Cl]Ey PM—.g 5BrMpr9lCampehmu.•m10h a nUK-CIE•02 0&-im In CCAC 19 AU." ME FY 2429_19 AUR Ccpc rvw Fr4L CIE Appendix - 5 Packet Pg. 351 9.A.4 APPENDIX H FUTURE COSTS AND REVENUES BY TYPE OF PUBLIC FACILITY COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY TABLE FISCAL YEARS 2024-2028 The table below ilemues the types of public facilities and the sources of revenue. The 'Revenue Amount' column contains the 5 -Year amount of facility revenues. The right cdumn is a calculation of expenses versus revenues for each type of public facility. All deficits are accumulated as a subtotal. The subtotal deficit is the source of additional revenue utilized by Collier County to fund the deficit in order to maintain the levels of service standards as referenced in the Capital Improvement Element. Projects Revenue Amount 1e Revenue Sources Expenditure Total ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROAD PROJECTS Revenues: IF - Impact Fees 1 COA Revenue $77,500,000 GA - Gas Tax Revenue $110,000,000 GR - Grants / Reimbursements $0 AC - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service $0 TR - Transfers $21,250,000 GF - General Fund (001) $46,500,000 DC - Developer Contribution Agreements 1 Advanced $90,565,519 Q IN - Interest - Fund 313 (Gas Tax & Interest Impact Fees $2,250,000 + RR - Revenue Reduction (less 5% requirod bylaw) $0 $348,065.519 O CL Less Expenditures_ $348,065,519 $348-06 ,Si9(D IX Balance $0 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS O C Revenues: WIF - Water System Development Fees$32,500,000 > RR - Revenue Reduction {less 5% required by law) $0 S B -Band Proceeds $82,500,000 06 SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 d WCA - Water Capital Account $6,527,000 REV -Rate Revenue$173,483,000 $295,010,000 -0 CL Less Expenditures: $295,010,000 $295,010,000 Balance $0 R 3 WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS C O Q Revenues: SIF - Wastewater System Development Fees $29,000,000 00 evanu Lie Reduction (less 5% required by law) $0 T O B - Band Proceeds $0 fV SRF - State Revolving Fund Loans $0 LOG - Commercial Paper, Additional Senior Lien $0 j SCA - Wastewater Capital Account $6,527.000 t` REV -Rate Revenue $261,166,000 $296,693,000 Less Expenditures, $296.693,000 $296.693,000 co Balance $O SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES PROJECTS O Revenues: LTF - Landfill Tipping Fees Less Expenditures: PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECTS Revenues. IF - Impact Fees GR - Grants 1 Reimbursements GF - General Fund (00 1 i $0 $0 $0 SO Balance SD $9,231,451 $0 $0 $9,231,451 Less Expenditures: $0 SO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROJECTS Balance $9231451 Revenues. GR - Grants! Reimbursements AC - Available Cash for Future Projects/Payment of Debt Service CRA - Community Redevelopment Area/Municipal Service Taxing GF - General Fund (001) Less Expenditures: $0 $0 $0 $105,000,000 $105,000,000 $105,000,000 S105,Q00 Balance $0 PROJECTS $1,044,758,519 SOURCES $1,053,999,970 G 1CnES planning 5er%I—%Cnmprehenti 2019 A1,11 ElOP Marerlsls for CCPc 16 AUll CIE 124-29_19 AUIRCCPC 1�d WL CIE Appendix -7 14 of 14 Packet Pg. 352