The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 05/10/2011 Item #16I1 16' 1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE May 10,2011 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: 1) Quarry Community Development District: Proposed FY11112 Budget. 2) South Florida Water Management District: 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 3) Verona Walk Community Development District: Proposed FY11112 Budget. B. Minutes: 1) Development Services Advisory Committee: Minutes of January 7, 2011 Public UtilitieslRPZ Subcommittee; February 2, 2011; 2) Floodplain Management Planning Committee: Minutes of April 5, 2010; July 12,2010; July 16, 2010; January 10,2011. 3) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 8, 2011; April 4, 2011. Minutes of March 8, 2011. 4) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Minutes of March 7, 2011. 5) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Minutes of February 16, 2011. 6) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of April 6, 2011. Minutes of February 23,2011. C. Other: 1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate: Minutes of March 4,2011. t 1611A~ QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ;sl rru WI it W.~.' c/o Special District Services, Inc. o U! \l::9 W ~U 2501 Burns Road, Suite A \0) I I~PP <\ (0 LOri Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 ~ ~ \ -- ' (561) 630-4922 Fax: (561) 630-4923 ,. BY; ....................... . -< ~ n r- > ,.., ." ;lID :::0 ;lie 0(11 ~ (") '"'t) g 3: ~ N.. ,- --. t.:J ~ ~ -"1 \0 April 12, 2011 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ~ Sl Clerk of the Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6th Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Quarry Community Development District To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please fmd a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Community Development District: 1.) Proposed 201112012 Fiscal Year Budget (Oct. 1,2011 - Sept. 30, 2012) If you have any questions 'or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. Lf!:::i~ Enclosure ~ ..~ ~ of'...... 1 ' -~ :;J~ ~j.~. ,-t 2~J . . -. ~ ~ ..' .., ~'~.; -\ -r. -...,-. oN ~-...{}_l Item #; C::;Ji38 'LD: . . .' 16 I!. 1 A 1 Quarry Community Development District Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - SeptelDber 30, 2012 I, 16 I j 1 A :il CONTENTS PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET II PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (A BONDS) III ASSESSMENT CALCULATION IV DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET V DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (A BONDS) QY Proposed Budget Contents 2011-2012 4/11/2011 4:39 PM PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1,2011 - September 30,2012 16 I 1 Ad \ , FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 REVENUES PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET ON ROll. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 42,089 OEVELOPER DIRECT BIll. ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 52,618 ON ROll. OEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONOS 982 238 OEVE.OPER DIRECT BIll. OEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONOS 476 790 OTHER REVENUES 0 INTEREST INCOME 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,553 735 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE 10.000 MANAGEMENT 36,000 SECRETARIAL 0 LEGAL 5000 ASSESSMENT ROLL 5,000 AUDIT FEES 5,700 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 5,500 TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING 0 INSURANCE 7800 LEGAL ADVERTISING 1000 MISCELLANEOUS 875 POSTAGE 1,000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1000 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 TRUSTEE FEES 8,500 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 4000 CONTINGENCY 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 91,550 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 1,462,185 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (A BONDl (1,385 360 BALANCE $ 76,825 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE (35,851 DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS (40,973 EXCESS/SHORTFALL - CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ - Quany QY Budgets QY Budgets 2011-2012 QY Prop...d Budget 2011-2012 QY Operating Fund Budget2011-2012 411112011 4:39 PM o . . 161'1 ~1 PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (BONDS) FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 REVENUES PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 0 NAV Assessment Collection 908,570 Developer Direct Bill Assessment 476,790 Total Revenues $ 1,385,360 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments - A 1 360,000 Principal Payments - A2 0 Interest Payments - A 1 1,007,875 Interest Payments - A2 0 A Bond Prepayment 17,485 Total Expenditures $ 1,385,360 Excess/Shortfall $ - Quarry QY Budgets QY Budgets 2011-2012 QY Proposed Budget 2011-2012 QY Debt Service (A) Fund BUdget 2011-2012 " 4/11/2011 4:39 PM " \ 1 6 I 1 A 1 . Quarry Community Development District Assessment Breakdown 2011-2012 Pre Special Bond Redemptions Total Assessment Grossed UD for Fees & Discount tNet p~ Soecial RedemDtions Ass~sments Number of Units Assessment XIO.9251 Operation & Maintenance 401 $36,851 Debt 401 $895.135 Total 401 $931,986 Post Special Bond Redemptions Number of Units 'Of" Fiscal Total O&M Grossed UD for Fees & Discount INet O&M Operation & Maintenance Yur2D11-2012 !I!!.illl Plall2d Coach Homes 2 $184 Single Family Homes ('55) 0 $0 Single Family Homes ('67) 1 $92 Single Family Homes (75) 30 $2,757 Single FamiJy Homes ('90) 24 $2,205 5 Story Condos 0 $0 Total PlatlI!d 57 $5,238 Un.plalled Coach Homes 146 $12.411 . Single FamOy Homes ('55) 81 $6,885 Single Family Homes ("67) 140 $11,901 . Single Family Homes (75) 52 $4,420 . Single Family Homes f90) 0 $0 . 5 StlX)' Condos 200 $17.001 . Totzal Un-Platted 619 $52,618 . Total 676 $57.856 Number of Units for Fiscal Total Debt Grossed UD for Fees & Discount 'Net Debt ~ Year2D11-2012 l!l!!.llil Plall2d Coach Homes 2 $1,384 Single Family Homes ('55) 0 $0 Single Family Homes f67) 1 $941 Single Family Homes (75) 30 $33.405 Single FamUy Homes ('90) 24 $51.373 5 Story Condos 0 $0 Total PlaltI!d 57 $87,103 Un.plalled Coach Homes 146 $93.440 . Single FBtnlly Homes ('55) 81 $63,990 Single FemUr Homes ("61) 140 $121,800 . Single Family Homes (75) 52 $53,560 Single FamUy Homes ('90) 0 $0 . 5 Story Condos 200 $144,000 . Total Uno-Platted 619 $476,790 . Tola; 676 $563.893 Total Gross Operating & Maintenance Assessment NumberofTob:l Unfts Total Gross Pm SoecIal RedemDtlon Total Gross Post SDeCIaI Redema60n Toul Gross OaM Assessments I Gross 0 & M Assessments Total 1,077 $36.851.00 $57.856.00 $94,707.00 Total Gross Debt Assessment Number of Total Unfts Total Gross Pre Soeclal RedemDtlon Total Gross Post Soeclal Redemation TobJ Gross Debt Assessments I Gross Debt Assessment Total 1,On $895,135.00 $563.892.70 $1.459,027.70 Operating & Maintenance Assessment Comparison Number of Total Unfts Final FY 2010 1 2011 ProDosed FY 2011/2012 1 Yur Chanae I Gross 0 & M Assessment Comparison Per Unit 1,077 $91.90 $91.90 ($O.OOl Gross O&M Amounts per unn (Tolal O&M Expenditures /1,077 Lois / 0.925 D&F)) = $91.90 -Note: No Fess or Discounts have to be Coleded for Un-Platted Direct Billed Assessments. .,." "'- ar~3)1~12 Q(~"21It.a)Q III 4/UI2l11U./lW C'I'.--....~:!alt.:llt2 ~ PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1,2011 - September 30,2012 16 I 1 A 1 4 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 REVENUES ACTUAL ANNUAL BUDGET BUDGET COMMENTS ON ROLL ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 26 684 44 295 42 089 # of Platted Lots X $85.01 /.925 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILlNJMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 94,947 93,592 52,618 # of Unolatted Lots X $85.01 ON ROLL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONOS 1,645,614 1 591,709 982,238 Pavment To Trusteel.925 OEVaOPER DIRECT BIll. DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONDS 5,724,402 5,732,267 476,790 Estimated Pavment To Trustee OTHER REVENUES 0 0 0 INTEREST INCOME 0 0 o No Chanae Fram 2009/2010 Budaet TOTAL REVENUES $ 7491,647 $ 7,461,863 $ 1,553.736 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 0 o Suoervisor Fees ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE 8,321 10,000 10 000 No Chanae From 2010/2011 Budaet MANAGEMENT 39 500 36,000 36,000 $3,000 Per Month As Per Cantract SECRETARIAL 1600 0 o Nat Charaed Seoaratelv As Per Cantract LEGAL 1705 10,000 5000 $5,000 Decrease From 2010/2011 Budaet ASSESSMENT ROLL 6,012 5000 5,000 As Per Cantract AUDIT FEES 4,975 5,700 5700 Enaaaement Letter Amount for 200912010 Aucit + $500 for Relmbursa~e ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 5,500 5,000 5500 Actual Amaunt Paid in 2009/2010 TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING 2,333 0 o Line Item Eliminated INSURANCE 5,000 5000 7,800 $7,500 Paid in 2010/2011 LEGAL ADVERTISING 685 2,000 1000 $1,000 Decrease From 2010/2011 Budaet MISCELLANEOUS 1,202 4890 875 $4 015 Decrease From 2010/2011 Budaet POSTAGE 317 1,000 1,000 Na Chanae From 201012011 Budoet OFFICE SUPPLIES 382 1000 1000 Na Chanae Fram 2010/2011 Budaet DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 0 175 175 No Chanae Fram 201012011 Budaet TRUSTEE FEES 22,628 22 800 8,500 Eliminated 2 Bond Series CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 6000 6,000 4000 Eliminated 2 Bond Series CONTINGENCY 0 20,000 o Line Item Eliminated TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 106,160 $ 134,565 $ 91 660 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 7 385,487 $ 7,327,298 $ 1,462185 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (A BONDI 17,318,457 (7,204 598 11,385,360 2012 Pavments to Trustee BALANCE $ 67.031 $ 122,700 $ 76.826 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COlLECTOR FEE 143,815 (57,260 135,851 3.5 Percent Of Total On Roll Tax Roll DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS 118,873 165 440' 140,973 4 Percent Of Total On Roll Tax Roll EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ 4,343 $ - $ - CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 0 o Carrvover From Prior Year NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ 4,343 $ - $ - QulllTY QY Budgets QY Budgets 2011-2012 aY Proposed Budget2011~2012 aY Operatfng Fund Budget2011-2012 IV 4/1112011 4:39 PM ," :' 16 I lA 1 PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (A BONDS) FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 2011/2012 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 0 o Projected Interest For FY 2011/2012 NAV Assessment Collection 1,472,331 908,570 Net Debt Service Collection Developer Direct Bill Assessment 2,706,692 476,790 Net Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 4,179,023 $ 1,385,360 EXPENDITURES Princioal Payments - A 1 965,000 360,000 Amortzation Schedule Principal Payment Due In 2012 Principal Payments - A2 70,000 o Bonds Retired by Special Redemption in 2011 Interest Payments - A1 2,960,513 1,007,875 Amortzation Schedule Interest Payments Due In 2012 Interest Payments - A2 183,510 o Bonds Retired by Special Redemption in 2011 A Bond Redemption 0 $ 17,485 Estimated Escess Debt Collections Total Expenditures $ 4,179,023 $ 1,385,360 Excess/Shortfall $ - $ - Quany QY Budgets QY Budgets 2011-2012 QY Proposed Budget 2011-2012 QY Debt Service (A) Fund Budget 2011-2012 v 4/11/2011 4:39 PM ~~\ q,~ reJjltU-\-1^j htJ.nLury ~ /'f\t<<. vor-r, ~ 1- SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 161 1 Al " :,J .1 April 1, 2011 m~:~~~l~~ Chairperson Board of County Commissioners Collier County 2671 Airport Road, South, Suite 203 Naples, Florida 34112 BY: ....................... Dear Chairperson: Pursuant to FLORIDA STATUTE 373.586 we have enclosed the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) CD for the South Florida Water Management District. If you require a hard copy version please e-mail your request to cflierl@sfwmd.Qov. or you may send your request by mail to: South Florida Water Management District Attn: Chris Flierl, Director Accounting & Financial Services Division P. O. Box 24680, MSC 6230 West Palm Beach FL 33416-4680 The South Florida Water Management District welcomes any comments or questions regarding the CAFR. Please direct inquiries to me at the address noted above. Sin~? Christian Flierl, Director Accounting & Financial Services Division CFlkk Misc. Corres: Date: oS l D ItGlii ,; r ~ 1.( I 0=;':::;320: 3301 Gun Oub Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561) 686-8800 . FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 Mailing Address: P. O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 . www.sfwmd.gov I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161Jl1te COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT ~ '. i}'--!~" '. i: ',,' .1 ~ SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT A Component Unit of the State of Florida Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010 Prepared by Accounting and Financial Services Division Christian Flier!, Director I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16111 A2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION LET'IER. OF 'IRANSMlTT AL .... ..... ............. .... ..... ............ ........................... ...... ..... ..... ................... .....1-1 ORGANIZATION CHART AND LIST OF PRINCIPAL OFFlCIALS ...................................................1-9 GFOA CERTIFICATE OF AClIIEVEMENT ......... .......................... ........................ ............... .... ..... ...1-10 MAP OF TIIE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF TIIE DISlRICT ...................................................1-11 FINANCIAL SECTION REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS............................................. II-I MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (MD&A) (UNAUDITED)................................. II-3 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STAlEMENTS Statement of Net Assets..................... ............ ......................................... ........................ ............. III-I Statement of Activities. ......... ... ........... .... ...... ...... .... ........ .............. ..... ..... .... ..... ........................ .... III-2 FUND FINANCIAL STA'I'BvIENTS Governmental Funds Financial Statements Balance Sheet.. .... ............. ....... ....... ............ .... ..... ..... ... ..... ..... .... ....... ... ..... .... .... ....... ... ..... ....... III-3 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Assets........................................................................................................................ III-6 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances....................................... III-7 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities .............................. III-I0 Proprietary Funds Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets....................................... ................. ................................................ III-II Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets ....................................... III-12 Statement of Cash Flows.................................. .............................................. ...... ............ ..... III-I3 NOTES TO TIIE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ................................................................ ill-IS REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER TIIAN MD&A (UNAUDITED) BUDGET TO ACTUAL COMPARISON -MAJOR FUNDS (General and Special Revenue) General Fund ....... .... ... ... ....... ............ ....... ..... ........ ......... .............. ..... ..... .......... .... ....... ............. ... IV-I Okeechobee Basin SR ........................... ........ ............................ ............. ................ ..................... IV-3 State Appropriations................................................................................................................... . IV-5 NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .................................................... IV-7 1 1611 1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTD~CT A 2 ." COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) OTIIER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Nonmajor Governmental Funds Descriptions of the Nonmajor Governmental Funds ............................................................... V-I Combining Balance Sheet.... ...... .... ... ... ......... ........... ............. ... ....... ........... .... .... .... ... ............ V-4 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ................. V -12 Budget to Actual Comparison - Other Major and Nonmajor Governmental Funds Special Revenue Funds Big Cypress Basin SR ................... ................... ............. ......... ............ ............ ............. V -20 Save Our Rivers SR...... ..... ....... .... ........ .... ....... ............. ... ....... ........... ........ ....... ..... ..... V -22 Aquatic Plant Control. ........ .... ... ...... ...... .... ..... .............. .......... ....... ..... .... ... .................. V-23 Melaleuca Control...... ... ..... ....... ... ...... ... ......... ........ .... ............ ....... ..... ....... .................. V -24 Wetland Mitigation .... ........ ....... ... ...... ... .... ....... .......... ............ ............ ....... .......... ........ V -25 Indian River Lagoon Restoration... .... .... ......... ....... ........ ..... ....... .... ........ .... ...... .... ... ..... V -26 External Grants ...... ..... .... ... ...... .......... ... ......... ............ ........ .... ....... ..... ....... ...... ............ V -27 Alternative Water Supply... ... .... ............ ........................ .... ........ .... ..... ... .... .......... ... ..... V -28 Stormwater Treatment Areas - Operations and Maintenance ......................................... V-29 Lake Belt Mitigation... ........... ............... ......... ............ ............... .... ..... ....... .......... ........ V -30 Everglades License Plate........................... ..... ....................................... .......... .... ........ V -31 Lake Okeechobee Trust Fund....... ......... ......... ............... ......... ................... .................. V -32 Capital Projects Funds District CP .......... ... ... .... ..... ....... ... ..... .... ....._... ........ ....... ......... ....... ..... ....... .................. V -33 Okeechobee Basin CP .................. ......... ......... ............... ..................... ........... ............... V -34 Big Cypress Basin CP ................... ........ ......... ............... ..................... ........... ...... ........ V -36 Save Our Rivers CP... ..... ........... ............ ........... .......... ....... ............ ..... ....... .......... ........ V -37 Everglades Trust Fund.............. ............. ......... ............ ............ ....... ..... ....... .................. V -38 Federal Emergency Management Agency..................................................................... V-40 Florida Bay...... ...... ..... ....... ... ..... .... ....... .... ............. ...... ..... ....... ..... ..... ....... .......... ........ V -41 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Ad Valorem.......................................... V-42 Federal Land Acquisitions.. ... ..... .... ...... ...... ..... ....... ... ........ ....... ..... ..... ... .... ......... .... ..... V-44 Save Our Everglades. ........ ............ ........ ..................... ................... ............ .................. V -45 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Federal Funds....................................... V-46 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Other Creditable Fund........................... V -47 Acceler8 - Everglades Construction Project ..... ....... ... ......... ....... .... ..... ........ ..... ....... ..... V -48 Acceler8 - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan............................................... V-49 Permanent Fund Wetland Mitigation ........... ............. ............ ................ ............................... ............ ...... V-50 Internal SelVice Funds Descriptions of the Internal SelVice Funds.. ........ ............ ......... ......... .......... ....................... .. V-51 Combining Statement of Net Assets...... ........... ............ ........................ ........ .............. ........ V-52 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets.................. V-53 Combining Statement of Cash Flows.... .................. ...... ................................................. ..... V-54 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 1 A 2 4 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) Net Assets by Category.... ..................................... ...................... .................. ..... ....... ................... VI-2 Changes in Net Assets ............................ .............. ......... ............. ...... .......... ....... ............ .............. VI-3 Fund Balances, Governmental Funds ... ..................... .................................... ..... ................ .......... VI-5 Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds.................................... ...................................... VI-6 Revenues by Source .................... ................................................................................ .... ............ VI-8 Property Tax Revenue by County.................... ...................................................................... ...... VI-9 Direct Property Tax Rates ....... ................................... ....................................... ....... ..... ..... ....... VI-II Property Tax Collections .................................................................................. ......... ............... VI-I2 Taxable Property Values and Just Values of Taxable Property by County.................................... VI-13 Taxable Value of Property .............................................................. ........................................... VI-I4 Assessed Value Per Capita................................................ ...................... ........... ................... ..... VI-I5 Principal Property Tax Payers....... ......................................... ..................................... ............... VI-I6 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type........... ......................................... ......... ...... ......... ............... VI-I7 Pledged-Revenue Bond Coverage.... ......... ........ ......... ......... ... ........... ..... ..... ............. VI-I8 Demographic and Economic Statistics........................................................................................ VI-I9 District Population by County............ ......... ............ ..................... ................................ VI-20 Emplo}'IIlent Data............................................................................................... ....................... VI-2I Ten Largest Employers within District Boundaries ...................... .................. ..... ....... ..... .... ........ VI-22 Authorized Positions per 100,000 Population............................... ................... .... ....... ..... ............ VI-23 District Employees by Resource Area and Major Program.......................................................... VI-24 District Employees by J\lIajor Program................................................. ............... ................ ........ VI-25 Permit Applications Received.............. ............ .................................................. ................. ....... VI-26 Water Moved by District Pump Stations............... ....................... ............. ...... .... ....... ................. VI-27 Exotic Plant Control......................... ........ .... ....... .......... ............ ............ ............ ....... ................. VI-28 Prescribed Bums ................................................................................................ ....................... VI-29 Stormwater TreatInent........................................................................... ................... ...... ........... VI-30 Capital Assets by Major Program....................... ............. ................................................ ...... ..... VI-31 DISCLOSURE SECTION (UNAUDITED) SEC RULE 15c2-12 DISCLOSURES District Agreement and Effective Dates ... ......... ..... ..... ......... .......... .... ..... ..... ....... ....... ..... ....... ... ... VII-I Annual Financial Information ................................................................................................ ..... VII-2 Security for the Bonds ........... .............. ..................... ..... ................... ............ ..... ..... ..... .......... ..... VII-2 Documentary Stamp Tax .................................. .............. ................................... ......................... VII-2 Funding and Allocation of the Trust Fund ................................................................................... VII-3 Use of the Trust Fund........ ........ ........ ...... ...................... ......................... ............... ........ ............. VII-4 Escrow and Reserve Funds ..... .... ...... ............... ... ...... ... ..... ..... .... ..... .......... ..... .... .... ... ..... ....... ...... VII-4 Security for the Certificates of Participation. .............. ..................................... ..... ...... ......... ......... VII-5 Annual Debt Service Requirements...... ... ... ...... ..... .... ..... ..... .......... .... ..... ....... ..... ....... ..... ....... ...... VII-6 Audited Annual Financial Statements... ................ .............................. ..... ........ ...... .......... ............ VII-6 Required Notices. ........................................................... ...... .................. ..................... ............... VII-7 111 ............... -- ~ This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank 16 I 1 1ij2 I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lol.l.A2 ;1 INTRODUCTORY SECTION Common Cooter Turtle in the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). The Common Cooter can grow up to 12 inches in length and lives in springs and vegetated fresh water. The 7,000-acre Corkscrew Marsh Unit is the headwaters for the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed. The entire watershed, more than 60,000 acres, spans both Lee and Collier Counties and provides natural flood protection, water purification, and critical aquifer recharge. The watershed also serves as important habitat for animal species. t 1611A! QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 'iiSl tn1 WI 'll. \VI~' c/o Special District Services, Inc. a 19 ~ J.9 lU 2501 Burns Road, Suite A \m I f: \)D 'j '3 20n Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 ~~r \, .~ ' (561) 630-4922 Fax: (561) 630-4923 ,. o'U'. ..................... ill a.. .. . -< ~ E! n ~ > ;lID " ;:lO: ::0 o en ." (') -0 g :x :-. N -t .. f.::J <II .::- -u \0 April 12, 2011 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED . ? Clerk of the Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6th Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Quarry Community Development District To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please fmd a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Community Development District: 1.) Proposed 201112012 Fiscal Year Budget (Oct. 1,2011 - Sept. 30,2012) If you have any questions or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. Lf!::i~ Enclosure i ..J ~ ::::t ~..~- ~ ' ~; ~;-1 "-J;' I ~~ ~~~ .' ., ~ ~ -.."-..- ~ :-~.; .: -r. ..,-. r- v~.. t3 r.,) ~,..(t.''I It~m#; C::iJ;es (0: .!, " 16 It 1 A 1 Quarry Community Development District Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - SeptelDber 30, 2012 I, 16 I i 1 A ;~l CONTENTS PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET II PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (A BONDS) III ASSESSMENT CALCULATION IV DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET V DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (A BONDS) QY Proposed Budget Contents 2011-2012 4/11/2011 4:39 PM PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1,2011 - September 30,2012 16 I 1 Ad \ , FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 REVENUES PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET ON ROLL ADMlNISTRATlVE ASSESSMENTS 42 089 DEVElOPER DIRECT BILL ADMINISTRAllVE ASSESSMENTS 52618 ON ROLL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONDS 982 238 DEVElOPER DIRECT BILL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONDS 476,790 OTHER REVENUES 0 INTEREST INCOME 0 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1,553.735 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE 10,000 MANAGEMENT 36 000 SECRETARIAL 0 LEGAL 5000 ASSESSMENT ROLL 5,000 AUDIT FEES 5,700 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 5,500 TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING 0 INSURANCE 7800 LEGAL ADVERTISING 1,000 MISCELLANEOUS 875 POSTAGE 1,000 OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,000 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 TRUSTEE FEES 8500 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 4,000 CONTINGENCY 0 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 91.550 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 1,462,185 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (A BONDl (1,385 360 BALANCE $ 76,825 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR FEE (35,851 DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS (40973 EXCESS/SHORTFALL - CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ - Quany QY Budgets QY Budgets 2011-2012 QY Proposed Budge12011-2o12 QY Operating Fund Budgel2oll-2012 4/11/2011 4:39 PM , , , 16 Ii 1 ~1 PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (BONDS) FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1,2011 - September 30,2012 FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 REVENUES PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 0 NAV Assessment Collection 908,570 Developer Direct Bill Assessment 476,790 Total Revenues $ 1,385,360 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments - A 1 360,000 Principal Payments - A2 0 Interest Payments - A1 1,007,875 Interest Payments - A2 0 A Bond Prepayment 17,485 Total Expenditures $ 1,385,360 Excess/Shortfall $ - OuarT)' OY Budgets OY Budgets 2011-2012 OY Proposed Budget 2011-2012 OY Debt Service (Al Fund Budget 2011-2012 II 4/11/2011 4:39 PM r " \ 1 6 I 1 A 1 , Quany Community Development District Assessment Breakdown 2011-2012 Pre Special Bond Redemptions Total Assessment Grossed UD far Fees & Discount 'Net Pre SDeC~1 RedemDtions Assessments Number of Units Assessment X/O.9251 Operation & Maintenance 401 $30,851 Debt 401 $895,135 Total 401 $931,988 Post Special Bond Redemptions Number of Units for Fiscal Total O&M Grossed UD for Fees & Discount lNet O&M Operation & Mafntenance Year 2011-2012 XIO.9251 Plall2d Coach Homes 2 $184 Single Family Homes (55) 0 $0 Single Family Homes ('67) 1 $92 Single FamIly Homes (75) 30 $2,757 Single Family Homes (90) 24 $2,205 5 StCK)' Condos 0 $0 Total P~d 57 $5,238 Un.plaUed Coach Homes 146 $12,411 . Single Family Homes (55) 81 $6,885 . Single Family Homes ('67) 140 $11,901 . Single Family Homes (75) 52 $4,420 Single FamUy Homes COO) 0 $0 5 Story Condos 200 $17,001 . Total Un-Plortt2d 619 $52,618 . Total 676 $57,856 Number of Units for Fiscal Total Debt Grossed UD for Fees & Discount INet Debt !!!!!1. Year2Q11-2012 M!,llil P1aU.d Coach Homes 2 $1,384 Single Family Homes C5S) 0 $0 Single Family Homes ('67) 1 $941 Single Family Homes (75) 30 $33,405 Single Family Homes ('90) 24 $51,373 5 SIOfJ Condos 0 $0 Total P~d 57 $87,103 Un.platted Coach Homes 146 $93,440 . Single Family Hames (55) 81 $63,990 Single Family Homes C67) 140 $121,800 Single Family Homes (75) 52 $53,560 . Single Famny Homes ('90) 0 $0 . 5 Story Condos 200 $144,000 . Total Un-P~d 619 $476,790 . Total 676 $563,893 Total Gross Operating & Maintenance Assessment Number of Total Units Total Gross PI'It Soectal RedemoUon Total Gross Post Saecial Redematfon Total Gross O&M Assessments I Gross 0 & M Assessments Total 1,077 $36,851.00 $57,856.00 $94,707.00 Total Gross Debt Assessment NumberafTotal Units Total Gross Pre Soeclal RedemDtlon Total Gross Post SDecial RedemDtion Total Gross Debt Assessments I Gross Debt Assessment Total 1,077 $895,135.00 $563,892.70 $1,459,027.70 Operating & Maintenance Assessment Comparison Number of Total Units Final FY 2010 I 2011 ProDosed FY 2011/2012 1 Year Chanoe I Gross 0 & M Assessment Comparison Per Unit 1,077 $91.90 $91.90 ($0.00) Gross O&M Amounts~erunit(TotBI O&M Expenditures/1,oT7 Lots I 0.925 D&F)) = $91,90 -Note: No Fess or Discounts have to be CoDeded for Un-Platted Direct Billed Assessments. - "'- CN""":rJ,..:ca or~"'-21'~ III "11f.1l114:~"'" or__~:!ln~ - - PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30,2012 16 I 1 A 1 ~ FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 REVENUES ACTUAL ANNUAL BUDGET BUDGET COMMENTS ON ROll. ADMlNISlRAllVE ASSESSMENTS 26 684 44 295 42,089 # of Platted Lots X $85.01 /.925 DEVELOPER DIRECT BILLADMINISTRATlVE ASSESSMENTS 94,947 93 592 52,618 # of Unolatted Lots X $85.01 ON ROll. DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONOS 1,645,614 1,591,709 982,238 Pavment To Trusteel.925 DEVB..CPER DIRECT BILL DEBT ASSESSMENTS - BONDS 5,724 402 5 732,267 476 790 Estimated Payment To Trustee OTHER REVENUES 0 0 0 INTEREST INCOME 0 0 o No Chanoe From 2009/2010 Budoet TOTAL REVENUES $ 7,491,647 $ 7,461,863 $ 1,553,736 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 0 o Sunervisor Fees ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE 8,321 10,000 10000 No Chanae From 2010/2011 Budaet MANAGEMENT 39 500 36,000 36 000 $3,000 Per Month As Per Contract SECRETARIAL 1,600 0 o Not Charoed Senaratelv As Per Contract LEGAL 1,705 10 000 5,000 $5 000 Decrease From 2010/2011 Budaet ASSESSMENT ROLL 6,012 5,000 5000 As Per Contract AUDIT FEES 4975 5,700 5700 En~aDf!ment Letter Amount for 200912010 Aucit + $500 for Reimbursable ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE 5,500 5,000 5500 Actual Amount Paid in 2009/2010 TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING 2,333 0 o Line Item Eliminated INSURANCE 5000 5,000 7800 $7 500 Paid in 2010/2011 LEGAL ADVERTISING 685 2000 1000 $1000 Decrease From 2010/2011 Budaet MISCELLANEOUS 1,202 4,890 875 $4 015 Decrease From 2010/2011 Budaet POSTAGE 317 1000 1,000 No Chanae From 2010/2011 Budaet OFFICE SUPPLIES 382 1000 1,000 No Chanae From 2010/2011 Budaet DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 0 175 175 No Chanae From 2010/2011 Budaet TRUSTEE FEES 22,628 22 800 8,500 Eliminated 2 Bond Series CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE 6000 6,000 4000 Eliminated 2 Bond Series CONTINGENCY 0 20 000 o Line Item Eliminated TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 106,160 $ 134,565 $ 91,550 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 7,385.487 $ 7,327,298 $ 1462,185 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (A BONDl 17318,457 17,204598 (1,385,360 2012 Pavments to Trustee BALANCE $ 67,031 $ 122,700 $ 76,825 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COllECTOR FEE (43815 (57 260 (35 851 3.5 Percent Of Total On Roll Tax Roll DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS (18,873 (65,440 (40,973 4 Percent Of Total On Roll Tax Roll EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ 4,343 $ - $ - CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 0 o Canvover From Prior Year NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ 4,343 $ - $ - Cuany CYBurlgels CY Budgels 2011-2012 CY Proposed Bucfge12011-2012 CY Opelllting Fund Budge12011-2012 IV 4/1112011 4:39 PM .... : . .' 16 I lA 1 PROPOSED BUDGET QUARRY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (A BONDS) FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 2011/2012 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 0 o Projected Interest For FY 2011/2012 NAV Assessment Collection 1,472,331 908,570 Net Debt Service Collection Developer Direct Bill Assessment 2,706,692 476,790 Net Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 4,179,023 $ 1,385,360 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments - A 1 965,000 360,000 Amortzation Schedule Principal Payment Due In 2012 Principal Payments - A2 70,000 o Bonds Retired by Special Redemption in 2011 Interest Payments - A1 2,960,513 1,007,875 Amortzation Schedule Interest Payments Due In 2012 Interest Payments - A2 183,510 o Bonds Retired by Special Redemption in 2011 A Bond Redemption 0 $ 17,485 Estimated Escess Debt Collections Total Expenditures $ 4,179,023 $ 1,385,360 Excess/Shortfall $ - $ - Quarry QY Budgets QY Budgets 2011-2012 QY Proposed Budget 2011-2012 QY Debt Service (Al Fund Budget 2011-2012 v 4/11/2011 4:39 PM ~I,\ q,eAJ- y-vt\.LU1-1~ hahtury ~ /'f\~. V6rr. ti- r'- SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 161 1 Al .. ;,1 ., April 1 , 2011 m~f~~~~l~m Chairperson Board of County Commissioners Collier County 2671 Airport Road, South, Suite 203 Naples, Florida 34112 BY: ....................... Dear Chairperson: Pursuant to FLORIDA STATUTE 373.586 we have enclosed the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) CD for the South Florida Water Management District. If you require a hard copy version please e-mail your request to cflierl@sfwmd.Qov. or you may send your request by mail to: South Florida Water Management District AUn: Chris Flierl, Director Accounting & Financial Services Division P. O. Box 24680, MSC 6230 West Palm Beach FL 33416-4680 The South Florida Water Management District welcomes any comments or questions regarding the CAFR. Please direct inquiries to me at the address noted above. Sin~p Christian Flierl, Director Accounting & Financial Services Division CF/kk Misc. C<<res: Date: oS l D It&M f.: f to 1.( 1 C':'D::3 'lCJ: 3301 Gun Oub Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561) 686-8800 . FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 Mailing Address: P,O, Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 . www.sfwmd.gov I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161Jl/fJe COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT -- ;~J------I '--.I,I'----I-~!~! ~ SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT A Component Unit of the State of Florida Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010 Prepared by Accounting and Financial Services Division Christian Flier!, Director I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161i1 A2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT COl\1PREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION LETlER. OF 1RAN'SMITT AL ................. ...... ............... ........ ............................ ....... ............ ....... ........ ..1-1 ORGANIZATION CHART AND LIST OF PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS ...................................................1-9 GFOA CERTIFICATE OF ACIIIEVEMENT ........................ .......................................... ..... ...... .........1-10 MAP OF TIffi GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF TIIE DIS1RICT ...................................................1-11 FINANCIAL SECTION REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS............................................. II-I MANAGEIvlENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (MD&A) (UNAUDITED)................................. II-3 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL STAlE:MENTS Statement of Net Assets ........ ................... ................. ..... ....... .............................. ................ ......... ill-I Statement of Activities... ....... .... ......... ....... ..... ...... ..... ..... ........ ..... ........... ....... ...... ...... ..... ..... ......... ill-2 FUND FINANCIAL STATillvlENTS Governmental Funds Financial Statements Balance Sheet............. ........ ... .... ... ..... ...... .......... ........ ......... ..... ..... ..... ......... .... .......... ...... .... .... ill-3 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement of Net Assets................... ................................................................ ..................................... ill-6 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances....................................... ill- 7 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities .............................. ill-l0 Proprietary Funds Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets ........................................................................................................ ill-II Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets ....................................... ill-12 Statement of Cash Flows... ....... ....... ... ......... ... ........... ... .... ..... .......... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ...... .... ..... ill-13 NOTES TO TIffi BASIC FINANCIAL STAlEMENTS ................................................................ ill-15 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTIffiR THAN :MD&A (UNAUDITED) BUDGET TO ACTUAL COMPARISON -1'vIAJORFUNDS (General and Special Revenue) General Fund ....... ....... ... ....... ....... ....... ... ......... ..... .... ....... ...... ..... .......... ......... .... ... .... ..... ........ ..... . IV-I Okeechobee Basin SR ...................................................................... ............... ..... .......... ............. IV-3 State Appropriations.... ..................... .................................................................... ....................... IV-5 NOTES TO REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .................................................... IV-7 1 16 I 1 1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTDISnd.CT A 2 ,oil COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEl\1BER30, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINANCIAL SECTION (Continued) OTHER. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Nonmajor Governmental Funds Descriptions of the Nonrnajor Governmental Funds ............................................................... V-I Combining Balance Sheet...... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ....... ..... ... ......... ...... ............. ........... ..... ....... ........ V-4 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances .... ....... ... ... V -12 Budget to .Actual Comparison - Other Major and Nonmajor Governmental Funds Special Revenue Funds Big Cypress Basin SR ................................................. ...... ............... ........................... V -20 Save Our Rivers SR..... ........ ... ......... ... ...... ........ ...... .... ............ ......... ......... ........ .......... V -22 Aquatic Plant Control.... .............................................. .................. .............................. V-23 Melaleuca Control... ..... .... ....... ........ .... ........ ...... .... ...... ...... ...... ...... .................... ... ....... V -24 Wetland Mitigation.. ......... ...... ......... ... .............. .... ...... ............ ...... ...... .... ... ....... .......... V -25 Indian River Lagoon Restoration....... ... ... ........... ...... ...... .......... ......... ... ....... ....... .......... V -26 External Grants ................ ............... .... ................. ....... ............ ........... ............ ....... ...... V -27 Alternative Water Supply. ................ ......... ....... ..... ..... ............. ........... ......................... V -28 Stormwater Treatment Areas - Operations and Maintenance ......................................... V-29 Lake Belt Mitigation............ ................................................... ............ ....... ................. V -30 Everglades License Plate......... .................................... .............................. .................. V -31 Lake Okeechobee Trust Fund.. ............ ...... ..... ............. ...... ...... ...u. ...... ........................ V -32 Capital Projects Funds District CP ...... ........ ................ ............ ........................ ........... ............ ..... .................... V -33 Okeechobee Basin CP ............. ............ .................................... ............ ........................ V -34 Big Cypress Basin CP .......... ............................. .......... ................................................ V -36 Save Our Rivers CP...... ....................... ...... ............ ...... ............ ........... ......................... V -37 Everglades Trust Fund....... ..... ................... ................. ....... ............ ..... ..... .................... V -38 Federal Emergency Management Agency..... ... ... ...... .... ........ .... ...... ................. ... ...... .... V-4O Florida Bay.. ..... .... ........ ... ............ ... ...... ...... ..... .... ... ...... .... ...... ...... ..... ..... ... ....... .......... V -41 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Ad Valorem.......................................... V -42 Federal Land Acquisitions ............. ........ .... ....... ........................................................... V-44 Save Our Everglades ..... ..... .... ...... ......... .... ..... ............... .......... ...... ..... ..... ....... ... ... ....... V -45 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Federal Funds....................................... V-46 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Other Creditable Fund........................... V -47 Acceler8 - Everglades Construction Project ................................................................. V -48 Acceler8 - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan............................................... V -49 Permanent Fund Wetland Mitigation .... .................. ..... .... ......... .................. ....... ........... ....... ........ ......... . V-50 Internal SelVice Funds Descriptions of the Internal Service Funds..... ....................... ...................... ............ ............. V-51 Combining Statement of Net Assets ............. ........ ................ ..... ..... ........... ............ ............ . V-52 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets.................. V-53 Combining Statement of Cash Flows............ ........ ............... ........... ........... ........... .... ......... . V-54 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I 161 1 A 2 4 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPfEMBER30, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATISTICAL SECTION (UNAUDITED) Net Assets by Category................. .... ................................................ ............................. ......... ..... VI-2 Changes in Net Assets........................ ........................... ............................. ........ ...... ..... .............. VI-3 Fund Balances, Governmental Funds ................... ....................... ................ ........ ...... ..... ......... ..... VI-5 Changes in Fund Balances, Governmental Funds.. ....................... ..... ........ ..... ..... ....... ......... .......... VI-6 Revenues by Source. .......................................................................................................... ......... VI-8 Property Tax Revenue by County.................... ................ .................................. ................. ......... VI-9 Direct Property Tax Rates ..... ........................................................................................ ..... ....... VI-II Property Tax Collections .................... .......................... ........................ ....... ..... ........................ VI-I2 Taxable Property Values and Just Values of Taxable Property by County.................................... VI-13 Taxable Value of Property ......... ............................................................................... ................. VI-I4 Assessed Value Per Capita.......................................................................... ....... ........................ VI-IS Principal Property Tax Payers................. ......... .................................................... ..... .......... ....... VI-I6 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type........................................................................................... VI-I7 Pledged-Revenue Bond Coverage... . ........... .... ........... .. . . .. . . . ............ . . .. .. ... ... ............. VI-I8 Demographic and Economic Statistics....................................................................... ................. VI-I9 District Population by County...................................................... ................................ VI-20 Employment Data....................................................................................... ........ ........... ............ VI-2I Ten Largest Employers within District Boundaries .............. ........ ................ ........ ...... ..... ............ VI-22 Authorized Positions per 100,000 Population................................................. ...... ...... ..... ............ VI-23 District Employees by Resource Area and Major Program .......................................................... VI-24 District Employees by Major Program................ ................ ............... ........................ ..... ............ VI-25 Permit Applications Received ....... .... ........ .... ..... ........ ..... ........ ...... ..... ........... ... ......... ..... .... ..... ... VI-26 Water Moved by District Pump Stations................. ......... ............. ................. ...... ...... ................. VI-27 Exotic Plant Control................ ...................... ........ ......... .................. ...... ........ ...... ..... ..... ...... ..... VI-28 Prescribed Bums ..................... ....................................... ........... ........................ ........................ VI-29 Stormwater Treatment............................................................................................................... VI-30 Capital Assets by Major Program........................................................... .................................... VI-3I DISCLOSURE SECTION (UNAUDITED) SEC RULE I5c2-I2 DISCLOSURES District Agreement and Effective Dates............. .............. .............................. ..... .......... ............... VII-I Annual Financial Information .... ............................ ............... ..... ............. ............... ...... ............... VII-2 Security for the Bonds ............ .......... ....... ...... ..... ......... ................... .......................... ............. ..... VII-2 Documentary Stamp Tax..................... ............ ........................... ........................ ........................ VII-2 Funding and Allocation of the Trust Fund ................................................................................... VII-3 Use of the Trust Fund... ........ .................. ....................... ................... ............... ......... ............ ...... VII-4 Escrow and Reserve Funds.... ....... ....... ... ............. ...... .... ........... ... ...... .... ....... ..... ............. ...... ...... VII-4 Security for the Certificates of Participation.. ......................... ...................................................... VII-5 Annual Debt Service Requirements .... ....... .... ...... .... ....... ....... ..... ............... .... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ...... VII-6 Audited Annual Financial Statements. ............ ..... ........ ...... ..... .... ....... ........ .... ..... ....... ..... ..... ........ VII-6 Required Notices................................ ........ ................ ...................... ................... .......... ......... .... VII-7 111 ~- ~ This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank 1611 1ij2 I I I I I I I I I: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lOI.LA2 ,t INTRODUCTORY SECTION Common Cooter Turtle in the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). The Common Cooter can grow up to 12 inches in length and lives in springs and vegetated fresh water. The 7,000-acre Corkscrew Marsh Unit is the headwaters for the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed. The entire watershed, more than 60,000 acres, spans both Lee and Collier Counties and provides natural flood protection, water purification, and critical aquifer recharge. The watershed also serves as important habitat for animal species. I I e 1611A2 4 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I I TO: Governing Board Members and Carol Ann Wehle, Executive Director SUBJECT: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - Fiscal Year 2010 I Florida Statutes require an external audit of the financial statements be performed by a firm of independent certified public accountants to express an opinion that the basic financial statements of the South Florida Water Management District (the "District") are fairly presented in conformance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). Pursuant to this requirement, the comprehensive annual financial report for the District is hereby issued for the fiscal year ended September 30,2010. I I Responsibility for the integrity, objectivity, accuracy, completeness and fairness of presentation of thcse basic financial statements rests with management. The basic financial statements were prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles for governmental entities. Management believes the information to be accurate in all material respects and fairly presents the District's fmancial position and operating results. The report includes disclosures required to provide an understanding of the District's .financial affairs. I I Management is responsible for maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that District assets are protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that the cost of a control should not exceed the expected benefits, and the evaluation of costs and benefits requires management's estimates. The Governing Board and management have a plan of organization and policies in place to safeguard assets, validate the reliability of accounting data, promote operational efficiency, and encourage adherence to prescribed managerial policies and procedures. District management believes these existing internal accounting controls adequately safeguard assets and provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance of proper recording and reporting of District finances. I I Independent auditors have audited the basic financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and included a review of internal accounting controls to the extent necessary to express an opinion on the fairness of these basic financial statements. The independent auditors concluded, based upon the audit, that there was a reasonable basis for rendering an unqualified opinion that the South Florida Water Management District's basic fmancial statements for the fIScal year ended September 30, 2010 are fairly presented in accordance with GAAP. The independent auditors' report is presented as the first component of the financial section (Section IT) of this report. I I I The independent audit of the District's basic financial statements was part of a broader federal and state mandated "Single Audit" designed to meet the special needs of federal and state grantor agencies. The standards governing Single Audit engagements require the independent auditors to report not only on the fair presentation ofthe basic fmancial statements, but also on the District's internal controls and compliance with legal requirements, with special emphasis on internal controls and legal requirements involving the administration of federal awards and state financial assistance. These reports are available in the District's separately issued Single Audit Report. I I Generally accepted accounting principles require that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic fmancial statements in the form of Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The District's MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors. I I 3301 Gun Oub Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561) 686-8800 . FL W AT51-800-432-2045 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 . www.sfwmd.gov I I-I 1611A2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT BACKGROUND South Florida's subtropical extremes of hurricane, flood, and drought combined with efforts to populate this "new frontier" led the U.S. Congress to adopt legislation creating the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project in 1948. The project's primary goal was to serve the needs ofthe region's growing agricultural and urban populations and to protect and manage water resources. The United States Army Corps of Engineers would, over the following decades, design and build a vast network of levees, canals, water control structures, and other improved waterways designed to help manage the often unpredictable weather extremes of the region. In 1949 the Florida Legislature created the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District (FCD) to act as the local sponsor for the project, operating and maintaining the water control network with funding from property taxes levied within the District bOlmdaries. Throughout its history, this regional water resource agency evolved and grew primarily in response to population growth and development and their impact on water resources. The Florida Water Resources Act of 1972 launched the most significant change in the state's approach to natural resource management. This legislation divided the state into five regional water management districts and greatly expanded the responsibilities of the existing FCD. This included a greater emphasis on water quality and environmental protection initiatives. The FCD was renamed the South Florida Water Management District (the "District") in 1976, and new boundaries were drawn to encompass the region's primary watersheds. Since 1949, the District has grown into a multi-faceted agency responsible for most water resource related issues - from providing flood protection and water supply protection to people living in cities and on farms to restoring and managing natural ecosystems. The District's Governing Board is composed of nine members appointed from specific geographic areas within District boundaries. The members are appointed by the Governor and are confirmed by the Florida Senate. Appointments are made on a staggered basis and members serve without salary for a term of four years. The Board elects its own officers, including a chairman and vice-chairman. GEOGRAPHICBOUNDAmlliSOFTHED~TRICT Water management district boundaries are based on natural, hydrological basins rather than political or county limits to allow for effective and efficient planning and management. The boundaries of the District encompass all or part of 16 south Florida counties, covering a total area of 17,930 square miles. Approximately 7.6 million people live within the District's boundaries. A map showing the geographic boundaries ofthe District can be found on page 1-11. GENERAL OPERATIONS The District's water management system includes roughly 1,969 miles of maintained canals and levees along with more than 500 primary water control structures operated by the District. Nearly 2,000 smaller structures are in place system-wide to control inflows from secondary sources (local, municipal, or county drainage and/or water control districts) into the District's primary system The District has approximately 60 pumping stations which can move hundreds of millions of gallons of water in and out of storage areas, providing both water supply and flood protection. 1-2 .1 I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16J lA2 -/ I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I The man-made water management system undergoes continuous enlargement and refinement with new construction., acquisitions, and upgrades to the existing network. This enhances the system's ability to provide flood control and water supply protection as well as preserve water quality and environmental values. I District employees are located at facilities across the 16 county jurisdiction to offer the public more direct and responsive access to permitting and other agency functions. These locations include eight Field Stations located in St. Cloud, Okeechobee, Clewiston., West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Homestead, and Naples. District headquarters are in West Palm Beach with Service Centers located in Plantation., Fort Myers, Naples, Stuart, Miami, Orlando, Okeechobee, and Key Largo. I I The Big Cypress Basin Branch Office and Field Station are headquartered in Naples. Operations and policies for the Basin are directed by a six-member Basin Board and are carried out by Basin staff, under the direction of the Basin Administrator. I REGULATORY POWERS I The District has a number of regulatory programs designed to protect the region's water resources. Under the state's 1993 environmental streamlining initiative, land alteration activities or works affecting water resources are regulated under one type of permit - the Environmental Resource Permit. The water management districts and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection have developed uniform wetland delineation., mitigation banking, and environmental resource permitting criteria. The District is also responsible for regulating consumptive uses of water. Types of activities regulated by the District include: I I · projects with impacts on wetlands or other surface waters (dredge and fIll), · use of District lands, canals, streams or aquifers, I · drainage system construction or operation., and · well construction. I OTHER DISTRICT PROGRAMS I I The District's responsibilities reach far beyond regulatory programs and operations. The District acquires, manages, and restores lands for the conservation and preservation of water resources as well as for the ancillary benefit of public recreations. I Water resource education targeted at schools and at the general public is an important District focus. Partnerships and coordination with other levels of government and other agencies help support water resource development projects, development of alternative water supplies, water conservation., reuse, and stormwater management goals. I Research, data collection., and analysis help ensure District projects and programs are effective and efficient. Emergency operations and management are a cornerstone of District operations, especially during the hurricane season., or the seven-month dry season when serious water shortages can occur. The District is also a leader in melaleuca, aquatic weed, and other exotic pest plant control. I I I 1-3 1611A2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REGIONAL ECONOMIC CONDITION AND OUTLOOK Conditions in the local economy affect the District's ability to generate revenues. This is because the District's primary revenue is from ad valorem taxes, which are property taxes based on assessed values of property in the region. Population growth and the associated construction of housing and commercial structures along with unemployment and interest rates are the primary factors that contribute to changes in property prices, which result in adjustments to assessed values. Population growth within the District's geographic boundaries has increased during the recent fiscal year, with a 0.8 percent increase, compared to a 0.5 percent (as adjusted) decrease for the prior year. The District's population is expected to steadily increase from the 2010 rate at an average of 1.0 percent per year over the next five years, with the largest numerical increases occurring in Miami-Dade, Lee, and Palm Beach Counties and the highest percentage growth rates occurring in Osceola, S1. Lucie and Lee Counties, according to data published by the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research. Florida's economic conditions, similar to economic conditions nationwide, are projected to continue their decline into 2011 and possibly beyond. The October 2010 unemployment rate for Florida was 11.6 percent compared to 11.5 percent (as adjusted) from a year ago; and 9.7 percent for the entire United States compared to 10.1 percent (as adjusted) from a year ago. This increase in state unemployment coupled with other economic indicators, such as the slowing housing market and increased rate of foreclosures will translate into continued reductions to property values in 2011. While the District-adopted ad valorem millage rates were not increased for fiscal year 2010, the fiscal year 2010 budget reflected a 12.4 percent reduction in ad valorem property taxes. This reflects a decrease of $65.3 million, or 12.4 percent, from fiscal year 2009. This decrease is attributable primarily to the devaluation of property values within the District's 16 counties. The District's ad valorem revenue growth is limited by the Property Tax Reduction and Reform bill passed by the Florida Legislature in June 2007, which required a reduction in taxes by all local governments and special taxing districts from three to nine percent, depending on their past per capita tax increases. This legislation also limited future year revenues by setting more stringent Governing Board voting requirements to increase agency millage rates. The District has taken steps to prepare for potential terrorism, economic downturns and catastrophic weather events by establishing an Economic Stabilization Reserve. As of September 30, 2010, the economic stabilization reserve was $24.1 million. MAJOR INITIATIVES EVERGLADES RESTORATION Florida's Everglades are the largest subtropical wetlands in the United States and are a unique resource. The Everglades "River of Grass" contains a diversity of plants and wildlife not found anywhere else in the United States. For more than a century, human activities have altered the ecosystem to provide for the development of a growing population, agriculture, and protection against deadly hurricanes and droughts. Today, the Everglades face critical challenges as a result of more than 100 years of human progress. Phosphorus-enriched agricultural and stormwater runoff has threatened the ecosystem's delicate balance. Other threats include changes in the quantity, distribution, and timing of freshwater; an infestation of non- native plants and animals; mercury accumulation in the tissue of some Everglades fish, birds, and other animals; and a reduction in the size ofthe Everglades marshes. 1-4 ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 1 A 2 , I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I The Everglades Forever Act (EF A), passed by the Florida Legislature in 1994, directed the District to acquire land, design, permit, and construct a series of Stonnwater Treatment Areas (STAs) to reduce phosphorus levels from stormwater runoff and other sources before it enters the Everglades Protection Area. The District implemented the Everglades Construction Project and the Everglades Restoration Program in order to meet the requirements of the Everglades Forever Act. In 2003, the Everglades Forever Act was amended, requiring the implementation of the Long- T enn Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals in the Everglades Protection Area (Long-TennPlan). The Everglades Construction Project (ECP) was the first major step in Everglades restoration pursuant to the 1994 Everglades Forever Act. The STAs, which consist of six. large constructed wetlands, totaling over 52,000 acres of effective treatment area, are the cornerstone of the ECP. Other ECP components include hydropattern improvements and diversion of stormwater flows from Lake Okeechobee. Operations and maintenance of the ST As and other features of the ECP have commenced upon completion of each individual project. The latest data indicates that over the past fifteen years, phosphorus control programs consisting of Stormwater Treatment Areas and best farming/management practices together have prevented over 3,500 metric tons of phosphorus from entering the Everglades. I I I I The Long-Term Plan, which builds upon and expands the ECP, contains activities to achieve Everglades water quality goals and to permit the State of Florida and the District to fulfill their obligations under both the Everglades Forever Act and the federal Everglades Settlement Agreement. The success of the Long-term Plan is predicated upon using an adaptive implementation approach, whereby the best available information is used to develop and implement incremental improvement measures as their need and utility is confirmed. I The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is a 30-year plan which provides the framework for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the naturally occurring water resources of the central and southern Florida region which originate in the Everglades. As the plan's major local sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District has partnered with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to implement CERP, the goal of which is to increase water storage and improve the timing, quality, and distribution of water deliveries to the Everglades ecosystem. Principal features of the plan are the creation of new reservoirs and wetlands-based water treatment areas, I I I The United States Congress approved CERP in 2000, under the Water Resources Development Act, authorizing ten initial full-scale projects along with six. pilot projects. Implementation is currently estimated to cost $12.5 billion, according to the 2007-2008 CERP Update to the Public, half of which will be paid by the federal government. Through 2010, the State of Florida and the District hl\ve invested approximately $2.4 billion towards this effort, which includes approximately $315.0 million in construction. I I During 2005, the District launched Acceler8, an expedited initiative to be rmanced by Certificates of Participation to revitalize the ecosystem by increasing the pace on eight restoration projects included in the CERP and Everglades plans. Through fiscal year 2010, proceeds from the certificates totaling $420.9 million have been utilized to reimburse construction costs related to the projects. I On October 12, 2010, the District completed the acquisition of land from United States Sugar Corporation for Everglades restoration. The acquisition will provide access to land for restoration and water quality improvement projects. Under the terms of the agreement, the District purchased approximately 27,200 acres ofland for $194.0 million in cash and received options to purchase up to 153,200 additional acres over the next ten years. The initial 27,200 acres ofland comprises 18,300 acres located in Hendry County and 8,900 acres located in Palm Beach County. I I I I 1-5 16' lA 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAKE OKEECHOBEE The Lake Okeechobee Project is a multi-year, multi-component project which is designed to improve Lake Okeechobee and its estuaries by reducing excess nutrient loading, managing water levels, and reducing or eliminating exotic plant species. In 2000, the Florida State Legislature passed the Lake Okeechobee Protection BilL which required the District, in partnership with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to restore the lake and its watershed. In 2007, the project was further extended under the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection legislation. This legislation, which expanded the existing Lake Okeechobee Protection Bill to include the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers and Estuaries, addressed both water quality and water storage needs. Total expenditures for the Lake Okeechobee Project for fiscal year 2010 totaled $32.7 million, including $8.3 million in capital outlay. KISSIMMEE BASIN RESTORATION In 1947, some 250,000 acres were flooded in and south of the cities of Kissimmee and Orlando. In 1962, in an attempt to keep these cities protected from further destruction, the United States Army Corps of Engineers dredged the Kissimmee River, turning it from 103 miles of winding river into a 56-mile long canal. The environmental devastation of the dredging was staggering. Native vegetation disappeared, as did animals dependent upon it for food, nesting, and shelter. Of the original 40,000 acres of wetlands, only 10,000 remained. In 1976, the Legislature created a commission to study restoration of the river. After years of studies and experimenting with ways to restore the river, a plan evolved to fill 22 continuous miles of the canal with the original spoil material, forcing the water into the historic river channel and floodplain. The project also calls for removing two of the six dams and locks along the canal. When finished, 43 miles of the historic river and approximately 40 square miles of river/floodplain ecosystem will be restored. The state and federal governments will split the estimated $620 million cost to restore the river. The United States Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the construction and the design of the restoration. Thc District has completed all voluntary acquisitions of the approximate 105,000 acres of land needed for the Project. Currently, the District is in the process of complex settlement negotiations, condemnation and/or engineering solutions relating to a remaining estimated 1,900 acres. 1-6 i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161/1AE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 4 I FINANCIAL POLICIES I PRINCIPLES OF SOUND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT I Management acknowledges its responsibility for sound administration of the District's financial resources. This responsibility begins with Principles of Sound Financial Management. These are sixteen guiding principles established by the Governing Board that reflect core business beliefs of the District. One of the principles states that the District will maintain accountability and prudently use fmancial resources. As an integral part of the goal of fiscal accountability, management currently provides useful, timely, and accurate financial information for reporting, analysis, and decision making. The objective of this report is to clearly communicate the agency's operating results and financial position. I I BUDGET ADOPTION AND CONTROLS I The Truth-in-Millage (TRIM) Act enacted by state legislation requires disclosures of information regarding tax millage and budget adoption. Each year, following the required disclosures and two statutorily required public hearings, the Governing Board sets millage rates and adopts a budget. I The District's level of budgetary control, defined as the lowest level at which management may not reallocate resources without approval of the Governing Board, is at the program level ,vithin a fund and resource area. The Governing Board also approves budget transfers among departments and capital projects during the year. Encumbrance accounting is used to reserve budgeted appropriations for obligations incurred but not received. I I RISK MANAGEMENT I During fiscal year 2010, the District established a self-insurance program for health benefits, including medical, dental and vision coverage, for its employees and retirees who choose to remain within the plan. The District is also self-insured, within varying limits, for workers' compensation, general liability, and automobile liability insurance programs. All premium revenue and claims expenditures are reported in the District's Self-Insurance Fund and Health Benefits Fund, both internal service funds. I I I DEBT ADMINISTRATION I The largest portion of the District's debt is comprised of the unpaid balance of revenue bonds referred to as Certificates of Participation, (COPS) Series 2006, and to a lesser extent, the unpaid balance of Special Obligation Land Acquisition Bonds. The certificates were issued to provide funds for the construction of accelerated projects in furtherance of Everglades restoration. Land acquisition bonds were issued to finance the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands and are secured by a share of statewide documentary stamp tax collections. At September 30,2010, the District's COPS were rated AAJ, AA+, and AA by Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings, respectively, and the District's Land Acquisition Bonds, Series 2002 and 2003, were rated A2, A+, and A by Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings, respectively. The total liability for the revenue bonds and the land acquisition bonds at September 30,2010 is $520.1 million and $36.2 million, respectively. The District is obligated for payments on the COPS through fiscal year 2037, and on the bonds through fiscal year 2016. I I I I 1-7 16 I lA I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I New legislation passed by the Florida Legislature in 2009 limits the District's annual debt service for revenue bonds to an amount not to exceed 20.0 percent of annual ad valorem tax revenues of the District, unless otherwise approved by the Joint Legislative Budget Commission. Bonds issued and outstanding before January 1,2009, are exempt from this statute and are not included in the calculation of this limitation. I CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING I The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the South Florida Water Management District for its comprehensive annual financial repOlt for the fiscal year ended September 30,2009. This was the twentieth consecutive year the District has achieved this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial repOlt, satisfying both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. I I A Celtificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. Management believes that the current comprehensive annual financial report continues to meet the Celtificate of Achievement Program's requirements and we are submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another celtificate. I I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Management extends its sincere appreciation to the many District employees who provided countless hours of research and analysis in the preparation of this report. Special thanks go to the employees of the Division of Accounting and Financial Services for their diligence in the production of this report. I Respectfully submitted, rJ ~~~ ~\ ~~~c:&, . ~ , . Paul E. umars, Sr., Chief Financial Officer March 24, 2011 GIt)) I I Christian Flierl, Director Division of Accounting and Financial Services I I I I I I I 1-8 I I 1611A2 I ORGANIZATION CHART AND LIST OF PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS - '1 ~LECTORATE~ I I GOVERNOR I I I I .. GOVERNING BOARD " I John Williams Inspector General Eric Buermann, Chair Sandy Batchelor Charles J. Dauray Kevin Powers ~ Vacant Jerry Montgomery, Vice Chair Joe Collins Shannon A Estenoz GlennJ. Waldman BIG CYPRESS BASIN BOARD CharlesJ. Dauray, Chair Pam Mac'Kie John Sorey Noah Standridge Fred Thomas John Vauglm I I Carol Wehle Executive Director I I I Office Of Counsel Tom Olliff Assistant Executive Director Chief Financial Officer -. Operations & Everglades Regulatory & Public Restoration & Corporate Resources Maintenance Capital Projects Affairs I I I .ri Central Field Policy & Intergovernmental Operations Coordination Programs Operations Control Land Acquisition Information Environmental & Hydro Data Technology Resource Management ER Engineering Regulations North Field Hydrological & Human Resources Water Supply Operations Environment Procurement Management Vegetation & Land Systems Modeling Finance & Federal & Tribal Management ER Construction Administration Coordination South Field Restoration State Coordination Operations Sciences Public Information I I I I I I I I I 1-9 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting 161 1 A 2 Presented to South Florida Water Management District For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009 A Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest . standards in government accounting and financial reporting. ~ ~-;;P' President ~/~ Executive Director 1-10 f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I South Florida Water Management District Geographic Boundaries . : Orlando .ORAN-GE -Ii !- L ;,.; "~-:J ,~~} .? 'u':cJ .' J :, ~ ~ : ~,' :~, Gulf of Mexico Fort Myers PALM BEACH N<iples Atlantic Ocean Wut Palm Beach COLLIER BROWARDFt. , l<iuderdale 10,000 ISLANDS MONB~E; MIAMIl DADE Homestead Miami Big Cypress Basin . - , -"1 I~'j' Oke.echobee __~ Basin FJofld~ &y FLORIDA KEYS Key West 161 1 A 2 The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) encompasses all or part* of16 counties: Broward Charlotte* Collier Miami-Dade Glades Hendry Highlands* Lee Martin Momoe Okeechobee* Orange* 1-11 Osceola* Palm Beach Polk:* 81. Lucie I 1611A2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ - ~~ This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank I -12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161;1 A2 t , FINANCIAL SECTION The Great Egret is one of 15 species of wading birds native to Florida, including herons, bitterns, roseate spoonbills and wood storks. The Great Egret lives in the marshes and sandbars of Florida and stands over three feet high with a wingspan of more than four feet. The District continues to monitor these and other wading birds since they are good "indicator species." Wading birds are able to track food densities and water levels across large areas ofthe Everglades, because they fly long distances and are quick to visit places where other birds are feeding. Wading birds exemplify the critical connection between Everglades animals and water. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I McGladmy 8: Pull,,", LLP Certlfkd Puoh.: I\c(~'unt,)nt.=. ! McGladrey 161.1 A2 1 Independent Auditors' Report To the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the South Florida Water Management District (the District), a component unit of the State of Florida, as of and for the year ended September 30, 2010, which collectively comprise the Districfs basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the District's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence s!JPporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, each major fund and the aggregate remaining fund information of the District as of September 30, 2010, and the respective changes in financial position for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued, under separate cover, our report dated March 24, 2011 on our consideration of the District's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. The Management's Discussion and Analysis, other post-employment benefit plan schedules of employer contributions and funding progress, and the budgetary comparison schedules - general fund, Okeechobee basin SR fund, and state appropriations fund are not a required part of the basic financial statements but are supplementary information required by the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion on it. r,1cG'~d{t!y I~. th<} br..~r'ld llf>r:!'2r \'Jh~,:h Asr~' j';,'!cGtdr>:'y.lm., 4lild McGlaurey .?r Pull.:m.llP ';Grve c1ient5'bmlness n~,'?dlj Tiw t\"o'O fium o~crJtC? ,:j<; ">\!(J..1r.3tE> leg~l r:-Jltltil?S in c1n ,)Iterrutiv.~ pr.Jctlce o;lru~tlm? l\l2mber 01 n$~~11\1rt'rn;ltH)n.~' r.d,;,clrr" ,lIF'I\.'.i~rl( tli Ind::-pconu.:;:nt de(r-.Hmtiil,). t,)J' ,~nd t:'Y,\-::IJlhllj rlUfl',: II-I 161 1 A2 Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the District's basic financial statements. The introductory section, combining and individual fund financial statements, budgetary comparison schedules, the statistical and disclosure section, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements. The combining and individual fund financial statements and budgetary comparison schedules have been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, are fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The introductory, statistical and disclosure sections, have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them. &~/ /~/ L~? West Palm Beach, Florida March 24,2011 II -2 ill I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTDISTRICJ 6 III A;: MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 ~ I I Management's discussion and analysis of the South Florida Water Management District's fmancial performance provides an overview of the District's financial activities for the fiscal year ended September 30,2010. Please read it in conjunction with the transmittal letter beginning on page I-I and the District's basic financial statements, which begin on page III-I. I FINANCIAL IDGHLIGHTS I · District assets exceeded liabilities at the close of fiscal year 2010 by approximately $4.5 billion. · Net assets increased approximately 4.0 percent during the year, from $4.4 billion at September 30, 2009 to $4.5 billion at September 30, 2010, an increase of$176.2 million. I · At the end of the current fiscal year, unreserved fund balance for the General Fund was $76.7 million, or about 50.3 percent of total General Fund expenditures. I · The District's total capital assets increased by $165.0 million during the current fiscal ycar. This increase resulted primarily from construction of various projects. I OVERVIEW OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the District's basic financial statements. The District's basic financial statements are comprised of three components: 1) government- wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. This report also includes other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. I Government-wide financial statements I The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of the District's finances, in a manner similar to a private-sector business. There are two basic government-wide financial statements: the statement of net assets and the statement of activities. Both basic government-wide financial statements are presented using the economic resources measurement focus and the accmal basis of accounting. I I The statement of net assets presents information on all of the District's assets and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the District is improving or deteriorating. I The statement of activities presents information showing how the government's net assets changed during the most recent fiscal year. All changes in net assets are reported as soon as the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Thus, revenues and expenses are reported in this statement for some items that will only result in cash flows in future fiscal periods (e.g., uncollected taxes and earned but unused vacation leave). I The government-wide financial statements can be found on pages ill-I to ill-2 of this report. I I I II - 3 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 I 161~lA2 I I Fund financial statements A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The District, like other state and local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. The District maintains governmental funds and proprietary funds. I I Governmental funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. However, unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating a government's near-term financing requirements. I I Because the focus of governmental funds is narrower than that of the government-wide financial statements, it is useful to compare the information presented for governmental funds with similar information presented for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. By doing so, readers may better understand the long-term impact of the government's near-term financing decisions. Both the governmental funds balance sheet and the governmental funds statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate this comparison between governmental funds and governmental activities. I I The District maintains 30 individual governmental funds. Information is presented separately in the governmental funds balance sheet and in the governmental funds statement of revenues, expenditures, and changes in fund balances for the General Fund, Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund, State Appropriations Fund, Everglades Trust Fund, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Fund, Save Our Everglades Fund, and AccelerS Everglades Construction Project Fund, all of which are considered to be major funds. Data from the other 23 governmental funds are combined into a single, aggregated presentation. The basic governmental fund financial statements can be found on pages ill-3 to III-IO of this report. I I Individual fund data for each of the 23 non-major governmental funds is provided in the form of combining statements on pages V -4 to V-18 of this report. I Proprietary funds are used to account for essentially the same functions reported as governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements, which are in a manner similar to a private-sector business. Similar to the government-wide financial statements, proprietary fund financial statements focus on both short-term and long-term financial information. Proprietary fund financial statements consist of a statement of net assets, a statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in fund net assets and a statement of cash flows. These statements are prepared using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Proprietary funds can be categorized as enterprise funds or internal service funds. Enterprise funds account for goods and services provided to those outside the District, generally on a user-charge basis. Internal service funds report activities that provide supplies and services for the District's other programs and activities. I I I I I I I II - 4 .1 I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 1 6 I 1 A l!. t I I Currently, the District maintains no enterprise funds. However, the District maintains two individual internal service funds. Information is presented combined in the statement of net assets, the statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in fund net assets and the statement of cash flows for the Self-Insurance Fund and the Health Benefits Fund. Because these services predominantly benefit governmental rather than business-type functions, they have been included within governmental activities in the government-wide [mancial statements. The basic proprietary fund financial statements can be found on pages III-II to III -13 of this report. I I I Individual fund data for each of the two proprietary funds is provided in the form of combining statements on pages V-52 to V-54 of this report. I The District adopts an annual appropriated budget for all of its funds. Budgetary comparison schedules have been provided that include the original and final appropriated budgets as well as the [mal actual results of operations for the General Fund, Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund, and the State Appropriations Fund to demonstrate compliance with these budgets. The budgetary comparison schedules for these three funds are being reported as required supplementary information other than management's discussion and analysis and are presented immediately after the notes on pages IV-l to IV-8. Budgetary comparison schedules for the other governmental funds are presented on pages V-20 to V-50 of this report. Notes to the basic financial statements I The notes provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund [mancial statements. The notes to the basic financial statements can be found on pages ill-15 to III-44 of this report. I I I I GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS I I .1 As noted earlier, net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator ofa government's financial position. In the case of the District, assets exceeded liabilities by over $4.5 billion at the close of the most recent fiscal year, an increase of $176.2 million from the prior fiscal year. By far, the largest portion of the District's net assets (85.6 percent) reflects its investment in capital assets (e.g., land, buildings, equipment) less any related outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. The District uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Although the District's investment in its capital assets is reported net of related debt, it should be noted that the resources needed to repay this debt must be provided from other sources, since the capital assets themselves cannot be used to liquidate these liabilities. An additional portion of the District's net assets (6.6 percent) represents resources that are subject to external restrictions on how they may be used. The remaining balance (7.8 percent) of net assets relates to the unrestricted portion. At the end of the current fiscal year, the District is able to report positive balances in all three categories of net assets. The balance of current and other assets at the end of fiscal year 2010 remained constant with the prior year balance, reflecting a net increase of $141 thousand. A number of offsetting variances contributed to the net increase, the most significant of which are lower overall cash and investments held during the period, which decreased $4.7 million, offset by a $6.5 million increase in amounts due from other governments. The decrease in cash and investments is attributable to a 49.2% decrease in investment earnings while the increase in amounts due from other governments corresponds with the increase in intergovernmental I I II - 5 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICJ. 6 I 1 ~ 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 revenues, as more fully discussed on page II-8. Total liability obligations saw a decrease of $1 1.1 million. This decrease is primarily a net effect of the pay-down of outstanding debt ($16.6 million) which is offset by a net increase of $5.3 million relating to other post employment benefits and self insurance, which are based on actuarial estimates. Together, the changes in current assets and total liabilities between fiscal years represents the significant portion of the change in restricted and unrestricted net assets, which shows a nct increase of$75.3 million. Key elements of the total net asset increase are presented below. District's Net Assets As of September 30 2010 2009 CUlTent and Other Assets $ 966,549,507 $ 966,408,130 Capital Assets, Net 4,279,634,869 4,114,683,017 Total Assets 5,246,184,376 5,081,091,147 Current and Other Liabilities 75,964,186 103,403,702 Long-term Liabilities Outstanding 626,615,928 610,266,308 Total Liabilities 702,580,114 713,670,010 Net Assets: Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt 3,889,860,428 3,788,956,243 Restricted 298,284,060 107,077,010 Unrestricted 355,459,774 471,387,884 Total Net Assets S 4,543,604,262 $ 4,367,421,137 II - 6 "I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I, I 161 1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 A2 f District's Changes in Net Assets Fiscal Years Ended September 30 2010 t 2009 Revenues Program Revenues Charges for Services $ 21,035,669 $ 9,442,388 Operating Grants and Contributions 24,383,669 38,787,196 Capital Grants and Contnbutions 104,693,960 61,030,024 General Revenues Property Taxes 466,380,372 532,429,588 Investment Earnings 14,467,902 28,483,350 Miscellaneous 8,391,237 26,747,397 Total Revenues 639,352,809 696,919,943 Expenses Mission Support $ 114,123,630 $ 105,245,086 Operations and Maintenance 122,360,621 133,417,655 Restoration 170,045,556 179,584,139 Water Supply 30,375,078 50,853,964 Interest on Long-Term Debt 26,264,799 26,880,613 Total Expenses 463,169,684 495,981,457 Increase in Net Assets 176,183,125 200,938,486 Net assets - Beginning of fiscal year 4,367,421,137 4,207,536,118 Restatement (41,053,467) Net assets - Beginning of fiscal year (As Restated) 4,367,421,137 4,166,482,651 Net assets - End of fiscal year $ 4,543,604,262 $ 4,367,421,137 II -7 J 1 I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER .MANAGEl\iENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 I I Property taxes continue as the District's primary source of revenue. For fiscal year 2010, revenue from property taxes totaled $466.4 million of which $11.7 million represents Agricultural Privilege Taxes. This reflects a decrease of $66.0 million, or 12.4 percent, from fiscal year 2009. This decrease is attributable primarily to the devaluation of property values within the District's 16 counties, which can be seen in the corresponding 12.4 percent decrease of taxable property values within the District in fiscal year 2010 from the prior year. I I The Agricultural Privilege Tax is one of the dedicated funding sources identified in the Everglades Forever Act (EF A) and is used to fund Everglades Construction Project and Long Term Plan expenditures. Agricultural Privilege Tax revenues vary each year based on tax roll information received from Palm Beach and Hendry counties' property appraisers. The tax is calculated based on the assessed tax-per-acre and the number of agricultural acres reflected on the tax rolls. The Governing Board certifies the tax rolls at the District's Annual Tentative Budget Adoption Public Hearing held each September. I I The Agricultural Privilege Tax continues to be a steady source of revenue for the Everglades Trust Fund. During fiscal year 2010 tax revenues derived from the Agricultural Privilege Tax remained constant with the prior fiscal year's level of $11.7 million. Annual revenue realized is directly related to a change in acres in the Everglades Agricultural Area and C-139 basin from the previous year's tax rolls. Acres can be taken off the tax rolls due to construction and change in land status to non-agricultural use tax classification. I I Charges for services totaled $21.0 million for fiscal year 2010, an increase of $11.6 million. The most significant factors contributing to the net increase resulted from the establishment of an internal service fund that recognized $7.6 million in health premiums received from employees and retirees under the Mission Support Program combined with a $4.5 million increase related to permit fees. I Operating grants and contributions totaled $24.4 million for fiscal year 2010, a decrease of approximately $14.4 million from the prior fiscal year. In recent years the District has been receiving pass through funding from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Trust Funds for water supply and regional water management purposes. During the current fiscal year the District received $7.4 million less in funding from the Water Protection and Sustainability Program for alternative water supply projects than in the prior year. In addition, the District saw a reduction of $4.5 million in funding from the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund for local government surface water improvement and management projects and a $3.0 million reduction from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission for managing invasive plant programs. Finally, in fiscal year 2009, the District received $4.9 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service, which represented the last remaining amount received in federal funding for canal repairs resulting from Hurricane Wilma. I ,I I I Capital grants and contributions totaled $104.7 million for fiscal year 2010, an increase of approximately $43.7 million from fiscal year 2009. This increase is primarily due to the District receiving $39.5 million from the Department of Environmental Protection for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project and the District recognizing approximately $11.0 million in revenue representing reimbursable expenditures for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and Northern Everglades projects that had yet to be billed at year end. I I I ,I I II - 8 I I I SOUmFLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTDISTRI~T6 I -1 A 12 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 "\ t I I I I I I I Investment earnings during fiscal year 2010 decreased by approximately $14.0 million to $14.5 million from the previous fiscal year 2009 level of $28.5 million. The reduction is primarily attributed to two factors. First, cash on hand from the 2006 Series Certificates of Participation (COPS) proceeds was reduced due to the construction expenditures incurred during the fiscal year, leaving less money invested, and in turn resulting in a decrease of $9.9 million in interest earned on such balances. Additionally, rates earned on investments dropped on average due to economic conditions. The District kept a slightly higher allocation of idle funds in cash accounts that have lower yields due to the uncertainty and volatility in the markets, translating to a drop of $4.1 million in pooled investment earnings. Miscellaneous Revenue totaled $8.4 million for fiscal year 2010, and consists of indirect costs recovered ($5.5 million); and other revenue ($2.9 million). The net decrease of approximately $18.4 million relating to other revenue from fiscal year 2009 is primarily attributed to premium rebates totaling $8.4 million the District received during fiscal year 2009 related to builders risk insurance purchased towards major construction projects in prior fiscal years, $2.5 million received in fiscal year 2009 relating to self-insurance premiums, which are now accounted for as charges for service, and a $1.4 million decrease associated ,vith the CERP indirect cost allocation. Program Expenses related to the Mission Support, Operations and Maintenance and Restoration Programs totaled approximately $406.5 million or 87.8 percent of the $463.2 million in total expenses for fiscal year 2010. It should be noted that during fiscal year 2010, the District reorganized its program structure. Due to this change is program structure, all the District programs and their significant variances are discussed below. All figures presented relating to fiscal year 2009 expenses have been recalculated based on the new program structure for ease in comparison. I Mission Support Program expense increased $8.9 million, or 8.4 percent, from $105.2 million in fiscal year 2009 to $114.1 million in fiscal year 2010. The most significant variance contributing to the net increase resulted from the District increasing its 2010 estimated liability associated with other post employment benefits and health insurance, resulting in additional expenses of approximately $6.5 million and $1.5 million, respectively. I I I This program delivers critical business support services such as information technology, procurement, finance, human resources, legal support, project management, internal audit, and public and executive level policy guidance. The strategic priority goal of the program is to provide the District with optimum support and logistical functions. I I I Program accomplishments for fiscal year 2010 included: Implemented and successfully tested the WebEOC program, which is a web-enabled crisis management system; lalIDched Cost Avoidance, a portal based system to capture data on cost savings resulting from non-negotiated procurement transactions; received the Certification of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the District's fiscal year 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the Distinguished Budget Presentation with Special Recognition for Communications for the District's fiscal year 2010 budget document from the Government Finance Officers Association; created the STAR Project, a vegetation management database for Stormwater Treatment Area Operations; and continued the implementation of a new budget module for the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system to assist with the District's budget development, strategic planning, and annual work plan preparation. I I ll- 9 1611 A2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program expense incurred during fiscal year 2010 was $122.4 million, a decrease of$11.1 million, or 8.3 percent from the $133.4 million expensed in fiscal year 2009. A number of offsetting variances within the Program contributed to the net decrease in expenses, the most significant of which included a reduction of $2.3 million in interagency expenses and a reduction of $1.7 million relating to compensated absences. This program is primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of over 500 water control structures and over 60 pump stations, installation and maintenance of more than 2,000 automated remote terminal units and 29 weather stations, and maintenance of 1,969 miles of canals and levees, of which 1,800 are in the C&SF Project and 169 in the Big Cypress Basin. During fiscal year 2010, the Land Stewardship Program, which was accounted for separately in fiscal year 2009, was incorporated into the Operations and Maintenance Program adding the responsibilities of land stewardship, vegetation and exotic species management and right of way protection. The strategic priority goal of the Operations and Maintenance Program is to minimi7e damage from flooding, provide adequate regional water supply, and protect and restore the environment by optimally operating and maintaining the primary flood control and water supply system. Program accomplishments during the fiscal year included the completion of several capital construction projects, including the S-129 and S-131 Pump Station Repowering, S-63rd Street bridge demolition, S-I27 and S-133 Pump Bearing Replacement, G-92 Structure Replacement, S-6 Gearbox Replacement, G-136 Gate and Culvert Replacement, S-39 Concrete Repair, Clewis ton Field Station Generator Replacement, S-49 Gate Operator Replacement, L-19 Bridges (1,2,3) and S-60 Gate Operator Replacement. Ongoing exotic plant control, mowing, and vehicle inspection and maintenance programs remained on schedule and within budget. Preventive maintenance was performed at pump stations and structures, and inspection of storage tanks and other facilities were completed per schedule. Restoration Program expense decreased by $9.5 million or 5.3 percent from the prior year to $170.0 million. One ofthe factors contnlmting to this decrease was the planned acquisition of large tracts ofland in the Everglades Agricultural Area for Everglades restoration. During fiscal year 2009 the District performed the majority of due diligence matters relating to the acquisition of land from the United States Sugar Corporation, which was finalized in October 2010. Fiscal year 2010 expenses relating to this purchase were $5.5 million less than in the prior fiscal year. Other projects with large expenditure variances between fiscal years include the Lake Trafford dredging project, which increased $4.3 million and the Acme Basin project, which increased $4.6 million. The remaining variance is a culmination of offsetting increases and decreases among the multiple projects which are included in the Restoration Program. The Restoration Program consolidated several regional and functional programs in order to centralize the coordination of restoration projects District-wide. After the fiscal year 2010 program restructuring, the following programs were integrated into the Restoration Program: Coastal Watersheds, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, District Everglades, Kissimmee Watershed, Lake Okeechobee, and Modeling and Scientific Support. This new program oversees all capital projects for the agency, from project development through implementation; provides computer modeling, water quality monitoring, and assessment for all aspects of water management; and fulfills the District's responsibilities outlined in the Everglades Forever Act and the Federal Settlement Agreement as well as implementation of thc Comprehensive Evcrglades Restoration Plan. II - 10 jl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 1 A 2 SOUTH FLORIDA W ATERMANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 f I I Program accomplishments during the fiscal year include successfully negotiating the CERP Master Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) and the District; initiating several construction projects associated with the Kissimmee River Restoration including Canal C-37 dredging, River Acres Flood Protection, and CSX Railroad Bridge modifications; continuing the Lakeside Ranch Stormwater Treatment Area construction, which is approximately 40 percent complete; completing 18 restoration, water quality, and stormwater improvement projects which benefit the Florida Keys; completing six restoration, water quality, and stormwater improvement projects on the Lower West Coast; completing nine projects in Martin and St. Lucie Counties for habitat restoration, water quality, and hydrologic improvements; and completing production of the 2010 South Florida Environmental Report (SFER). I I Water Supply Program expense decreased by $20.5 million or 40.3 percent from the prior year to $30.4 million. The majority of the reduction is associated with a $15.6 million reduction in funds received through the State in support of Alternative Water Supply projects. This decreased funding translates to a comparable decrease in the District's required match relating to these funds. I I Beginning in fiscal year 2010 the Regulation Program was consolidated into the Water Supply Program. As a result, this program is now responsible for the District's evaluation of long-term water supply needs, planning and development associated with various water resource projects, as well as use of the District's regulatory authority through the issuance of various types of permits to help manage and protect South Florida's water resources. The strategic priority goal of the Water Supply Program is to ensure an adequate supply of water to protect natural systems and to meet all existing and projected reasonable-beneficial uses while sustaining water resources for future generations. I I Program accomplishments in fiscal year 2010 include initiating implementation of the Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program (Water CHAMP) through a pilot roll-out in the Florida Keys, whereby 17 hotels and motels with a combined 669 rooms emolled in the program; completing Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) for Momoe, Miami-Dade, and Broward cOlmties for updated topography for Climate Change Initiative and Water Supply Plans; and funding 13 projects in the Water Savings Incentive (WaterSIP) program which have a potential estimated water savings of238 million gallons per year. I I I I I I I I II-ll 161 1 A 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 I I I FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRICT'S FUNDS As noted earlier, the District uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance- related legal requirements. I I The focus of the District's governmental funds is to provide infonnation on near-term inflows, outflows, and balances of spendable resources. Such infonnation is useful in assessing the District's financing requirements. In particular, unreserved fund balance may serve as a useful measure of a government's net resources available for spending at the end ofthe fiscal year. I General Fund The General Fund is the chief operating fimd of the District. It accounts for all [mancial resources, except those required to be accounted for in another fund. This fund accounts for District-wide expenditures and is supported primarily by ad valorem property taxes, permit fees and investment earnings. I I I I At fiscal year end, the fund balance of the General Fund was $87.8 million, of which $76.7 million was unreserved and $11.1 million was reserved for encumbrances and inventory. As a measure of the General Fund's liquidity, it may be useful to compare both unreserved fund balance and total fund balance to total fund expenditures. Unreserved fund balance represents 50.3 percent of the General Fund expenditures totaling $152.5 million, while total fund balance represents 57.6 percent of that same amount. Revenues exceeded expenditures by $49.2 million and the General Fund had net operational transfers to other funds amounting to $50.4 million, resulting in a net decrease in fund balance of$1.0 million. Total revenues in the General Fund decreased approximately $34.5 million from the prior year. The majority of this decrease is comprised of a reduction in property tax revenue of $27.5 million which is attributable to a decrease in property values, a $1.9 million decrease in investment earnings resulting from lower yields on securities held for investment purposes, and a $1.4 million decrease relative to indirect cost recovery related to a change in the District's overhead rate from 104.5 percent to 92.4 percent. Operating transfers netted to $50.1 million in other financing uses for fiscal year 2010. Transfers-out in the amount of $39.2 million went to the CERP Fund, representing the General Fund's 2010 annual contribution to CERP to fund planned operations and capital projects with an additional transfer-out of $1 1.2 million to the Self Insurance Fund in order to establish the fund. I I I I I I I I I Total expenditures decreased approximately $13.5 million in fiscal year 2010 to $152.5 million primarily due to the Water Supply program, which decreased approximately $11.3 million, or 27.7%. The decrease in the Water Supply program is the result of a reduction in State funding related to the Alternative Water Supply program and the related decrease in the required District match of those revenues. II - 12 I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEME~9k4r A 2 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 f Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund I I I I I The Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund accounts for the normal operating expenditures covering all or part of a IS-county area designated as the Okeechobee Basin. Revenue is provided by ad valorem property taxes, intergovernmental funding, permit fees, investment earnings and other sources. The total fund balance of the Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund at September 30, 2010 was $87.7 million, an increase of $3.0 million from fiscal year 2009. Although the Fund experienced a decrease in revenues in excess of expenditures compared to fiscal 2009, this decrease was offset by a $21.8 million reduction in transfers-out. Total revenues in the Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund decreased $36.8 million from the previous fiscal year. This decrease is due primarily to less property taxes and intergovernmental revenues of $27.7 million and $7.5 million, respectively. I I I I I I Total expenditures decreased by $7.2 million, or 6.8 percent, in fiscal year 2010 to $98.2 million. The net decrease is due to decreases in the Restoration and Mission Support programs of $7.0 million and $3.1 million, respectively. The decrease in the Mission Support program is due to fewer costs spent in fiscal year 2010 relating to the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System and development and implementation of the Public Budget Formulation Module of the ERP. The decrease in Restoration program expenditures relates to the District's match for the Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology ImplementationlEvaluation. For fiscal year 2010, operating transfers netted to $91.0 million, with transfers-out totaling $91.1 million and transfers-in totaling $0.1 million. Transfers-out in the amount of $34.0 million were to the CERP Fund, representing the Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund's 2010 annual contribution for CERP in order to fund planned operations and capital projects. Of the remaining transfers-out, $56.0 million went to the Okeechobee Basin Capital Fund to support scheduled capital improvement projects and various purchases of goods and services and $1.1 million went to the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund to realign program revenues relating to the Northern Everglades projects. State Appropriations Fund The State Appropriations Fund accounts for expenditures incurred for various prqjects utilizing revenue from state sources. The Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund, and other state appropriations are the primary sources of revenue for this fund. In recent years, the State has advanced funds to the District for major long-term projects such as flood mitigation and restoration of various water bodies. Other grant revenues are recognized on a cost reimbursement basis. I I During fiscal year 2010, the fund balance of the State Appropriations Flmd decreased by $14.0 million to $10.8 million by the end of the fiscal year. The State Appropriations Fund spent $14.3 million in 2010, and recognized advances and reimbursements in the amount of $0.3 million from the State of Florida. Total revenues decreased by $12.5 million from the prior year. Balances and activity in this fund vary from year to year based 011 the amount and timing of revenues received from the State and the status of on-going projects. Total expenditures in the State Appropriations Fund decreased $4.0 million in fiscal year 2010 primarily as a result of decreased state advances and reduced funding available in the trust funds for alternative water supply projects and other relevant flood mitigation and restoration projects. There were 110 operating transfers in the State Appropriations Fund during fiscal year 2010. I I I II-13 161 1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 A2 Everglades Trust Fund The Everglades Trust Fund was established to account for capital expenditures to construct Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) which will cleanse stormwater runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) through naturally occurring biological and physical processes. Additional objectives include hydroperiod restoration and water supply. Revenue for this fund is provided through a .0894 mill tax levy, non-ad valorem tax assessments to property owners in the EAA, state and federal contributions, and interest earnmgs. During fiscal year 2010, the fund balance of the Everglades Trust Fund increased $4.0 million to $98.5 million at fiscal year end. Several factors contnouted to this increase including excess of revenues over expenditures of$20.7 million.. Total revenues in the Everglades Trust Fund decreased by $12.5 million to $74.4 million. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease in ad valorem tax revenues for fiscal year 2010. Total expenditures decreased by approximately $8.2 million in fiscal year 2010 to $53.7 million. This decrease was attributable to a decrease in capital outlay expenditures of $8.6 million during the year relative to the completion of the design of several construction projects during fiscal year 2009, including STA Compartment B and C build-outs the design costs of which were funded from Everglades Trust Flmd revenues and the construction of which will utilize proceeds from the Series 2006 Certificates of Participation (COPS). For fiscal year 2010, operating transfers-out totaled $16.7 million which represented annual funding to cover on-going operations and maintenance costs of the ST As. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Fund The CERP Fund accounts for expenditures associated with the plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of central and southern Florida, including the Everglades. Primarily, this fund receives its resources from property taxes via operating transfers from the General Fund and the Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund. During fiscal year 2010, the fund balance of the CERP Fund increased by $24.9 million to $208.7 million at fiscal year end. Total revenues of the fund were $4.2 million, the majority of which is from investment earnings which increased due to the fund carrying higher cash balances than in the prior year. Total expenditures decreased $18.0 million during fiscal year 2010 in comparison to fiscal year 2009, from $70.5 million to $52.5 million. The majority of the reduction related to capital outlay, which decreased by $19.6 million, due primarily to various CERP projects with capitalizable costs such as land acquisition, design and construction being completed. During fiscal year 2010, debt service payments related to the COPS totaled $15.8 million, which was consistent with the prior fiscal year. Operating transfers-in totaled $73.2 million in other financing sources for fiscal year 2010, comprised of funding received from the General Fund ($39.2 million) and Okeechobee Basin Fund ($34.0 million). II - 14 .~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16J.1AIIl SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIJTRIC-:rI1 - C. 1 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 Save Our Everglades Trust Fund (SOETF) The Save Our Everglades Tmst Fund (SOETF) accounts for revenues received from, and expenditures funded through, the State of Florida's fund by the same name. State monies are used to support land acquisition, design, construction, and associated costs for the CERP and Northern Everglades projects. I I I I I At September 30, 2010 the fund balance for the SOETF was $22.0 million, an increase of $22.0 million from the balance a year earlier. The increase in fund balance is due to several factors, the most significant being $39.5 million in reimbursements received within the fund for costs incurred in other governmental ftmds in prior years. This additional fund balance will be transferred out via operating transfers to the appropriate funds in fiscal year 2011. In addition, approximately $8.7 million in revenue that was billed but not collected within 60 days of fiscal year end and approximately $11.0 million in revenue which related to reimbursable expenditures that had yet to be billed at year end were deferred. Total revenues in the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund increased approximately $39.1 million from the prior fiscal year. As already stated, this is due to the $39.5 million in reimbursement that was recognized as revenue pertaining to expenditures that were originally funded with revenues accounted for in other governmental funds in prior years, which has been deemed eligible for reimbursement with Save Our Everglades Trust funding. Overall expenditures increased by $16.8 million in fiscal year 2010 from the prior year amount of $41.1 million. This increase is due to significant project delays which were encountered in fiscal year 2009, which is related to the comparative increase in the Fund's revenue. I I I I AccelerS Everglades Construction Project Fund The Acceler8 Everglades Construction Project Fund accounts for the revenues from Certificates of Participation issued to support expenditures associated with the accelerated construction of projects in the EvergladeslLong- Term Plan Implementation. During fiscal year 2010, the fund balance decreased by $96.9 million to $133.4 million at fiscal year end. This decrease is the result of expenditures relating to the construction of Compartments Band C buildouts, which are part of the Long-Term Plan. I I I I I IT-I5 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER J.\rlANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 I 161;32 ". H:I I I I GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY IDGHLIGHTS Budgeted revenues and expenditures in the final General Fund budget were $201.9 million and $186.9 million, respectively. Budgeted revenues were equal to the original adopted budget for fiscal year 2010. while budgeted expenditures increased slightly (approximately $7,000) from the original budget. For the fiscal year, the variance between budgeted and actual revenues was $0.2 million, or 0.1 percent of budget. At the end of fiscal year 2010, the General Fund's budget for Corporate Resources reflected $6.2 million remaining as available balance. The majority of this available balance resides in the Mission Support Program The Mission Support Program reflects $6.0 million in unspent budget authority due largely to outstanding encumbrances ($4.6 million) and actual tax collector's/county appraisal's fees ($1.6 million) which were less than budgeted amounts. At the end of the fiscal year, the General Fund's budget for Regulatory and Public Affairs reflected $7.7 million remaining as available balance. This is a result of $4.5 million left unspent in the Restoration Program due primarily to outstanding encumbrances ($4.5 million) of which $4.2 million were for intergovernmental agreements relating to the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Plan - St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan 5/5/5 Initiative. I I I I I At fiscal year end, the General Fund budget for Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects reflected $2.5 million remaining as available balance. Of this balance, $1.3 million resides in the Mission Support Program, which relates primarily to outstanding encumbrances ($1.1 million) associated to the District's Emergency Operations Construction Project. The final amended General Fund budget also included $17.6 million in reserves comprised of managerial reserves of $14.4 million and $3.2 million in contingency reserves. The District does not expend funds directly out of managerial or contingency reserve accounts. The use of this funding requires Governing Board budget transfer approval, authorizing the movement of budget authority out of managerial reserves and/or contingency reserves to a District program within a resource area's operating or capital budget. I I I I I I I I I II - 16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMEJ~~J A 2 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CAPITAL ASSETS CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION As of September 30, 2010, the District's investment in capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, wa~s $4.28 billion, up $165 million from $4.11 billion at the end of fiscal year 2009. This investment in capital assets includes land, easements, canals and levees, buildings, intangibles, equipment, improvements, wat control structures, and construction in progress. Capital Assets (net of depreciation) Land Easements Canals and Levees Buildings Intangibles Equipment Improvements Water Control Structures Construction in Progress Total 2010 $ 2,361,438,100 39,442,335 557,073,642 69,936,499 23,017,836 50,237,332 16,536,396 482,374,386 679,578,343 $ 4,279,634,869 2009 $ 2,369,106,064 14,505,601 554,743,051 48,895,275 20,902,131 49,943,324 13,539,225 473,516,925 569,531,421 $ 4,114,683,017 Land Highlights Major capital asset events during the current fiscal year included the following: The District's investment in land decreased approximately $7.7 million during fiscal year 2010. This change is primarily due to the net effect of the following: · $24.6 million ofland acquired for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands. · $1.1 million ofland acquired for the Southern CREW/Imperial River Floway. · $24.0 million of reclassifications of capital assets from the category ofland to easements. · $9.4 million of land retirements related to the write-off of capitalized costs due to the downsizing of the United States Sugar Corporation land acquisition. II-17 1~11 A2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIS~~ MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 Building Highlights The District's investment in buildings increased $23.5 million during fiscal year 2010. This change is primarily due to the acquisition and/or completion of the following projects: . $11.7 million for the Kissimmee/St. Cloud field station. · $6.1 million for microwave and telemetry towers. · $2.7 million for the Big Cypress Basin administration and maintenance facility. Construction in Progress Highlights The District's investment in construction in progress increased $110.0 million during fiscal year 2010. This change is primarily due to the net effect of the following: · $163.2 million expended on continuing projects as follows: o $53.3 million expended on construction for ST A - Compartment B Buildout. o $45.6 million expended on construction for STA - Compartment C Buildout. o $17.4 million expended on the enhancement of the C-lll Spreader Canal. o $10.1 million expended on construction for Lakeside Ranch ST A. o $5.3 million expended on S-65, S-65A, S-61 and S-65D lock refurbishing. o $31.5 million expended on 75 other continuing projects. · $43.5 million related to completed projects which were transferred out of construction in progress, the most significant of which are: o $18.9 million related to buildings and telemetry, the most significant are noted above. o $17.5 million related to water control structures, the most significant of which are: · $5.9 million for trash rakes. · $4.8 million related to S-135 Upgrades. · $3.9 million for S-129 and S-131 repowering. Additional information on the District's capital assets can be found in Note 9 on page IlI-32 of this report. II - 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRIC16 I 1)' MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 A2 LONG-TERM DEBT ADMINISTRATION At the end of fiscal year 2010, the District had $560.3 million in total outstanding long-term debt, representing a decrease of $16.6 million from the prior year. The majority of the balance is comprised of bonds, bank loans, and Certificates of Participation. Long-term Debt Outstanding 2010 2009 SpecialObIigtion Land Acquisition Bonds Bank Loans Certificates of Participation Capital Leases $ 36,160,000 4,118,196 520,060,000 $ 41,350,000 5,950,678 529,430,000 200,330 Total $ 560,338,196 $ 576,931,008 The Special Obligation Land Acquisition Refunding Bonds Series 2002 ($13.6 million) and Series 2003 ($22.6 million) fmance the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. Documentary stamp tax revenues provided through the State of Florida's Water Management Lands Trust Fund secure the repayment of this debt. At the end of fiscal year 2010, the outstanding balance on commercial bank debt was approximately $4.1 million. This amount represents two lines of credit and a bank loan. The lines of credit were obtained to fund the conversion of a telemetry system from analog to digital and the bank loan to fund the implementation of the District's Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. In November 2006, the District issued $546.1 million in Certificates of Participation to provide for the leasc- purchasc financing of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of certain expedited Everglades Restoration projects. The outstanding balance at the end of fiscal year 2010 was $520.1 million. In fiscal year 2009, Moody's Investor Services ("Moody's), Standard and Poor's (S&P), and Fitch Ratings downgraded the District's bond insurer, AMBAC Assurance Corporation. At fiscal year end, MillAC Assurance Corporation was rated Caa2 and CC by Moody's and S&P, respectively. Previously, all dcbt issued by the District carried an AAA "insured" crediting rating. This downgrade of the District's insurer has caused the rating on all District debt to be based on the District's underlying "non-insured" credit rating. At September 30, 2010, the District's COPS were rated AA3, AA+ and AA by Moody's, S&P and Fitch Ratings, respectively and the District's Land Acquisition Bonds, Series 2002 and 2003 were rated A2, A+ and A by Moody's, S&P and Fitch Ratings, respectively. A bond rating indicates the investment quality of the bonds, which is based on an assessment of the economic and financial condition of the agency, and is reflective of the overall managerial expertise of the agency. The District strives to maintain this superior bond rating for its obligations in order to realize more favorable borrowing costs. I I II - 19 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT Dl~c~"l A 2 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 I I I Debt Management Policy . Limit long-term debt to no more than the estimated life of the capital assets financed and refrain from issuing debt to finance current operations or normal maintenance. I I I I I I I I During the 1990's, the District made a commitment to the citizens of South Florida to operate in accordance with sixteen guiding principles designed to achieve and maintain the highest standards of fiscal accountability. The Governing Board of the District adopted a Debt Management Policy in May 1993, which was updated in April 2005 and revised again in October 2008. The policy and related guidelines enables the District to identify and address potential concerns and alternatives early in the capital planning and debt ISsuance process. The policy directs the District to: . Exhibit purposeful restraint in incurring debt. . Follow a policy of full disclosure in all financial reports and official statements issued for indebtedness. . Refrain from issuing short-term debt that requires repeated annual appropriation. . Project debt requirements on a five-year basis to facilitate better short-term decisions in light of other priorities that may arise, and examine the longer-range implications and effects of debt issuance. Included in the District's adopted Debt Management Policy are benchmarks which are self-imposed boundaries and not statutorily established levels of acceptance dedicated to prudent debt management. The District's debt burden shall not exceed the benchmark levels, as described below, and no additional debt shall be authorized if the projected debt burden would exceed these levels: II - 20 I I I I I I I I . The net debt per capita shall not exceed $350. . Debt service shall not exceed 30 percent of revenues legally available to the District to pay debt service including, but not limited to, the available ad-valorem revenues, related interest income thereon and permit fee revenue. . The debt-to-assessed value shall not exceed 0.30 percent of the assessed value of property within the District. Florida Statute requires that total annual debt service for debt issued after January 1, 2009 cannot exceed 20 percent of the annual ad valorem tax revenues, unless approved by the Joint Legislative Budget Commission. Additional information about the District's long-term debt can be found in Note 10 on pages I11-33 through III-35 of this report. I I SOUfHFLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTD!2c!.l A 2 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 , I ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR'S BUDGETS AND RATES I Economic Outlook I The District developed a series of revenue assumptions used during the preparation of its 2011 fiscal year budget. These revenue assmnptions were based on current and projected economic indicators and historical trends. The Florida Department of Revenue and the State Ad Valorem Estimating Conference provided county projection data and trends in ad valorem tax-roll growth rates over a five-year period along with tax reform legislation which was analyzed by the District's Budget Office. Revenue-collection history and information supplied by various departments within the District were used to determine all remaining ad valorem and ad valorem related sources. The District's dedicated revenue assumptions were formulated using information from state trust fund balances and from agreements with federal, state and local governments. I I I I As in prior fiscal years, ad valorem property taxes continue to be the District's largest single, ongoing source of revenue. Approximately 37.2 percent of the District's fiscal year 2011 budget is projected to be funded through ad valorem tax revenues. Taxable property values within the District decreased by 12.4 percent from $894.7 billion in 2009 to $783.8 billion in 2010. Ad valorem taxes projected for fiscal year 2011 are $399.0 million, an estimated $60.9 million less than the prior year due to the slowing real estate market coupled with the devaluation of property values and the high rate of foreclosures. As a result, fiscal year 2011 reflects budget reductions in the following areas: agency management and administration, water quality prqjects for estuaries, Everglades restoration projects, Everglades Stormwater Treatment Areas, the long- term plan, and program operating costs such as travel, training, fleet, building services, conferences, professional memberships, equipment and perfonnance-based salary increases. I I The remaining revenue budget includes anticipated funding from state and federal sources, as well as from fees and investment earnings. State revenues have also been declining, which is the District's second major source of revenue. The State of Florida has been impacted by the current economic factors resulting in overall lower revenue estimates and actual collections. As a result, the amounts that the State of Florida appropriated for District projects are less than in prior fiscal years. The fiscal year 2011 appropriation from the Save Our Everglades Trust Fund remains at $47.0 million, the same as in fiscal year 2010. Of this amount, $38.0 million is contingent upon the state's receipt of Medicaid funds from the Federal Government in order to release other state funds for Everglades restoration. There are no new state appropriations for alternative water supply or water quality projects from the Water Protection and Sustainability Tmst Fund and no fiscal year 2011 state appropriations for water projects (Community Budget Issue Requests). Reductions in state funds are reflected primarily in Everglades Land acquisition, surface water improvement and other water resources projects. I I I I I The District recognizes the importance of how available revenues can change in response to economic factors. There are many economic factors to consider and monitor relating to the District and changes in these economic factors directly impact the District's financial health and future revenue outlook. I The following discussion will focus on economic factors affecting the District's ad valorem revenue budget and were considered in preparing the District's budget for the 2011 fiscal year. I I II - 21 16',1 A2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 Property Values Property values have a very large and direct impact on ad valorem taxes. An increase in property value will often be an indicator of a healthy economy. Counties experiencing population and economic growth are likely to enjoy a per unit long-term increase in property value due to increased demand for homes. Changes in property value are important to the District because ad valorem taxes are the primary revenue source for the agency. The housing market has deteriorated significantly since its peak at the end of 2006 and Florida has been one of the hardest hit states along with Arizona, California, and Nevada. This downturn, whieh began in 2007, can be attributed to soaring home prices and over-supply from home builders and investors. These conditions resulted from the easing of underwriting standards and the consumers increased appetite for risk, making it less difficult for prospective homebuyers to qualify for a mortgage. In order to afford a home, homebuyers became increasingly dependent on exotic mortgage products intended to reduce down payments and monthly payments. Foreclosures According to RealtyTrac, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, Florida ranks third in the nation, behind Nevada and Arizona, for the highest foreclosure filings, with 5.51 percent of its housing units or 485,283 properties receiving at least one foreclosure filing during 2010. lbis accounts for approximately 16.9 percent of the nation's foreclosures, which total 2,871,891 or 2.23 percent of housing units. The statewide foreclosure rate dropped 6.1 percent from 2009 and Florida foreclosure activity in December hit the lowest monthly level since July 2007. Three metro areas within the District, Cape Coral-Fort Meyers. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, and Orlando-Kissimmee were on the top ten listing of metro area foreclosures. These three metro areas showed decreases in foreclosure activity from 2009 by 28.3%, 0.7%. and 14.5% respectively. II - 22 .fl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J. 0 j I.. Ac: SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 I Home Prices I I The Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index indicates that home prices have fallen 6.45 percent in Florida since September 2009. This is an improvement from the decrease of 13.3 percent in home price for the same period one year ago. The House Priee Index is a weighted, repeat-sales index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales or refinancings on the same properties. Below is a graph which shows the trend in the Florida house price index from 2006 to present. I Florida House Price Index 2006 - 2010 I ~ 30 1 i :~ 1~~ nun ~ 0 T~~~~o,~--,- .~ -10-, ~ -20 1 -30 --r I I ,~==-==;~ I ~00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ s:I _N" s:I s:I $:) s:r $:) $:) s:l s:l s:\ $:) s::)' s::)' s::)' S::i :-; :-; ~ ~f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Year-Quarter I ~HousingPrice Index Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency I Population Growth I Another economic factor driving ad valorem taxes is population growth and the impact it has on property values. Population growth impacts property values because as the population increases, demand for homes increases, which results in higher property values. This relationship between the real estate market and change in population will affect District revenues because ad valorem taxes are collected from property owners based on property values set by the respective county property appraiser. It is important to monitor population trends to effectively develop future budgets capable of being supported by the tax base. In addition, as the population increases, the use of water resources increases, which amplifies the need to protect and restore natural resources and manage and regulate the usage and storage of the region's water supply. I I I I I I II - 23 161 1 A 2 1 I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 In 2010, the District's population increased slightly by 0.08 percent, compared to the prior year's decline of 0.51 percent. Over the past ten years (2001 to 2010) the population growth across the District averaged 1.39 percent. The rate of population growth within the District's boundary is consistent with the state-wide trend as shown below: Population Growth - Annual Percentage Change I I 3.0% 2.5% Q 2.0% ell c eo! 1.5% ..:: U 1.0% - c Q 0.5% u l. Q 0.0% =- -0.5% -1.0% Year I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ District __State Source: Florida Demographic Estimating Conference, August 2010 General Fund - Unreserved Fund Balance At the end of fiscal year 2010, the total unreserved fund balance in the General Fund is $76.7 million. This represents a decrease of $4.4 million or approximately 5.5 percent from fiscal year 2009. The District has appropriated $16.6 million of the $76.7 million for spending in the fiscal year 2011 budget. The District also designates a portion of its unreserved fund balance for Economic Stabilization. Presently, the District has placed in its General Fund's Designated for Economic Stabilization, a total of $1 1.8 million to safeguard against short-term downturns in statewide economic activity. This ammmt is calculated as a minimum of 5.0 percent of total general fund revenues. II - 24 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTD~~lT 1 A e MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 .~ NEXT YEAR'S BUDGETS AND RATES The District's fIscal year 2011 adopted millage rates remam the same as fIscal year 2010 rates. In fIscal year 2011, all property owners within the District's boundaries will be assessed the same District-at-Large millage rate of .2549 mills. In addition, property owners within the Okeechobee Basin will be assessed both the Okeechobee Basin ta."{ rate of .2797 mills and the Everglades Construction Project tax rate of .0894 mills, which are each the same as fiscal year 2010, for a combined tax assessment of .6240 mills. Property owners within the Big Cypress Basin will be assessed the Big Cypress Basin millage rate of .2265 mills, which is unchanged from fiscal year 2010 and the District-at-Large tax rate of .2549 mills, for a combined tax assessment of .4814 mills. State law limits the combined District-at-Large and basin tax millage for each of the two basins at 0.8 mills (80 cents per $1,000 of taxable value). The state constitutional limit is slightly higher at 1 mill ($1.00 per $1,000 of taxable value). The District's approved budget for fiscal year 2011 totals $1.073 billion, a decrease of approximately $462.8 million from the fiscal year 2010 amended budget of $1.535 billion. This decrease is primarily attributable to lower funding levels for land acquisition and capital projects. On October 12, 2010, the District completed the acquisition of land from United States Sugar Corporation for Everglades restoration. The acquisition will provide access to land for restoration and water quality improvement projects. Under the terms of the acquisition, the District purchased approximately 27,200 acres ofland for $194 million in cash and received options to purchase up to 153,200 additional acres over the next ten years. The initial 27,200 acres ofland comprises 18,300 acres located in Hendry County and 8,900 acres located in Palm Beach County. United States Sugar Corporation began leasing the 27,200 acres from the District until such time that the District needs the land for restoration projects or land exchange. In addition, United States Sugar Corporation is responsible for controlling the land for exotic and invasive plants and must implement Best Management Practices. This lease is expected to provide approximately $1 million in annual revenue for the District. Requests for Information The District's basic financial statements are designed to present users (citizens, taxpayers, customers, investors and creditors) \vith a general overview of the District's fInances and to demonstrate the District's accountability. If you have questions about the report or need additional financial information, contact the District's Director of Accounting and Financial Services at P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680. I I I I I II - 25 I 16' lA2 .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------ ~ ----- This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank II - 26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t6U J. A c:. FINANCIAL SECTION BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I South Florida Water Management Dil6 Statement of Net Assets September 30,2010 ASSETS Cash and Investments Accounts Receivable Due from Other Govenunents Inventory Prepaids Other Assets Restricted Assets: Temporarily Restricted - Cash and Investments Permanently Restricted - Cash and Investments Capital Assets Land and Easements Construction In Progress Canals and Levees Other Capital Assets, Net of Depreciation Total Assets LIABILmES Accounts Payable Due to Other Govenunents Unearned Revenue Noncurrent Liabilities: Due Within One Year Bonds Payable, Net ofUnarnortized PrerniurnslDiscounts Bank Loans Payable Certificates of Participation Payable, Net ofUnarnortized Premiurns/Discounts Compensated Absences Self Insurance Claims Payable Due in More Than One Year Bonds Payable, Net ofUnarnortized Prerniurns/Discounts Bank Loans Payable Certificates of Participation Payable, Net ofUnarnorlized Premiurns/Discounts Compensated Absences OPEB Obligation Self Insurance Claims Payable Total Liabilities NET ASSETS Invested In Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt Restricted for. Debt Service Wetlands Mitigation E."'qlendable Nonexpendable Environmental Programs Unrestricted Total Net Assets See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III-I IlAc. Total Govenunental Activities $636,989,439 1,570,223 29,666,163 3,970,146 581,648 5,303,744 275,760,508 12,707,636 2,400,880,435 679,578,343 557,073,642 642,102,449 5,246,184,376 72,375,010 3,214,175 375,001 5,543,940 1,832,482 11,346,054 9,158,250 2,375,103 31,098,466 2,285,714 528,053,492 15,490,750 14,409,130 5,022,547 702,580,114 3,889,860,428 28,802,266 23,272,435 12,707,636 233,501,723 355,459,774 $4,543,604,262 1611t\2. South Florida Water Management District Statement of Activities For the Year Ended September 30,2010 FlUlctionslPrograms Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply Interest on Long Term Debt Net Revenue (Expense) and Change in Net Program Revenues Assets Operating Capital Total Charges for Grants and Grants and Governmental Expenses Services Contributions ContrIbutions Activities $114,123,630 $10,379,191 $ $3,193,658 ($100,550,781) 122,360,621 4,857,675 4,291,272 14,276,400 (98,935,274) 170,045,556 20,087,646 80,199,258 (69,758,652) 30,375,078 5,798,803 4,751 (24,571,524) 26,264,799 7,024,644 (19,240,155) $463,169,684 $21,035,669 $24,383,669 $104,693,960 (313,056,38(j) Total General Revenues: Taxes: Property Taxes, Levied for General Purposes Property Taxes, Levied for Everglades Construction Investment Earnings Miscellaneous 394,194,577 72,185,795 14,467,902 8,391,237 Total General Revenues 489.239.511 Change in Net Assets 176,183,125 Net Assets at Beginning of Year 4,367,421,137 Net Assets at End of Year $4,543,604,262 See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III-2 wi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ASSETS Cash and Investments Cash Held by Trustee AccolUlts Receivable Due from Other Governments Due from Other FlUlds Inventory Other Assets Total Assets LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILmES AccolUlts Payable Due to Other Governments Due to Other FlUlds Deferred Revenue Total Liabilities FUND BALANCES South Florida Water Management U I 1 A 2 Page Ipf3 Balance Sheet ~ Governmental Funds September 30, 2010 Reserved for: Encumbrances Inventory Acquisition of Land Enhancement ofLand Long-term Management of Land Unreserved, Reported in: General FlUld Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures Designated for Economic Stabilization Undesignated Special Revenue FlUld Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures Designated for Economic Stabilization Undesignated Capital Projects Fund Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures Undesignated Total FlUld Balances Total Liabilities and Fund Balances Okeechohee Basin State General SR Appropriations $94,231,878 $81,237,756 $13,289,861 350,313 273,195 3,524,471 3,933,721 31,852 1,226,167 1,890,965 112,559 3,696,157 40,950 $99,486,338 $91,031,794 $13,321,713 $11,295,804 $3,006,199 $718,778 117,338 26,579 1,770,258 277,212 207,909 15,428 53,868 31,852 11,705,782 3,294,555 2,520,888 11,008,109 112,559 2,225,250 3,696,157 13,293,075 16,561,194 11,807,000 48,291,694 28,616,230 11,445,000 41,754,602 (2,492,250) 87,780,556 87,737,239 10,800,825 $99,486,338 $91,031,794 $13,321,713 See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements Continued III-3 161 1 South Florida Water Management District Balance Sheet Governmental Funds September 30,2010 Page 2 of3 ASSETS Cash and Investments Cash Held by Trustee Accounts Receivable Due from Other Governments Due from Other FlUlds Inventory Other Assets Total Assets LIABILmES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILmES AccolUlts Payable Due to Other Governments Due to Other FlUlds Deferred Revenue Total Liabilities FUND BALANCES Reserved for: Encumbrances Inventory Acquisition ofLand Enhancement of Land Long-term Management ofLand Unreserved, Reported in: General FlUld Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures Designated for Economic Stabilization Undesignated Special Revenue FlUld Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures Designated for Economic Stabilization Undesignated Capital Projects FlUld Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures Undesignated Total FlUld Balances Total Liabilities and FlUld Balances Everglades Trust Fund $93,154,581 253,980 1,305,949 7,230,227 $101,944,737 $3,386,679 23,101 3,409,780 3,619,967 78,077,830 16,837,160 98,534,957 $101,944,737 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) $211,579,391 310,722 $211,890,113 $3,124,924 28,876 3,153,800 5,020,411 167,166,122 36,549,780 208,736,313 $211,890,113 See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III-4 A2 Save Our Everglades $26,679,553 150,539 19,084,726 $45,914,818 $4,840,301 19,084,726 23,925,027 10,593,834 10,550,462 845,495 21,989,791 $45,914,818 I iii. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1611 :IA J '.- Pag~3 of3 I I AccelerS Everglades Other Total Construction Governmental Governmental Proi ect Funds Funds I ASSETS Cash and Investments $ $191,460,605 $711,633,625 Cash Held by Trustee 159,415,951 31,031,994 190,447,945 I AccolUlts Receivable 221,944 1,560,693 Due from Other Governments 1,785,444 29,666,163 Due from Other Funds 4,580,759 14,928,118 Inventory 161,430 3,970,146 I Other Assets 40,950 Total Assets $159,415,951 $229,242,176 $952,247,640 I LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILmES I AccolUlts Payable $18,818,729 $12,481,186 $57,672,600 Due to Other Governments 1,300,000 3,214,175 Due to Other Funds 7,230,227 7,732,541 15,499,866 Deferred Revenue 904,756 20,090,630 I Total Liabilities 26,048,956 22,418,483 96,477,271 FUND BALANCES I Reserved for: Encumbrances 20,420,570 33,341,703 99,522,919 Inventory 161,430 3,970,146 I Acquisition ofLand 3,847,740 3,847,740 Enhancement of Land 19,424,695 19,424,695 Long-term Management of Land 12,707,636 12,707,636 Unreserved, Reported in: I General Fund Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures 16,561,194 Designated for Economic Stabilization 11,807,000 I Undesignated 48,291,694 Special Revenue FlUld Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures 28,984,257 57,600,487 Designated for Economic Stabilization 886,000 12,331,000 I Undesignated 7,199,945 46,462,297 Capital Projects Fund Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures 107,732,284 57,772,998 421,299,696 Undesignated 5,214,141 42,497,289 101,943,865 I Total FlUld Balances 133,366,995 206,823,693 855,770,369 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $159,415,951 $229,242,176 $952,247,640 I I I I III-5 1611 Ai!. I South Florida Water Management District Reconciliation ofthe Governmental Funds Balance Sheet to the Statement ofN et Assets September 30, 2010 I I FlUld Balances - Total Governmental Funds $855,770,369 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets are different because: I Capital assets used in government activities are not financial resources and therefore are not reported in the governmental funds. I Governmental capital assets Less accumulated depreciation $4,535,103,563 (255.514.037) 4,279,589,526 I Long term liabilities not due and payable in the current period are not reported in the governmental funds. Bonds payable Bond premiums I discounts Bank loans payable Certificates of participation payable Certificates of participation premiums I discounts Compensated absences Other post employment benefits (36,160,000) (482,406) (4,118,196) (520,060,000) (19,339,546) (24,649,000) (14.409.130) I I (619,218,278) I The difference between retired debt and new debt is amortized as an adjustment of interest expense in the statement of activities over the remaining life of the debt. The discounts, premiums, and issuance costs on the debt are not deferred in governmental funds, but rather are recognized as other financing sources or uses when the debt is issued. I Unamortized debt issuance costs - bonds Unamortized debt issuance costs - certificates of participation Unamortized deferred interest 195,903 2,945,060 lA03.831 I 4,544,794 Bond and certificates of participation interest due October 1, 2010 are not reported as a liability of the governmental funds. I Accrued interest payable - bonds Accrued interest payable - certificates of participation (888,929) (12.877.444) (13,766,373) I. Assets not available to provide current resources are offset with deferred revenues in the fund statements. The reduction of the liability and recognition of revenue increases net assets in the Statement of Net Assets_ I 19,715,629 Internal Service FlUlds are used by management to charge the costs of certain activities, such as worker's compensation, general and automobile liability, and health benefits to individual funds. The assets and liabilities of the Internal Service Funds are included in governmental activities in the Statement of Net Assets. I 16.968.595 I Net Assets of Govemmental Activities $4 543 604 26? I See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements I I III-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I South Florida Water Management District 1 6 I i 1 pa~l ~ Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fundtalances Governmental Funds For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 REVENUES Okeechobee Basin General SR $189,659,164 $189,304,921 113,353 162,808 2,975,362 2,130,776 2,559,337 92,760 97,368 203,421 5,445,432 89,589 738,694 245,657 201,678,299 192,140,343 Ad Valorem Property Taxes Agricultural Privilege Taxes Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Licenses, Permits and Fees Sale of District Property Indirect Costs Recovered Leases Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operating Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply Capital Outlay Debt Service Bond Principal Retirement Bond Interest Bank Loan Principal Payments Bank Loan Interest Capital Lease Principal Payments Capital Lease Interest COPS Bond Principal Retirement COPS Bond Interest 87,132,407 13,692,971 20,916,015 29,464,927 9,701,726 72,902,707 14,226,288 432,494 1,142,857 168,000 689,625 38,172 200,330 5,543 Total Expenditures 152,517,177 98,196,885 49,161,122 93,943,458 289,233 132,000 (50,385,840) (91,051,698) (50,096,607) (90,919,698) (935,485) 3,023,760 88,716,041 84,713,479 $87,780,556 $87,737,239 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Transfers Out Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in FlUld Balances FlUld Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year Fund Balances at End of Year See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III-7 State Appropriations $ 332,223 18,931 351,154 12,891,954 1,449,355 14,341,309 (13,990,155) (13,990,155) 24,790,980 $10,800,825 Continued 16l 1 A 2 South Florida Water Management District Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Governmental Funds For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Page ~ of3 Everglades Trust FlUld REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes Agricultural Privilege Taxes Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Licenses, Permits and Fees Sale of District Property Indirect Costs Recovered Leases Other $60,507,638 11,678,158 2,220,495 3,319 Total Revenues 74,409,610 EXPENDITURES Current Operating Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply Capital Outlay Debt Service Bond Principal Retirement Bond Interest Bank Loan Principal Payments Bank Loan Interest Capital Lease Principal Payments Capital Lease Interest COPS Bond Principal Retirement COPS Bond Interest 31,089,957 3,110,870 5,181,891 14,336,499 Total Expenditures 53,719,217 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures 20,690,393 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Transfers Out (16,720,648) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (16,720,648) Net Change in Fund Balances FlUld Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year 3,969,745 94,565,212 Fund Balances at End of Year $98,534,957 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Save Our Everglades $ $ 3,225,808 77,076,606 578,211 42,500 990,565 5,596 429,751 4,221,969 78,127,068 3,001 27,202,557 11,821,347 9,472,801 46,074,138 4,188,109 11,587,047 52,453,515 57,895,485 (48,231,546) 20,231,583 73,174,783 1,783,806 73,174,783 1,783,806 24,943,237 22,015,389 183,793,076 (25,598) $208,736,313 $21,989,791 See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III-8 :'4 I ' . I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I 16 J 1 A ~ Pag4of3 I I Acceler8 Everglades Other Total Construction Governmental Governmental Proiect Funds Funds I REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes $ $15,230,491 $454,702,214 Agricultural Privilege Taxes 11,678,158 I Intergovernmental 14,384,147 92,069,137 Investment Earnings 636,394 2,618,772 14,404,749 Licenses, Permits and Fees 8,337,107 10,989,204 Sale of District Property 181,096 78,640 603,025 I Indirect Costs Recovered 5,445,432 Leases 933,561 2,443,466 Other 1,940,970 2,934,236 I Total Revenues 817,490 43,523,688 595,269,621 EXPENDITURES Current Operating I Mission Support 750,069 97,584,202 Operations and Maintenance 25,684,395 112,283,074 Restoration 230,782 38,623,300 157,002,200 I Water Supply 1,213,047 32,559,823 Capital Outlay 97,436,861 27,031,622 183,126,292 Debt Service Bond Principal Retirement 5,190,000 5,190,000 I Bond Interest 1,722,396 1,722,396 Bank Loan Principal Payments 1,832,482 Bank Loan Interest 206,172 Capital Lease Principal Payments 200,330 I Capital Lease Interest 5,543 COPS Bond Principal Retirement 9,370,000 COPS Bond Interest 25,923,546 I Total Expenditures 97,667,643 100,214,829 627,006,060 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (96,850,153) (56,691,141) (31,736,439) 'I OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 88,364,650 163,744,472 Transfers Out (16,797,343) (174,955,529) I Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 71,567,307 (11,211,057) Net Change in Fund Balances (96,850,153) 14,876,166 (42,947,496) I FlUld Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year 230,217,148 191,947,527 898,717,865 Fund Balances at End of Year $133,366,995 $206,823,693 $855,770,369 I I I I III-9 South Florida Water Management District1 J.... I Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expe.lai~es and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 Net Change in Fund Balances - Total Governmental Funds Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities are different because: Governmental funds report capital outlay as expenditures. However, in the Statement of Activities, the cost of those assets is depreciated over their estimated useful lives. Capital outlay Current year depreciation expense $162,596,540 (30.897.560) The net effect of various transactions involving capital assets (ie. adjustments, disposals, transfers, donations) is an increase to net assets Repayment of borrowed principal from bonds, bank loans, COPS, and capital leases is an expenditure in the governmental funds, but the repayment reduces long-term liabilities in the Statement ofN et Assets. Bonds principal payment Bank loan principal payment COPS principal payment Capital lease principal payment 5,190,000 1,832,482 9,370,000 200.330 Some expenses reported in the Statement of Activities do not require current financial resources and therefore are not reported as expenditures in the governmental funds. Change in long-term compensated absences Change in OPEB payable Bond interest payable at September 30, 2010 Bond interest payable at September 30, 2009 COPS interest payable at September 30, 2010 COPS interest payable at September 30, 2009 Amortization of deferred interest on bonds Amortization of discount on debt - bonds Amortization of discount on debt - certificates Amortization of premium on debt - bonds Amortization of premium on debt - certificates Amortization of cost of issuance on bonds Amortization of cost of issuance on certificates 351,000 (6,468,724) (888,929) 1,042,087 (12,877,444) 13,046,104 (280,761) (24,160) (10,841) 214,695 1,717,694 (88,341) 0.270.297) Revenues in the Statement of Activities that do not provide current financial resources are not reported as revenues in the fund statements. The net revenue of certain activities of Internal Service Funds is reported with governmental activities net of capital contributions and assumption of liabilities for self insurance claims previously reported in the government-wide statements_ Change in Net Assets of Governmental Activities See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III - 10 1 A2 $(42,947,496) 131,698,980 33,255,919 16,592,812 (5,537,923) 19,715,629 23.405.204 $176183125 ,t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Investments Accounts Receivable Due from Other Funds Prepaids Other Assets Total Current Assets Noncurrent Assets Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment Computer Hardware Vehicles Accumulated Depreciation Total Noncurrent Assets Total Assets LIABILmES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to Other Funds Claims Payable Total Current Liabilities Noncurrent Liabilities Claims Payable Total Noncurrent Liabilities Total Liabilities South Florida Water Management District Statement of Net Assets Proprietary Funds September 30,2010 NET ASSETS Net Assets Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt Unrestricted Total Net Assets See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III-ll 16f 1 A.2 ?;'f Governmental Activities Internal Service Funds $23,376,013 9,530 577,525 581,648 718,000 25,262,716 27,458 8,196 25,974 (16,285) 45,343 $25,308,059 $936,037 5,777 2,375,103 3,316,917 5,022,547 5,022,547 $8,339,464 45,343 16,923,252 $16,968,595 161 1 A2 South Florida Water Management District Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets Proprietary Funds For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 Governmental Activities Internal Service Fundc; OPERATING REVENUES Charges for Services Other Operating Revenue Total Operating Revenues OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries Benefits Claims Purchased Services Administrative Fees Other Depreciation Total Operating Expenses $30,339,921 3,318,987 33,658,908 489,615 230,280 17,925,098 230,206 1,387,584 1,259,177 5,954 21,527,914 OPERATING INCOME NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Investment Earnings Total Nonoperating Revenues 12,130,994 63,153 63,153 INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Capital Contributions Assumption of Liabilities for Self Insurance Claims Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 12,194,147 11,211,057 48,391 (6,485,000) 4,774,448 Change in Net Assets Net Assets at Beginning of Year Net Assets at End of Year 16,968,595 $16,968,595 See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III - l2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16 J 1 . 2 South Florida Water Management District Statement of Cash Flows Proprietary Funds For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 Governmental Activities Internal Service Funds I I I I I I I CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITES: Cash Receipts from Customers Cash Payments to Suppliers Cash Payments for Salaries, Benefits Cash Payments to Administrators Claims Paid Other Receipts (payments) Net cash provided by operating activities $29,758,640 (3,413,968) (719,895) (718,000) (16,121,057) 3,318,989 12,104,709 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING Transfers In Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 11.211.057 11,211,057 CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL ACTIVITIES: Purchase of Capital Assets Net cash used for capital activities (2,906) (2,906) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Interest Earnings Net cash provided by investing activities 63,153 63,153 I Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Year Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Year 23,376,013 $23,376,013 I I I I I I RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO NET CASH USED IN OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Operating Income 12,130,994 Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash used in operating activities: Depreciation 5,954 CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES: Decrease (fncrease) in Accounts Receivable Decrease (fncrease) in Due from Other Funds Decrease (fncrease) in Prepaids Decrease (fncrease) in Deposits Increase (Decrease) in Accounts Payable Increase (Decrease) in Due to Other Funds Increase (Decrease) in Estimated Unpaid Claims Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities (9,530) (577,525) (581,648) (718,000) 936,037 5,777 912,650 $12,104,709 NONCASH CAPITAL AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Capital contributions from government Assumption of liabilities for self-insurance claims 48,391 (6,485,000) I I See Accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements III-13 ~ - ~ This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank III - 14 I 161 1 A 2 ,_ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 1 ~ 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTE~mER 30, 2010 (1) DESCRIPTION OF TIIE SOU1HFLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.......... ill-16 (2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES ............................................... ill-16 (a) Reporting Entity. ....... ... ......... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... .............. ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... ....... ........ ill-16 (b) Government-wide and Fund Financial Statements........................................................ ill-17 (c) Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting .............................................................. ill-17 (d) Major Governmental Funds and Other Fund Types ...................................................... ill-18 (e) Budgetary Information...... .... ........ .... ....... ...... .... ..... .......... ..... .... ....... ..... ......... ...... ....... ill-19 (f) Cash and Investments ....... ............ ............ .... ..... ............. ...... ............. ..... ......... ..... ....... ill-19 (g) Prepaid Items. .... .... ... ........ ....... ................. .... ..... ........ ..... ........ ...... ..... .... ............ ....... ... ill-20 (h) Inventory ... .... .... ... ....... ..... ....... ............ ..... .... ............. ..... .............. ..... ..... .... ....... ....... ... ill-20 (i) Capital Assets................. ......................... ...................... ............................. ....... .......... III-20 G) Compensated Absences .. ......... ... ......... .... ............. ..... .... .......... ..... .... ..... ....... ...... ... ...... ill-20 (k) Wetland Mitigation...... ... ......... ....... ..... ......... ... ..... ..... .... .... ...... ..... .... ..... ........ .... .......... III-21 (1) Fund Balances / Net Assets ......................................................................................... ill-21 (m) Use of Estimates ......................... ....................................................................... .......... ill-22 (n) Impact of Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements............................................... III-22 (3) CASH AND INVESTlVIENTS .............................................................................................. ill-23 (4) ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ......................................................._........................................ III-28 (5) INTERFUND RECEIVABLES, PAYABLES AND lRANSFERS ....................................... ill-29 (6) OPERAllliG LEASE RENTAL REVENlJES ...................................................................... ill-30 (7) PROPERTY T A.,"XES................ ................ ..... ............................................. ..... ................ ...... ill -30 (8) INTERGOVERNMENTAL lRANSACTIONS .................................................................... ill-31 (9) CAPITAL ASSETS AC11VITY ........................................................................................... ill-32 (1 0) LONG-TERM LIABILITIES................................. ......................................... ....... ......... ...... ill-33 (11) DEFICIT FUND BALANCES. ............ .................. ..... ............. ............................ ....... .......... ill-36 (12) OPERAllliG LEASES.......................................... ............. ..... ...... ............. ................ .......... ill-36 (13) CAPITAL LEASES .............................................................................................................. ill-36 (14) DEFINED BENEm PENSION PLAN ................................................................................ III-37 (15) OTIIERPOST-EMPLOTIvfENT BENEFITS (OPEB) .......................................................... ill-37 (16) rnSlJRANCE ACTIVITIES.... ....... ........ .... ..... ....... ..... .......... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..... ... .... .... ........... ill -39 (17) C01.ftvllTMENTS - CONDEMNATION PROCEEDrnGS ................................................... III-41 (18) MAJOR CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS .................................................................... ill-41 (19) OTIIER COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES .......................................................... ill-43 (20) SUBSEQUENT EVENT...................................................... ......................................... ......... ill -44 III - 15 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIS~9 l 1 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 'A~2 (1) DESCRIPTION OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT The South Florida Water Management District (the "District") is a public corporation organized under Florida Statutes, Chapter 373, and is controlled by a Governing Board consisting of nine (9) members appointed by the Governor to staggered four-year terms. The District covers all or parts of sixteen counties in Central and Southern Florida. The primary objectives of the District are to promote the protection and restoration of natural systems, facilitate the development and proper utilization of surface and ground water within District boundaries, and prevent damage from floods, soil erosion and excessive drainage. To accomplish these objectives, the District is empowered to manage and regulate the usage and storage of water within District boundaries and to acquire properties and construct facilities as necessary. The District works in concert with the State of Florida (the "State") and agencies of the federal government to accomplish the previously described water management objectives. For financial reporting purposes, the District is a component unit of the State of Florida. (2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The accompanying fmancial statements conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP) for governmental units as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and other recognized authoritative sources. The more significant accounting policies are summarized in the following paragraphs. (a) Reporting Entity The District follows the standards promulgated by GASB Statement No. 14, ''The Financial Reporting Entity", as amended by GASB Statement No. 39, "Determining Whether Certain Organizations Are Component Units" to determine the inclusion of an organization as part of its reporting entity. The Statement defmes the criteria for inclusion as 1) the economic resources received or held by the separate organization are primarily for the direct benefit of the primary government, 2) the primary government is entitled to, or has the ability to access a majority of the economic resources received or held by the separate organization and 3) the economic resources received or held by the separate organization on behalf of the specific primary government are significant to that primary government. Based on these criteria, the District has determined that the South Florida Water Management District Leasing Corporation (the "Corporation") is a blended component unit. The Corporation's sole purpose is to provide financing for certain District projects. The Corporation is legally separate from the District and the Board of the Corporation consists of the nine Board members of the District Therefore, the financial activities of the Corporation have been blended (reported as if it were part of the District) with the activities of the District. The Corporation does not publish individual component unit ftnancial statements. The District is not a participant in any joint venture. The District is a component unit of the State of Florida. The State provides funding for District programs through the sale of State debt, the sharing of documentary stamp revenues, and the approval of various annual grants and entitlements. III - 16 ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16J 1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 A2 I I I (2) SUlvJlvfARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) I I (b) Government-wide and Fund Financial Statements The government-wide fmancial statements, i.e., the statement of net assets and the statement of activities, report information on all of the activities of the District For the most part, the effect of interfund activity has been removed from these statements. I The statement of activities demonstrates the degree to which the direct expenses of a given function are offset by program revenues. Direct expenses are those that are clearly identifiable with a specific function or segment. Program revenues include: 1) charges to customers or applicants who purchase, use, or directly benefit from goods, selVices, or privileges provided by a given function, and 2) grants and contributions that are restricted to meeting the operational or capital requirements of a particular function. Taxes and other items not properly included among program revenues are reported as general revenues. I I Separate financial statements are provided for governmental funds. Major individual governmental funds are reported as separate columns in the fund fmancial statements. (c) },Ifeasurement Focus and Basis of Accounting I The government-wide fmancial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied for. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements have been met I I Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available when they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. The District considers revenues from property taxes, intergovernmental sources and interest to be available if they are collected within sixty (60) days of the end of the current fiscal period. I I I Revenues susceptible to accrual are property taxes, interest on investments, and intergovernmental revenues. Property taxes are recorded as revenues in the fiscal year in which they are levied for, provided they are collected in the current period or within sixty (60) days thereafter. Interest on invested funds is recognized when earned and available. Intergovernmental revenues that are reimbursements for specific purposes or projects are recognized when all eligibility requirements are mCit and it is available. I Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, debt selVice expenditures, as well as expenditures related to compensated absences, claims and judgments, and other post employment benefits (OPEB) are recorded only when payment is due. I The District often acquires land for environmental restoration and related purposes sometimes involving condemnation action in a court of law. Upon action of the Court's Stipulated Order of Taking, the District recognizes an expenditure for the amount deposited with the Court. I When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the District's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. I I III - 17 SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTDI!JRI~ l 1 A R NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 (2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) (c) Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting (continued) In addition to governmental funds, the District reports proprietary funds. Proprietary funds are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. With the accrual method of accounting, revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time the liabilities are inCWTed. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with a proprietary fund's principal ongoing operations. Proprietary funds distinguish operating revenues and expenses from non-operating items. Operating expenses include salaries, benefits, claims payments, purchased services and depreciation. All items not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. (d) Maior Governmental Funds and Other Fund Types The District reports the following major governmental funds: The General Fund is the District's primary operating fund, and accounts for all financial resources of the District., except those required to be accounted for in another fund. The Okeechobee Basin SR Fund accounts for the normal operating expenditures of the Okeechobee Basin, an area covering all or part offifteen (15) counties in South Florida. Funding is provided by a .2797 mill property tax levy, intergovernmental revenues and permitting fees. The State Appropriations Fund accounts for expenditures made for various projects utilizing state sources. Among the funding sources are the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund, the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund, and various state agencies. While not required to be a major fund, this fund is deemed a major fund and is reported separately due to its high level of public interest. The Everglades Trust Fund accounts for capital expenditures to construct storm water treatment areas to cleanse storm water runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) through naturally occurring biological and physical processes. Additional objectives include hydroperiod restoration and water supply. Funding is provided through a .0894 mill ta~ levy, non-ad valorem assessments to property owners in the EAA, State and Federal contributions, and interest earnings. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Fund accounts for revenues and expenditures associated with projects included in the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Restudy and which form the basis of the CERP. These projects are designed to increase the availability of water supplies for consumptive use or cost share with the federal government on regional projects intended to mitigate consequences that are an outgrowth of the original C&SF Flood Control Project Funding is provided by transfers from the General Fund and Okeechobee Basin SR Fund. The Save Our Everglades Fund accounts for revenues and expenditures for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and the Northern Everglades Estuary Protection Program (NEEPP) which are funded from the State's Save Our Everglades Trust Fund. III - 18 ,\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEME~T~I!TRI~T A 2 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 ;v4 I (2) SUlvJMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) I (d) Major Governmental Funds and Other Fund Tllpes (continued) I The Acceler8 Everglades Construction Proiect Fund accounts for revenues derived from long term debt issued to support the construction of projects in the EvergladeslLong Term Plan Implementation Program and expenditures associated with the construction of those projects. The District reports the following type of proprietary funds: I I Internal service funds are used to account for the fmancing of goods and services provided by one department to another on a cost reimbursement basis. The District reports two internal service funds, one used to account for workers' compensation, general liability, automobile, and other insurance activities and one to account for self funded health and medical benefits provided to the employees of the District and retirees who choose to remain within the plan. I (e) Budgetary Information The District has elected to report budgetary comparisons as required supplementary information (RSl). Please refer to the accompanying notes to the RSI for the District's budgetary information on page IV -7. I (j) Cash and Investments I Cash includes currency on hand and demand deposits. Cash equivalents for purposes of the statement of cash flows consist of pooled cash and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition. The District utilizes pooled cash accounting whereby excess monies are aggregated for investment purposes. Earnings from such investments are allocated to the respective funds based on applicable cash participation by each fund. Negative cash balances in individual funds are reported as interfund payables with offsetting receivables recorded in loaning fund(s). In accordance with GASB Statement No. 31, the District reports investments at their fair market value, with unrealized gains and losses credited to or charged against investment earnings. I I The District's investment portfolio is valued based on a blend of third-party market pricing services such as BONDEDGE, FISERV, YIELDBOOK and BLOOMBERG. I I I I Non-participating investments, such as non-negotiable certificates of deposit with redemption values that do not consider market rates, are reported at amortized costs. The District has investments in three investment pools, Florida Prime (previously known as the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund - Pool A), the Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund - Pool B (pool B), and the Florida Local Government Investment Trust (Trust Fund). Both Florida Prime and Pool B are managed by the State Board of Administration. The Florida Local Government Investment Trust is a member-owned, member- governed investment fund. Under the guidelines of GASB Statement No. 31, Florida Prime is a "2a-7 like" pool. Accordingly, investments in Florida Prime are reported at net asset value per share. Pool B and the Trust Fund are accounted for as fluctuating net asset value (NA V) pools. As such, their investments have been valued based on their respective fair value factor as of the balance sheet date. I During the year, the District did not directly invest any resources in derivatives. Investments made through State-administered trust funds may include derivatives. These investments are made on a pooled basis and the individual risk to the District is unknown. I I III - 19 16\ A2 J. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 (2) SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) (g) Prepaid Items Prepaid items consist of certain costs which have been paid prior to the end of the fiscal year, but represent items which are applicable to future accounting periods. These amounts do not constitute available spendable resources even though they are a component of current assets. (h) Inventory Inventory is stated at moving average cost and consists of fuel, chemicals and supplies held for consumption. The cost is recorded as an expenditure at the time individual inventory items are consumed. (i) CapitalAssets Capital assets, which include land, canals and levees, buildings, equipment, vehicles, infrastructure assets (bridges, water control structures) and intangible assets are reported in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets are defmed by the District as assets with an initial, individual cost of $1,000 or more and an estimated useful life of one year or more. Intangible assets are defmed as assets that lack physical substance, are nonfinancial in nature, and have initial useful lives which extend beyond a single reporting period. The District reports two main types of intangible assets, easements, which are considered non-depreciable and internally generated software, which is depreciated over its estimated useful life. Items purchased or acquired are reported at historical cost or estimated historical cost. Donated assets are recorded at their estimated fair value on the date donated. Maintenance, repairs and minor renovations are not capitalized. The acquisition of land and construction projects utilizing resources received from Federal and State agencies are capitalized when the related expenditure is incurred. Expenditures that materially increase values, change capacities or extend useful lives of assets are capitalized. Upon sale or retirement, the costs and their related accumulated depreciation are eliminated from the respective accounts. Capital assets are depreciated using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives: Asset Intangibles Vehicles Equipment Buildings Improvements Other Than Buildings Water Control Structures Years 5-10 5-25 5-25 10-40 12-25 25-50 Land, easements (intangibles), canals and levees have indefinite useful lives and as such are not considered to be depreciable capital assets. (j) Comvensated Absences District employees are granted a specific number of vacation and sick leave hours with pay. Non- management employees are permitted to accrue a maximum of360 hours of vacation as of December 31. III - 20 '4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16 /.1 A c. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 I I (2) SUNDvfARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) I I (j) Compensated Absences (continued) I Managers are permitted to accrue a maximum of 480 hours of vacation as of December 31. Employees are paid for excess vacation time over the maximum in January. Semi-annually, employees are granted the option to buy-down accrued annual leave, up to a maximum of 80 hours per calendar year. A minimum of 120 hours must be maintained after any buy down. Upon termination of employment, employees are paid for a percentage of unused sick leave ranging from 25 to 50 percent after at least six years of service. I The costs of vacation and sick leave benefits (compensated absences) are budgeted and expended in the respective operating funds when payments are made to employees. However, the liability for all accrued and vested vacation and sick leave benefits plus sick leave benefits expected to become vested is recorded in the government-wide financial statements. The District normally liquidates its liability for compensated absences from the General Fund and the Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Funds. I (k) Wetland Mitif!ation I The District manages a program for mitigating the impact of wetland destruction through a specialized regulatory permitting process. Permit applicants are required to remit a specified cash payment to the District as part of the permit conditions. The permit restricts the use of the funds received by the District to land acquisition, land restoration and long-term management of the lands in areas managed by the District that are near the lands being developed by permitees. The District accounts for the money received to assure it is used only for the approved putpose in the assigned area. Funds received for land acquisition and restoration (expendable) are placed in the Wetland Mitigation SR Fund. Funds received for long-term management (nonexpendable) are placed in the Wetland Mitigation Permanent Fund. I I (1) Fund Balances / Net Assets I In the fund financial statements, reservations of fund balance are reported to indicate that a portion of fund balance is not available for appropriation for expenditure or is legally segregated for a specific purpose. Designations of fund balance identify tentative plans for the future use of financial resources. The undesignated fund balance is available for future appropriation. The types of reserves and designations of the District's fund balance are as follows: I I Reserved for Encumbrances - Represents outstanding purchase orders and contracts at fiscal year- end which will be honored in the subsequent fiscal year. I Reserved for Inventory - Represents the value of consumable inventory recorded as an asset but which is unavailable for appropriation. I Reserved for Acquisition of Land and Enhancement of Land - Represents the expendable portion of specialized regulatory permits received by the District, which is accounted for in the Wetland Mitigation SR Fund. The use of funds is restricted by the permit I Reserved for Long Term Management of Land - Represents the nonexpendable portion of specialized regulatory permits received by the District, which is accounted for in the Wetland Mitigation Permanent Fund. The use of funds is restricted by the permit. I I III - 21 t 6 '.....1,," A? I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRI~ .. c... NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I SEPTKMBER 30, 2010 (2) SUlvfJvfARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) I (1) Fund Balances / NetAssets (continued) I I I I Designated for Subsequent Years Expenditures - Represents fund balance available as of the end of the current fiscal year which has been budgeted for the subsequent year's expenditures. Designated for Economic Stability - Represents the amOlmt designated to allow the District to address the impact of emergencies, without utilizing short term borrowings. Board policy requires the amount to be at least 5% of the previous fiscal year's actual revenue from all sources of ad valorem tax-supported funds. Net assets represent the difference between assets and liabilities and are reported as restricted when there are limitations imposed on their use either through the enabling legislation or through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, or laws or regulations of other governments. The types of reserves the District has of its net assets are: III - 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I Restricted for Debt Service - Represents the portion of net assets which is restricted for debt service payments or long-term borrowings. Restricted for Wetlands Mitigation - Represents the expendable and nonexpendable portions of net assets which are restricted for land acquisition, land restoration and long-term management of the wetlands. Restricted for Environmental Programs - Represents the portion of net assets which is restricted for specific environmental programs through legally enforceable requirements stipulated in legislation or through external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, or laws or regulations of other governments. As of September 30, 2010, the District has approximately $233.5 million in restricted net assets through enabling legislation. (m) Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amount of revenue and expenses/expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. (n) Impact of Recent Iv IssuedAccounting Pronouncements Recently Issued and Implemented Accounting Pronouncements In June 2007, GASB issued Statement No. 51 "Accounting and Reporting for Intangible Assets." The objective of this Statement is to establish accounting and financial reporting requirements for intangible assets. Examples of intangible assets include easements, water rights, timber rights, patents, trademaIks, and computer software. This Statement requires that all intangible assets not specifically excluded by its scope provision be classified as capital assets. The requirements of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2009 and are generally required to be retroactive. The District implemented this Statement during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. The implementation had no material effect on the District financial statements. I I I I I I I I I I "-1"-/ . (,f ~ ' I( A ~J, J SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISJ'RICT" 2 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 ,j (2) SUlvfJl.1ARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (continued) (n) Impact or RecentZv Issued Accounting Pronauncements (continued) hi December 2009, GASB issued Statement No. 57 "OPEB Measurements by Agent Employers and Agent Multiple-Employer Plans." This Statement addresses issues related to the use of the alternative measurement method and the frequency and timing of measurements by employers that participate in agent multiple-employer other postemployment benefit (OPEB) plans (that is, agent employers). hi addition, this Statement clarifies that when actuarially determined OPEB measures are reported by an agent multiple-employer OPEB plan and its participating employers, those measures should be determined as of a common date and at a minimum frequency to satisfy the agent multiple-employer OPEB plan's financial reporting requirements. The District implemented this Statement during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. The implementation had no effect on the District financial statements. hi December 2009, GASB issued Statement No. 58 "Accounting and Financial Reporting for Chapter 9 Bankruptcies." The objective of this Statement is to provide accounting and fmancial reporting guidance for governments that have petitioned for protection from creditors by filing for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. It requires governments to remeasure liabilities that are adjusted in bankruptcy when the bankruptcy court confirms (that is, approves) a new payment plan. The District implemented this Statement during the fiscal year ended September 30,2010. The implementation had no effect on the District financial statements. I I I I I I I I I hi June 2010, GASB issued Statement No. 59 "Financial Instruments Omnibus." The objective of this Statement is to update and improve existing standards regarding financial reporting and disclosure requirements of certain financial instruments and external investment pools for which significant issues have been identified in practice. The District implemented this Statement during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010. The implementation had no effect on the District fmancial statements. Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements, Not Yet Implemented hi March 2009, GASB issued Statement No. 54 "Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions." This Statement establishes fund balance classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on the extent to which a government is bound to observe constraints imposed upon the use of the resources reported in governmental funds. 'Ibis Statement also clarifies the definitions of the general fund, special revenue fund type, capital projects fund type, debt service fund type, and permanent fund type. Fund balance reclassifications made to conform to the provisions of this Statement should be applied retroactively by restating fund balance for all prior periods presented. The District will implement this Statement in its fiscal year beginning October 1,2010. (3) CASH AND INVESTMENTS Statement of Policy The purpose of the District's investment policy is to set forth the investment objectives and parameters for the management of public funds of the District The policy is designed to ensure the prudent management of public funds, the availability of operating and capital funds when needed, and an investment return competitive with comparable funds and fmancial marlcet indices. III - 23 SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTDIST1p J ~ NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEJ.\IIENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 A2 I I I (3) CASH AND INVESTMENTS (continued) The District's policy is written in accordance with Section 218.415, Florida Statutes, which applies to funds under the control of local governments and special districts. The policy and any subsequent revisions are adopted by the District's Governing Board and apply to funds in excess of those required to meet current expenditures. The most recent revisions to the investment policy were approved by the Governing Board in June 2008. I I The District's investment policy authorizes investments in: 1) the Florida Local Government Surplus Funds Trust Fund (which includes Florida Prime, Pool B and the Florida Local Government Investment Trust), 2) United States government securities unconditionally guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, 3) United States government agencies backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, 4) United States government sponsored agencies, 5) interest bearing time deposit or savings accounts of Florida Banks and Savings and Loan Associations approved under Chapter 280, Florida Statutes, 6) cornmercial paperrated Prime 1 by Moody's, Al by Standard and Poor's orF-l by Fitch, 7) corporate notes rated at a minimum Aa by Moody's, AA by Standard and Poor's or AA by Fitch, 8) Bankers Acceptances rated at a minimum P-l by Moody's and A-I by Standard and Poor's, 9) state and/or local government taxable and/or tax exempt debt, general obligation and/or revenue bonds, rated at least Aa by Moody's and AA by Standard and Poor's or AA by Fitch for long term debt or rated at least MIG-l by Moody's and SP-l by Standard and Poor's for short-term debt, 10) money market mutual funds rated AAAm or AAAM-G or better by Standard & Poor's, or the equivalent by another rating agency, 11) master repurchase agreements collateralized by United States government, government agencies and federal instrumentalities, 12) hedging instruments, 13) reverse repurchase agreements and 14) agency mortgage backed securities or non-agency mortgage backed securities that maintain a AAA rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating agency. I I I I I As of September 30, 2010, the District had placed approximately 41% of its investments in U.S. Agency Obligations, 31% in Agency Mortgage Backed Securities, 2% in Corporate Bonds, 5% in Commercial Paper, 8% in Florida Prime and the Local Government Investment Pool and 13% in the Florida Local Government Investment Trust (mutual fund). I I I I I I I Florida Prime and the Local Government Investment Pool (pool B) are investment pools available for investing temporarily idle cash by Florida governments and are managed by the State Board of Administration (the "SBA"). On November 29,2007, the SBA implemented a temporary freeze on the assets in the Pool due to an unprecedented amount of withdrawals coupled with the absence of market liquidity for certain securities within the Pool. On December 4, 2007, based on recommendations from an outside financial advisor, the SBArestructured the Pool into two (2) separate pools. Florida Prime, which was previously known as Pool A, consisted of all money market appropriate assets, which represented approximately 86% of pool assets. Pool B consisted of assets that defaulted on a payment, paid more slowly than expected, and/or had any significant credit and liquidity risk, which represented approximately 14% of pool assets. At that time, all current participants had their existing balances proportionately allocated into Florida Prime and Pool B. As of September 30, 2010, 3.0% of the District's original balance in SBA remains inaccessible, which represents investments currently valued at $1,952,770. The District has full access to funds in Florida Prime. Participants in Pool B receive periodic distributions to the extent that Pool B receives proceeds from: 1) maturities of securities, coupon interest collections or collateral interest and principal pay downs, or 2) the sale of securities, collateral liquidation or other restructure or workout activities. At such time, the Investment Manager transfers cash or securities to Florida Prime for the benefit of Pool B shareholders. Such transfers are consistent with the I I III - 24 I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTlUfT6 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS J. SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 1,.1 A 2 f I (3) CASH AND INVESTMENTS (continued) I pro rata allocation of Pool B shareholders of record as of the initial segregation of assets in the Pool. Effective March 2008, the SEA contracted with Federated Investors, Inc. to provide investment advisory services to the investment pool. The SBA has since put into place processes that allow for improved reporting, full transparency, conservative investment practices, improved portfolio guidelines and stricter internal controls. According to the SBA, Florida Prime meets the criteria to be considered as "2a-7 like", as defmed by GASB Statement No. 31. Accordingly, it has been reported at the same value as the pool shares allocated to the District. Florida Prime maintains a AAAm rating by Standard and Poor's Ratings Services. Pool B is accounted for as a fluctuating net asset value (NA V) pool with a fair value factor of .707058094 at September 30. The pool is currently not rated by any nationally recognized statistical rating agency. I I I I I Florida Prime and Pool B are governed by the rules of Chapter 19-7 of the Florida Administrative Code. These rules provide guidance and establish the general operating procedures for the administration of the Funds. Additionally, the Office of the Auditor General perfonns the operational audit of the activities and investments ofthe SBA Interest Rate Risk I Investments are made based upon prevailing market conditions at the time of the transaction. While the overall intent is to hold securities to maturity, the ongoing management of the portfolio allows for actions designed to meet cash needs of the District and attempts to maximize investment yield while minimizing losses. Investment in Mortgage Backed Securities allows for a monthly return of principal with interest in order to meet current expenditures. In addition, investments can be sold prior to maturity in order to improve yield, modify the target duration or improve the overall credit position of the portfolio. I I The District uses a duration method to construct a portfolio of bonds to fund its future cash needs. For reporting purposes, it selects the effective duration to disclose the portfolio's exposure to changes in interest rates. Through its investment policy, the District manages its exposure to fair value losses arising from interest rate increases by limiting the effective duration of its investment portfolio, including cash balances, to less than three (3) years, excluding Pool B. Funds in Pool B are not readily available to participants, but are systematically transferred to Florida Prime as the underlying assets mature. I The District maintains an allocation of its investments in u.s. Agency Obligation securities which are callable by the issuer. These bonds are subject to the risk of being called prior to maturity. I I The District invests in Mortgage Backed Securities, including Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMO's) in part to maximize yield and as a protection against a rise in interest rates. These securities are based on cash flows from payments on underlying mortgages; therefore, they are sensitive to prepayments by mortgagees, which may result from a decline in interest rates. An increase in interest rates may increase the average maturity of these investments. The District currently limits its exposure to all mortgage investments to 30% of the total portfolio balance at the time of purchase. As of September 30, 2010 the District had the following investments in its pooled portfolio: I I I I III - 25 16 I ~,1 A 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 (3) CASH AND INVESTMENTS (continued) Investment Type u.s. Agency Obligations Investments in Mortgage Backed Securities Corporate Bonds Commercial Paper Horida Prime Local Government Surplus Trust Fund - Pool B Horida Local Government Investment Trust Total Fair Value Portfolio Effective Duration Credit Risk Fair Value $ 161,152,720 124,015,791 9,269,100 19,975,856 30,658,217 1,952,770 50,494,775 $ 397,519,229 Effective Duration (inyrs) 1.19 0.56 2.19 0.15 0.14 7.49 1.88 1.00 For liquidity purposes, the District invests in Florida Prime, which is managed in accordance with State statutes. Florida Prime is rated AAAm by Standard & Poor's, and investment into the fund by local governments is consistent with SEC rule 2a-7. Pool B is currently not rated by any nationally recognized statistical rating agency. All of the District's investments in agency securities for fiscal year 2010 were rated AAA by Standard and Poor's and Fitch ratings and Aaa by Moody's Investor Services. In addition, all of the District's investments in Mortgage Backed Securities were rated AAA by at least two of the three listed rating services. This applies to the direct agency obligations as well as the investment into non-agency mortgages and CMO's. Credit Quality Distribution for Securities with Credit Expos ure Investment Tvoe Credit Rating Fair Value Florida Prime AAAm $ 30,658,217 Local Government Surplus Trust Fund - Pool B Unrated 1,952,770 Fannie Mae - Agencies & Mortgages AAA 149,601,661 Freddie Mac - Agencies & Mortgages AAA 77,038,4W Federal Home Loan Bank - Agencies AAA 30,125,000 Federal Farm Credit Bank - Agencies AAA 10,138,000 Ginnie Mae - Mortgage Backed Security AAA 18,265,360 General Electric Capital Corp. AA+ 9,269,100 Silver Tower US A1Pl 19,975,856 Florida Local Government Investment Trust AAAf 50,494,775 $ 397,519,229 III - 26 I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATERMANAGEMENTDISTRICT1.6 I 1 A C. NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 (3) CASH AND INVESTMENTS (continued) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Custodial Credit Risk - Deposits All of the District's cash deposits are held in accounts at depository institutions which are recognized as State of Florida Qualified Public Depositories in accordance with state statutes and the District's investment policy. The most significant cash deposit of the District at September 30, 2010 is the balance of proceeds from the issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPS) in fiscal year 2007. The ''Cash Deposits Held by Trustee" balance consists of $190,447,945 in COPS proceeds which are held in trust by a third party financial institution on behalf of the District, and $22,582,443 representing debt service on the COPS due October 1, 2010. Custodial Credit Risk - Investments The District's investment policy requires that all securities be held with a third-party custodian in a separate account which is registered as an asset of the District. The custodian acts as the safekeeper of the District's investment securities. No withdrawal of securities, in whole or in part, is made from safekeeping without written authorization of designated District staff. Concentration of Credit Risk The District's policy authorizes investment allocation limits on security types, issuers, and maturity limitations. However, the Executive Director has the option to modify investment percentages from time- to-time based on market conditions, risk and diversification investment strategies. These actions are delegated to the Chief Financial Officer and/or the District Treasurer to implement as needed. Pe~entage Allocation by Issuer as of September 30, 2010 Issuer Florida Prime Local Government Surplus Trust Fund - Pool B Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Ginnie Mae FederalFarm CreditBanlc FederalHome Loan Bank GeneralElectric Capital Corp. Silver Tower US Florida Local Government Investment Trust I I Percent of Total 7.71% 0.491'10 37.63% 19.38% 4.60% 2.55% 7.5SOIo 2.33% 5.03% 12.70% III - 27 16l'lAc? : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 (3) CASH AND INVESTMENTS (continued) Cash and investments as of September 30, 2010 are comprised of the following: Cash Deposits: Money Market Accounts Demand Deposit AccOlmts Petty Cash Total Cash Deposits $ 88,771,184 226,130,107 6,675 314,907,966 Cash Deposits Held by Trustee: 213,030,388 Investments Held by the District: U.S. Agency Obligations Investments in Mortgage Backed Securities Corporate Bonds Commercial Paper Florida Prime Local Government Surplus Trust Fund - Pool B Florida Local Government Investment Trust Total Investments 161,152,720 124,015,791 9,269,100 19,975,856 30,658,217 1,952,770 50,494,775 397,519,229 Total Cash and Investments $ 925,457,583 (4) ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE Accounts receivable at September 30,2010 consist of the following: General Flmd Leases $ 8,674 Interest 341,626 Other 13 $ 350,313 Comprehensive Okeechobee Everglades Everglades Basin Trust Rest Plan Save Our SR Fund Fund CP Fund Everglades $ 604 $ $ $ 150,539 272,591 253,980 310,722 $ 273,195 $ 253,980 $ 310,722 $ 150,539 III - 28 Non Major Funds! Internal Service Funds $ 1,636 229,838 $ 231,474 Total $ 161,453 1,408,757 13 $1,570,223 I I I I I JIA~ I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 (5) INTERFUND RECEIVABLES, PAYABLES AND TRANSFERS Interfund receivables and payables as of September 30, 2010 are as follows: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Interfund Interfund Receivable Payable General F1Uld $ 1,226,167 $ 277,212 Okeechobee Basin SR F1Uld 1,8W,965 207,W9 Everglades Trust Fund 7;230,227 23,101 CERP 28,876 Acceler8 ECP F1Uld 7,730,727 Other Governmental F1Ulds 4,580,759 7,732,541 Internal Service F1Ulds 577,525 5,777 $ 15,505,643 $ 15,505,643 Interfund balances at year end represent pending transfers from funds in which revenues are recorded to their corresponding capital expenditure fund, pending transfers to the Health Insurance F1Uld for employee insurance expenditures or temporary loans to fund grant activity in special revenue funds with pending reimbursements. Interfund transfers during the year are as follows: From' General Fund Okeechobee Comprehensive Basin SR Everglades Fund Fund To: Save Our Everglades Fund Other Governmental Funds Internal Service Funds Totals General Fund $ - $ Okeechobee Basin SR Fund EvergJades Trust Fund Other Governmental Funds 289,233 - $ 39,174,783 $ - $ - $ 1l,211,057 34,000,000 1,113,214 55,938,484 16,720,648 132,000 670,592 15,705,518 $ 50,385,840 91,051,698 16,720,648 16,797,343 $ 289,233 $ 132,000 $ 73,174,783 $1,783,806 $ 88,364,650 $ 11,211,057 S 174,955,529 The majority of the transfers into the General Fund and the Okeechobee Basin F1Uld represent portions of State appropriations required to be used for general purposes. The transfers into the Comprehensive Everglades F1Uld represent the portion of ad valorem tax revenues to fund CERP projects. The transfers into the Save Our Everglades Fund represent funding for Northern Everglades projects and realignment of program revenues. The majority of the remaining transfers represent funding for operations of water control projects for the Okeechobee Basin, State-required transfers of Everglades Forever Act appropriations and other funds necessary to manage the related projects, transfers to realign program revenue, primarily consisting of rental income, to the funding source of the original land acquisitions, transfers to be used for wetlands mitigation activities and transfers relating to the establishment of internal service funds. III - 29 SOUTH FLoRIDA WATERMANAGEMENTDISTRIC16 I 1 A j,t " NOTES TO THE FmANCUL STATEMENTS I SEPTEMBER 30,2010 (q) OPERATING LEASE RENTAL REVENUES I Property on Operating Leases and Property Held for Lease The District purchases land for environmental restoration projects. Often there are agricultural activities occurring on parts of the land at the time of purchase. If the land is not needed for a project immediately, the District allows these activities to continue as it results in lower land maintenance costs. In addition" rent is charged for the use of the land for farming until such time it is needed for project purposes. The District investment in land on which operating leases exist is $420.1 million as of September 30,2010. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 - 2020 $ 3,170,804 4338,923 1,959,349 1,89L428 1,602,300 1.612781 $ 12575.585 I I I I I I I Revenues under Operating Leases The following is a schedule by year of minimum future revenues on noncancelable operating leases, including contingent revenues which may be received under certain leases of land on the basis of use in excess of stipulated minimums. For fiscal year 2010, contingent revenues were $-0-. Year Ending September 30: Total minimum future revenues III - 30 I I I I I I I I I (7) PROPERTY TAXES The District is permitted by Florida Statutes to levy taxes up to .800 mills per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The rate levied for a majority of the District for fiscal year 2010 was .624 mills. Property taxes are levied each November 1 on the assessed value listed as of the prior January 1 for real and personal property located within the District. The assessed value at January 1, 2010, upon which the fiscal year 2010 levy was based, was approximately $783.8 billion. A four percent discount is allowed if the taxes are paid in November, with the discount declining by one percentage point each month thereafter. Taxes become delinquent Apri!l of each year. Delinquent property tax certificates are sold to the public beginning June 1, at which time a lien attaches to the property. By fiscal year end, virtually all property taxes are collected either directly or through tax certificate sales. Property tax revenues are recorded by the District based on the amount of receipts reported by the county tax collectors. Property taxes receivable from the county tax collectors at September 30, 2010, is $5,931,740 and is included in tax revenues. 1 b J~ 1 I:: SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (8) INTERGOVERNlYfENTAL TRANSACTIONS Amounts due from other governments at September 30, 2010 and intergovernmental revenues for 2010 consist of the following: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Agriculture Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Fish and Wildlife ConselVation Commission Florida Department of Transportation Florida Department of Motor Vehides Lee County Miami Dade County St John's River Water Management District Southwest Florida Water Management District Town of Southwest Ranches Various Counties: Ad Valorem Taxes Property Appraiserrrax Collector Fee Credits Total Due From Other Governments Intergovernmental Revenues $ 531,358 85,657 471,381 19,116,578 745,717 286 $ 531,359 433,964 190,485 87,501,924 3,069,202 4,768 378,717 (69,295) 15,000 69,295 15,000 11,100 1,913 5,931,740 2,699,151 * * $ 29,666,163 $ 92,069,137 * On the Statement of Revenues, &penditures and Changes in Fund Balances, Ad Valorem Taxes are reported as Ad Valorem Property Taxes and the Property Appraiser/Tax Collector Fee Credits are netted agains t the original eJq>enditure in the respective program III - 31 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRI16 I~~ 1 J.\ , NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 (9) CAPITAL ASSETS ACTIVITY Balance at Balance at October 1, Adjustments! September 30, 2009 Additions Retiremenrn Reclassifications 2010 Capiflll Assets Not Being Depreciated: Land $ 2,369,106,064 $ 29,473,528 $ (9,948,743) 5> (27,192,749) $ 2,361,438,100 Easements (Intangibles) 14,505,601 166,842 (1,007) 24,770,899 39,442,335 Construction in Process 569,531,421 163,232,000 (9,712,544) (43,472,534) 679,578,343 Canals and Levees 554,743,051 2,330,591 557,073,642 3,507,886,137 192,872,370 (19,662,294) (43,563,793) 3,637,532,420 Capi/aIAssets BeiJzg Depredated: Buildings 72,690,194 4,600,150 18,944,577 96,234,921 Intangibles 28,442,396 2,975,105 (11,292) 3,483,855 34,890,064 Equipment 121,302,291 8,187,113 (3,508,283) 1,668,498 127,649,619 Improvements 23,046,176 2,098,010 1,992,60 1 27,136,787 Water Control Structures 588,369,572 5,877,546 17,474,262 611,721,380 833,850,629 23,737,924 (3,519,575) 43,563,793 897,632,771 Less Accumulated Depredation: Buildings (23,794,919) (2,503,503) (26,298,422) IntangJ.b1es (7,540,265) (3,639,034) 380 (693,309) (11,872,228) Equipment (71,358,967) (9,173,190) 2,426,561 693,309 (77,412,281) Improvements (9,506,951) (1,093,440) (10,600,391) Water Control Structures (114,852,647) (14,494,347) (129,346,994) (227,053,749) (30,903,514) 2,426,941 (255,530,322) Capital Assets, Net $ 4,114,683,017 $ 185,706,780 $ (20,754,91..8) $ $ 4,279,634,869 ~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Depreciation expense was charged to the following programs during the fiscal year: Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply $ 6,800,574 17,457,119 6,423,489 216,378 30,897,560 Depreciation of capital assets held in internal service funds are charged to the various programs based on the asset function Total Depreciation Expense 5,954 $ 30,903,514 III - 32 I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16 I 1 A 12 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ,,;. NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 (10) LONG-TERM LIABILITIES The following is a summary of changes in long-term liabilities for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010: Balance at Retirements Balance at Amounts October 1, And September 30, Due Within 2009 Additions Adjustments 2010 One Year Land Acquisition Bonds $ 41,350,000 $ - $ (5,190,000) $ 36,160,000 5,415,000 Bond Premium / Discount 672,941 (190,535) 482,406 128,940 Bank Loans 5,950,678 (1,832,482) 4,118,196 1,832,482 COPS 529,430,000 (9,370,000) 520,060,000 9,705,000 COP S Premium. / Discount 21,046,399 (1,706,853) 19,339,546 1,641,054 Capital Leases 200,330 (200,330) Compensated Absences 25,000,000 13,109,000 (13,460,000) 24,649,000 9,l58,250 Other Post Emp BeneIIts 7,940,406 8,029,120 (1,560,396) 14,409,130 Self Insurance Claims 6,485,000 17,925,098 (17,012,448) 7,397,650 2,375,103 $ 638,075,754 $ 39,063,218 $ (50,523,044) $ 626,615,928 $ 30,255,829 Special Obligation Land Acquisition Bonds are issued by the District to provide funds for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands. Principal and interest on the Land Acquisition Bonds are secured by a lien on documentary stamp excise taxes collected statewide by the State of Florida and allocated to the State's five water management districts through the Water Management Lands Trust Fund. For the current fiscal year, principal and interest payments and total revenue recognized by the District were $6,912,396 and $7,094,748, respectively. Debt service payments have averaged approximately 25% of the related revenue collected and allocated to the District through the Water Management Lands Trust Fund over the past ten years. The District accounts for debt service transactions in the Save Our Rivers SR Fund. Asumrnary of the status of the District's bonded debt as of September 30,2010 is shown below: Original F~cal Year Interest Remaining Issue Amount Maturity Rates Balance 2002 Refunding $ 23,810,000 2011-2016 3.50-4.00% $ 13,560,000 2003 Refunding 34,550,000 2011-2016 3.50-5.25% 22,600,000 $ 58,360,000 $ 36,160,000 III - 33 16 l'.l A 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEl\1ENT DISTRICT · NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEl\1ENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 (10) LONG-TERM LIABILITIES (continued) Fiscal year requirements to amortize bonded debt outstanding as of September 30, 2010 are as follows: Principal Interest Total 2011 $ 5,415,000 $ 1,489,721 $ 6,904,721 2012 5,655,000 1,265,749 6,cn.0,749 2013 5,865,000 1,035,786 6,900,786 2014 6,120,000 768,598 6,888,598 2015 6,400,000 474,200 6,874,200 2016 6.705.000 160.538 6.865.538 $ 36,160,000 $ 5,194,592 $ 41,354,592 During previous fiscal years, the District entered into agreements with commercial banks to provide long- term fmancing for various capital projects. A summary of the status of the District's outstanding bank loans at September 30, 2010 is shown below: Original F~cal Year Interes t Remaining Issue Amount Maturity Rates Balance 2003 $ 2,8T7;374 2011 4.30% $ 403,911 2003 2,000,000 2011 283% 285,714 2005 8,000,000 2013 4.20% 3,428,571 $ 12,8T7;374 $ 4,118,196 Fiscal year requirements to amortize the bank loans as of September 30, 2010 are as follows: Principal Interest Total 2011 $ 1,832,482 $ 132,724 $ 1,965,206 2012 1,142,857 72,000 1,214,857 2013 1,142,857 24,000 1,166,857 $ 4,118,196 $ 228,724 $ 4,346,920 III - 34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A2 ~ SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 (10) LONG- TERM LIABILITIES (continued) In fiscal year 2007, the District issued Certificates of Participation (COPS), Series 2006, in order to provide funds for the construction of accelerated projects in furtherance of restoration of the Everglades. COPS are statutorily-authorized tax-exempt certificates evidencing undivided proportionate interests of the owners thereof in basic lease payments to be made by the Governing Board of the District, pursuant to a master lease purchase agreement by and between the District and the District Leasing Corporation (the "Corporation"), a not-for-profit entity (see Note (2)(a) on page ill-16). The COPS are secured by and payable from the Trust Estate established for the Series 2006 Certificates (the ''Trust Estate") pursuant to the Trust Agreement and any amounts payable under the Financial Guaranty Insurance Policy. The Trust Estate consists of all estate, right, title and interest of the Trustee in and to the Basic Lease Payments under the Series 2006 Lease, and all amounts held in the funds and accounts under the Trust Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Master Lease and the Trust Agreement, including investment earnings thereon, and any and all monies received by the Trustee pursuant to the Series 2006 Lease and the Trust Agreement which are not required to be remitted to the Governing Board or the Corporation pursuant to the Master Lease or the Trust Agreement. Lease payments are funded from ad valorem revenues. Total COPS issued amounted to $546,120,000, having interest rates ranging from 3.5% to 5.0%. The District accounts for debt service transactions relative to COPS in the Everglades Trust Fund and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Fund. Fiscal year requirements to amortize the COPS as of September 30, 2010 are as follows: Principal Interest Total 2011 $ 9,705,000 $ 25,539,177 $ 35,244,177 2012 10,135,000 25,088,036 35,223,036 2013 10,610,000 24,626,168 35,236,168 2014 11,060,000 24,125,840 35,185,840 2015 11,610,000 23,572;1.47 35,182,247 2016-2020 67,110,000 108,526,622 175,636,622 2021-2025 85,535,000 89,641,725 175,176,725 2026-2030 109,110,000 65,466,750 174,576,750 2031-2035 139,250,000 34,568,750 173,818,750 2036-2037 65,935,000 3,336,875 69,271,875 $ 520,060,000 $ 424,492,190 $ 944,552,190 The liability for compensated absences is generally liquidated by the General Fund and the Okeechobee Basin SR Fund. III - 35 1611.. A~ SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 I I I (11) DEFICIT FUND BALANCES At September 30,2010, the following funds have deficit fund balances: Aquatic Plant Control Fund External Grants Fund Distri:t Capital Projects Fund Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Federal Funds $ 276,286 1,948,586 1,226,167 547,823 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The deficits in the Aquatic Plant Control and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Fund are expected to be funded by future reimbursements from the State of Florida and the federal government. The deficits in the External Grants Fund and the District Capital Projects Fund will be funded by operating transfers from the General fund. (12) OPERATING LEASES The District is committed under various operating leases for building, office space, vehicles, office equipment and data processing equipment The majority of the operating leases contain renewal options that the District may exercise. In most cases, the District expects that in the normal course of business the leases will be renewed or replaced with other leases. Lease expenditures for the year ended September 30,2010 amounted to approximately $3.7 million. Future minimum lease payments for these leases are as follows: Year Ending September 30: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Thereafter Year Ending September 30: $ 2,,530,871 1,345,909 1,559,765 1,337,847 667,759 29.167 $ 7,471,318 (13) CAPITAL LEASES The District had a lease agreement which qualified as a capital lease for accounting purposes and was recorded at present value of its future minimum lease payments as of the inception date of the lease. The lease agreement related to the acquisition of equipment having an original cost of approximately $939,600 and was paid in full during the fiscal year. III - 36 I I I 16 I 1A 1:4 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTElVffiER 30, 2010 I (14) DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN I I I I Plan Description The District contributes to the Florida Retirement System (the "System"), a cost-sharing multiple- employer defined benefit pension plan administered by the State of Florida Division of Retirement. The System provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. The Florida Legislature established the System under Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and has sole authority to amend benefit provisions. The System issues a publicly available annual financial report that includes financial statements and required supplementary information. That report may be obtained by writing to the Florida Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, P.O. Box 9000, Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000. Funding Policy I I I The System is non-contributory for employees and the District is required to contribute an actuarially determined rate. The rates are fL'{ed by law and vary based on employee class. During the fiscal year the contribution rates were increased to 10.77%, 14.57% and 12.25% of annual covered payroll for regular class, senior management class, and DROP class employees, respectively. The contributions of the District are established and may be amended by the State Legislature. The District's contributions to the System for the past three fiscal years, equal to the required contributions for each year, are as follows: Year Ending September 30: I I I I 2010 2009 2008 $ 12,958,364 13,340,000 12,237,000 (15) OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) Plan Description District retirees and their eligible dependents may continue participation in the District health insurance program as required by Florida Statutes, Section 112.0801. Because the cost to the retirees cannot be greater than that to active employees for the same coverage, an implicit subsidy is being provided to retirees. I, In January 2007, the District Governing Board approved a direct subsidy program to aid retirees in retaining quality healthcare coverage. The subsidy is a discount of the total premium contribution equal to 2% for each year of creditable service under the Florida Retirement System to a maximum of 30 years of creditable service or 60%. I The plan, a single employer defined benefit plan, is administered by the District. No formal trust is currently in place and benefits are provided through the annual budget appropriation. The provisions of the direct subsidy were established and may be amended by resolution of the District Governing Board. There is no separately issued financial report for the plan. I As of the July 2009 valuation date, the plan covered 1,810 active participants and 191 retirees. I I III - 37 SOUTH FLORIDA W ATERMANAGEMENT~f?Tlcf NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 ~-A (. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (15) OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) (continued) Funding Policy The District contributes 2% for each year of creditable service up to a maximwn of 30 years or 60% of the total premium. In addition, active employees contribute between $2.50 and $6.00 per pay period towards the future costs of retiree health insurance, depending on their medical coverage plan and tier. All other costs are paid by the retirees. The plan is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. Annual OPEB Costs and Net OPEB Obligation For the fiscal year ended September 30,2010, the District's annual OPEB cost of $8,029,120 was equal to the annual required contribution (ARC) for the fiscal year, one year's interest on the net OPEB obligation, and an adjustment equal to the discounted present value of the balance of the net OPEB obligation at the beginning of the year. The District's annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan and the net OPEB obligation for fiscal years 2010, 2009 and 2008 are as follows: 2010 2009 Normal Cost (Service cost for one year) $ 3,818,937 $ 1,687,539 Amortization of Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability 4,060,461 1,907,242 Interest on Normal Cost and Amortization 92,898 81,001 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) 7/J12,296 3,675,7'62 Net OPEB Obligation (NOO) at beginning of year 7,940,406 5,248,289 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) 7,972,296 3,675,7'62 Interest on NOO 381,140 251,917 Adjustment to ARC (324,316) (207,470) AnnualOPEB Cost (Expense) 8,029,120 3,720,229 Employer Contributions :Made (1,560,3%) (1,028,112) Increase (decrease) inNOO 6,468,724 2,692,117 Estimated NOO at end of year 14,409,130 7,940,406 Percentage of annual OPEB Cost Contributed 19.43% 27.64% III - 38 2008 $ 1,693,965 1,764,550 3,458,515 2,667,895 3,458,515 128,059 (104204) 3,484,370 (903,976) 2,580,394 5,248,289 25.94% I I I 161 A " SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT C NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 .. (15) OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEBJ (continued) I I I I I I I Funded Status and Funding Progress The funded status of the plan as of September 30,2010 was as follows: Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) Actuarial Value of Plan Assets Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) Funded Ratio (Actuarial Value of Plan Assets/ AAL) Covered Payroll (Active Plan Members) UAAL as a Percentage of Covered Payroll $97,110,991 97,110,991 0% 123,626,745 78.55% Actuarial valuations of an OPEB plan involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. Examples include assumptions about future employment, mortality and the healthcare cost trend. Amounts determined regarding the funded status of the plan and the annual required contributions of the employer are subject to continued revision as actual results are compared to past expectations and new estimates are made about the future. Projections of benefits for fmancial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan as understood by the employer and plan members) and include the types of benefits provided at the time of each valuation and the pattern of sharing of benefit costs between employer and plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that are designed to reduce short- term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets, consistent with the long- term perspective of the calculations. I In the July 1, 2009 base actuarial valuation, the individual entry age actuarial cost method was used. The actuarial assumptions included a 4.80% investment rate of return and an annual healthcare cost trend rate of 5% in 2010, followed by a 9% increase the next year, trending down 0.5% per year to 5.0% in 2019 and thereafter. The actuarial value of assets was not determined as the District has not advance funded its obligation. The Plan's unfunded actuarial accrued liability is being amortized as a level percent of payroll over a 27-year period with a closed amortization method. The assumed rate of payroll growth is 4.0% per year. I I I The required schedule of funding progress, as shown in the Notes to the Required Supplementary Information (see page IV-7), presents multi-year trend information about whether the actuarial value of plan assets is increasing or decreasing over time relative to the actuarial accrued liability for benefits. The projection of benefits for fmancial reporting purposes does not explicitly incorporate the potential effects of legal or contractual funding limitations. I I (16) INSURANCE ACTIVITIES ,I The District is exposed to the various risks of loss related to torts, theft of, damage to and destruction of assets, errors and omissions, injuries to employees, and natural disasters. In 1976 the District established a self-insurance program for its workers' compensation exposure and in 1986 the District established a self-insurance program for automobile and general liability claims. These self-insured claims are administered by a third party and are accounted for in the Self Insurance Fund (an internal selVice fund). I I III - 39 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTJp I -;. 2 NOTES TO THE FINANClAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 (10 INSURANCE ACTIVITIES (continued) The District is totally self-insured for workers' compensation claims and the District's financial exposure for automobile and general liability is limited to $100,000 per person and $200,000 per occurrence pursuant to Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. Expenditures relating to insurance are charged to other funds based on a cost allocation study performed by Management. These expenditures include actuarial estimates utilizing the Casualty Actuarial Society Statement of Principles Regarding Property and Casualty Loss and Loss Adjustment Expense. The actuarial figures are utilized to determine the amount needed for losses incurred but not reported (IBNR) at year end. The District transfers its risk for personal and real property through the purchase of an insurance policy. The coverage is written on a 100% replacement/stated value basis, with varying retentions. Beginning on January 1, 2010, the District established a self-insurance program for health benefits, including medical, dental and vision coverage, for its employees and retirees who choose to remain within the plan. The claims are administered by a third party and accounted for in the Health Benefits Fund (an internal selVice fund). The participating funds make payments to the Health Benefits Fund by means of premiums charged and employee payroll deductions. The payments are based on management's estimates, using historical trends, of the amounts needed to pay prior and current year claims. The expenditures include an actuarial estimate to determine the amount needed for losses incurred but not reported at year end. The District maintains excess insurance coverage for health care costs. During fiscal year 2010, the District established two internal selVice funds. The Self Insurance Fund accounts for workers' compensation, automobile and general liability insurance activities and the Health Benefits Fund accounts for the District's health benefits program. As part of the establislunent of the Self Insurance Fund, this fund assumed liabilities for self insurance claims in the amount of $6,485,000 and received capital contributions relating to capital assets in the amount of $48,391, which were previously accounted for in the General Fund. The claims liabilities are based on actuarial reviews performed by independent actuaries as of September 30,2010, and are presented on a net undiscounted basis. The liability consists of claims incurred but not reported. The estimated liabilities by insurance coverage at September 30, 2010 are as follows: Balance @ 9/30/2010 Amounts Due Within One Year Workers' Compensation General and Automobile Health Insurance $ 5,692,000 194,000 1,511,650 $ 7;397,650 $ 780,295 83,158 1,511,650 $ 2,375,103 III - 40 ... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16LIA' SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ~ NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 ~ (16) INSURANCE ACTIVITIES (continued) I I Changes in the claims liability amount for the current and prior fiscal years are summarized below: Current Claims Fiscal Beginning and Changes in Claim Ending Year Liability Estimates Payments Liability 2009 $ 5,257,525 $ 1,890,868 $ (663,393) $ 6,485,000 2010 6,485,000 17 :J25,098 (17,012,448) 7,397,650 I I To minimize the fmancial impact of potential unforeseen catastrophes, District policy allows a fund balance reserve for the self-insurance of workers' compensation, general and automobile liability claims, of up to $10 million in excess of the most recent actuarially-estimated liability determination. I I I There were no significant changes in insurance coverage from the prior year and the amount of settlements did not exceed the insurance coverage for each of the past three years. (17) COlvfMITMENTS - CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS I I The District is party to numerous lengthy condemnation proceedings (as plaintiff) and inverse condemnation proceedings (as defendant or co-defendant) regarding the taking of private lands throughout the District for public use. The court may rule there was no taking of land by the District resulting in no commitment to the District. Where a taking is ruled, the court determines the value of the land claimed by the owner and payment is made to the owner upon transfer of title to the District. At September 30,2010, the court had yet to rule on a number of proceedings for which the land value and title transfer date is undetermined. The District is unable to estimate the potential fmancial exposure relative to these rulings, if any. I I I I I When the court rules there is a taking, the District will budget and appropriate funds to pay for the purchase of the land. (18) MAJOR CONSTRUCTION COMMITlvfENTS The Everglades Construction Project (ECP), the first major step in the Everglades restoration pursuant to the Everglades Forever Act (EF A) was passed by the Florida Legislature in 1994. The 1994 EF A directed the District to acquire land, design, permit, and construct a series of Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) to reduce phosphorus levels from stormwater runoff and other sources before it enters the Everglades Protection Area (EP A). In total, the ECP was composed of 12 interrelated construction projects located between Lake Okeechobee and the EPA The STAs, which consist of six large constructed wetlands with a combined area of over 52,000 acres, are the cornerstone of the ECP. I I III - 41 161 ~ 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 (18) MAJOR CONSTRUCTION COMMITlvfENTS (continued) The ECP is one of the largest public works projects in the nation for environmental restoration. The total cost associated with implementing the ECP is shared among the Distric~ state and federal governments, and the agricultural community. Major funding sources for the EF A include a one-tenth mill ad valorem property tax levy (0.0894 mill for FY2010), agricultural privilege taxes, state funds, federal funds, Alligator Alley toll revenues, and other environmental mitigation funds. The 1994 ECP capital projects were completed in fiscal year 2007 for a total cost of $514.8 million (local share). When combined with the federal share of $198.9 million, the total capital cost associated with the 1994 ECP is $713.7 million. In 2003 the Florida Legislature amended the 1994 EF A to include the 2003 Long-Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals for Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins (Long-Term Plan) as the strategy for achieving the long-term water quality goals for the Everglades Protection Area. The amended EFA also expanded the use of the District's one-tenth mill ad valorem property tax levy, agricultural privilege taxes and other funding sources for implementing the initial phase of the Long-Term Plan, including Everglades Stormwater Treatment Area enhancements, research and optimization, and operation and maintenance of the ECP. Also in 2003, the State of Florida's Environmental Regulation Commission adopted a water quality standard for phosphorus within the EP A that includes a numeric criterion of 10 parts per billion (Ppb) for total phosphorus. In 2004, the Long-Term Plan was revised to include the addition of approximately 18,000 acres of STAs on Compartments Band C in the Everglades Agriculhn"al Area (EAA). There were subsequent revisions occurring in 2005,2006 and 2007. These revisions also addressed modifications to the STA enhancement projects, changes to the source controls component of the plan, changes to the plan's Process Development and Engineering componen~ and the addition of new projects to the Long-Term Plan. The revised Long-Term Plan's initial 13-year phase is projected to cost approximately $1.2 billion. During fiscal year 2010, the District continued implementation of the Long-Term Plan, as required by the EFA In FY2010, a total of $154.8 million was expended for work associated with the District's Everglades Program. Of this amount, $24.2 million was for work related to implementing the Long-Term Plan. O&M accounted for $15.7 million. Construction expenditures associated with the expansion of Compartments Band C (financed through issuance of COPS) totaled $87.6 million. Debt service payments on the COPS related to Compartments Band C was approximately $19.5 million. The remaining $7.8 million was spent on other EFA-related components such as monitoring, assessment, research, and evaluation in the EP A Project Management Plans will be revised at various phases of each projec~ and project cost estimate changes or schedule alterations will follow a required formal review and approval process. The total inception-to-date spent on the Long-Term Plan, which includes operations and maintenance, on-going construction costs for Compartments Band C, and debt service is approximately $546.0 million. The STAs continue to improve water quality in effective treatment areas. During water year 2010, which represents the period between May 1, 2009 and April 30, 2010, the STAs removed over 179 metric tons of phosphorus that otherwise would have entered the Everglades. Through the end of water year 2010, the ST As have removed over 1,200 metric tons of phosphorus. In addition, best management practices by landowners in the Everglades Agricultural Area have removed over 2,000 tons of phosphorus that would have otherwise gone to the Everglades. III - 42 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161~1 A-(. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 I (18) lvfAJOR CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENTS (continued) I I The Kissimmee River Basin restoration is another major project that includes converting the Kissimmee River and adjacent lands back to a more natural state. This involves restoring 43 miles of the historic river and approximately 40 square miles of river/floodplain ecosystem. I The state and federal governments will split the estimated $620 million cost to restore the river. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) is responsible for the construction and the design of the restoration. As of fiscal year 2010 year end, the District has acquired approximately 97% of the estimated 105,000 acres needed to complete the project with approximately 1,900 acres in process of complex settlement negotiations, condemnation, or engineering solutions in lieu of acquisition. For ongoing engineering cost-to-cure acquisitions the District detennines, together with the private landowner, feasible engineering structural cures that will abate impacts from project implementation and minimize the lands needed. I Acquisition negotiations that include cost-to-cure solutions require more resources than land-only real estate acquisitions. Details and exceptions must be submitted to and approved by the USACE. The District is dedicated to completing these negotiations with full acceptance from all agency partners. I I I I The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is the plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of central and southern Florida, including the Everglades. Principal features of the plan are the creation of approximately 217,000 acres of new reservoirs and wetlands-based water treatment areas. These features vastly increase storage and water supply for the natural system, as well as for urban and agricultural needs. The CERP is intended to improve the quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water delivered to freshwater and coastal ecosystems in South Florida, including the Everglades, through a series of projects spanning three decades. The success of this monumental program is continuously monitored and evaluated through Restoration Coordination and Verification. I I I Through the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, the United States Congress has authorized an initial $1.4 billion package of projects that will begin implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. The initial authorization includes 1) six pilot projects, 2) ten specific project features, and 3) a programmatic authority through which smaller projects can be more quickly implemented. Most recently, through the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, the U.S. Congress authorized an additional three projects of the Comprehensive Plan. I CERP is an equal partnership between the State of Florida and the federal government. The State of Florida and the South Florida Water Management District have invested approximately $2.4 billion toward this effort, including approximately $315 million in construction. Through September 30, 2010, 60 percent, or approximately 232,505 acres, of the estimated lands needed to implement CERP have been acquired. I I (19) OTHER COlvIMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The District participates in several federal and state assistance programs that are subject to fmancial and program compliance audits. Such audits could lead to reimbursements to the grantor agency for disallowed expenditures. However, management believes such disallowances, if any, will be immaterial. I I III - 43 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 16 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30,2010 11A21 I I (20) SUBSEQUENT EVENT On October 12, 2010, the District completed the acquisition of land from United States Sugar COlporation for Everglades restoration. The acquisition will provide access to land for restoration and water quality improvement projects. Under the tenns of the purchase, the District purchased approximately 27,200 acres of land for $194 million in cash and received options to purchase up to 153,200 additional acres over the next ten years. The initial 27,200 acres ofland comprises 18,300 acres located in Hendry County and 8,900 acres located in Palm Beach County. Options include an exclusive 3-year option to purchase either a specific 46,800 acres or the entire 153,200 acres at $7,400 per acre. After the expiration of the exclusive 3-year option period, the District has a subsequent 2-year, non-exclusive option to purchase a specific 46,800 acres at fair market value. In addition, after the expiration of the exclusive 3-year option period, there is a 7-year, non-exclusive option to purchase the remaining acres at fair market value. I I I I United States Sugar COlporation is leasing the 27,200 acres from the District until such time that the District needs the land for restoration projects or land exchange. In addition, United States Sugar Corporation is responsible to control the land for exotic and invasive plants and must implement Best Management Practices. Lease revenue is expected to be approximately $1 million annually for the District In the event the District exercises any of its options to purchase additional land, the District may terminate portions of the lease and begin using the acreage for District purposes. The lease has an initial term of seven years followed by two renewal options which extend the lease to 20 years. The lease on the Palm Beach County land allows the District to terminate portions of the lease which are used in connection with District projects or exchange for property necessary for District projects. The lease on the Hendry County land can be terminated upon notice to the lessee prior to any July 1st and the lessee has until June 30th of the subsequent year to vacate the property. In March 2011, the District's Governing Board agreed to put United States Sugar Corporation on notice that the District intends to end its lease agreement on the land located in Hendry County in 20 12. I I I I I I I I I I III-44 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,{o4 i A~ FINANCIAL SECTION REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION OTHER THAN MD&A (UNAUDITED) I 16 J 1 A~f I Page 1 of2 South Florida Water Managment District General Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance I Budget and Actual - (Unaudited) For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Variance with Final Budget- Original Final Positive I Budget Budget Actual (Negative) REVENUES I Ad Valorem Property Taxes $191,796,473 $191,796,473 $189,659,164 ($2,137,309) Intergovernmental 113,353 113,353 Investment Earnings 2,458,910 2,458,910 2,975,362 516,452 I Licenses, Permits and Fees 2,850,950 2,850,950 2,559,337 (291,613) Sale of District Property 97,368 97,368 Indirect Costs Recovered 4,700,000 4,700,000 5,445,432 745,432 I Leases 75,000 75,000 89,589 14,589 Other 738,694 738,694 Total Revenues 201,881,333 201,881,333 201,678,299 (203,034) EXPENDITURES I Current Operations and Maintenance I Mission Support 175,538 175,538 143,540 31,998 Operations and Maintenance 12,612,791 12,193,662 11,891,139 302,523 Restoration 804,729 804,729 687,576 117,153 Water Supply 650,810 650,810 587,443 63,367 I Total Operations and Maintenance 14,243,868 13,824,739 13,309,698 515,041 Corporate Resources I Mission Support 86,297,562 85,398,376 79,414,304 5,984,072 Operations and Maintenance 835,754 950,438 848,403 102,035 Restoration 157,327 83,422 21,953 61,469 Water Supply 208,988 210,487 198,094 12,393 I Total Corporate Resources 87,499,631 86,642,723 80,482,754 6,159,969 Regulatory and Public Affairs I Mission Support 5,842,080 6,322,248 6,128,273 193,975 Operations and Maintenance 3,519 (3,519) Restoration 6,098,835 6,395,011 1,879,938 4,515,073 Water Supply 32,328,244 30,176,391 27,209,852 2,966,539 I Total Regulatory and Public Affairs 44,269,159 42,893,650 35,221,582 7,672,068 Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Mission Support 2,811,739 2,765,970 1,446,290 1,319,680 I Operations and Maintenance 819,601 912,334 949,910 (37,576) Restoration 23,775,125 19,556,484 18,326,548 1,229,936 Water Supply 1,344,670 1,448,619 1,469,538 (20,919) I Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects 28,751,135 24,683,407 22,192,286 2,491,121 I I I IV -1 South Florida Water Managment District General Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual - (Unaudited) For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 Page 2 of2 Original Final Budget Budget Debt Service Bank Loan Principal Payments 1,143,358 1,143,358 Bank Loan Interest 169,977 169,977 Total Debt Service 1,313,335 1,313,335 Contingency Managerial Reserve 7,646,872 14,373,045 Managerial Reserve-Contingency 3,177,892 3,177,892 Total Contingency 10,824,764 17,550,937 Total Expenditures 186,901,892 186,908,791 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures 14,979,441 14,972,542 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 282,336 289,233 Transfers Out (39,174,783) (39,174,783) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (38,892,447) (38,885,550) Net Change in Fund Balance (23,913,006) (23,913,008) Fund Balance at Beginning of Year 88,716,041 88,716,041 Fund Balance at End of Year $64,803,035 $64,803,033 IV -2 16 \ 1 A2 I I Actual Variance with Final Budget- Positive (Negative) I I I 1,142,857 168,000 1,310,857 501 1,977 2,478 14,373,045 I 3,177,892 17,550,937 I 152,517,177 34,391,614 49,161,122 34,188,580 289,233 I (50,385,840) (11,211,057) (50,096,607) (11,211,057) I (935,485) 22,977,523 88,716,041 $87,780,556 $22,977,523 I I I I I I I I I I I 16 , lA 2 .~ Page 1 of2 South Florida Water Managment District Okeechobee Basin SR Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual - (Unaudited) For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Variance with Final Budget- Original Final Positive Budget Budget Actual (Negative) REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes $191,517,490 $191,517,490 $189,304,921 ($2,212,569) Intergovernmental 162,808 162,808 Investment Earnings 2,713,280 2,713,280 2,130,776 (582,504) Licenses, Permits and Fees 83,000 83,000 92,760 9,760 Sale of District Property 300,000 300,000 203,421 (96,579) Other 245,657 245,657 Total Revenues 194,613,770 194,613,770 192,140,343 (2,473,427) EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Mission Support 7,335 7,335 1,144 6,191 Operations and Maintenance 72,340,186 69,016,129 64,703,585 4,312,544 Restoration 935,295 1,015,295 810,712 204,583 Total Operations and Maintenance 73,282,816 70,038,759 65,515,441 4,523,318 Corporate Resources Mission Support 7,202,031 6,942,531 5,234,824 1,707,707 Operations and Maintenance 1,900,361 1,774,826 1,983,313 (208,487) Restoration 197,782 64,430 64,429 1 Total Corporate Resources 9,300,174 8,781,787 7,282,566 1,499,221 Regulatory and Public Affairs Mission Support 4,048,798 4,551,360 4,462,447 88,913 Operations and Maintenance 544,881 534,931 258,589 276,342 Restoration 5,583,747 5,041,881 4,718,941 322,940 Water Supply 616,225 417,090 412,906 4,184 Total Regulatory and Public Affairs 10,793,651 10,545,262 9,852,883 692,379 Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Mission Support 3,130 3,311 (181) Operations and Maintenance 5,226,328 5,781,755 5,957,220 (175,465) Restoration 9,048,051 9,671,285 8,632,206 1,039,079 Water Supply 42,350 19,588 22,762 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects 14,274,379 15,498,520 14,612,325 886,195 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV -3 South Florida Water Managment District16 I ~ 1 Okeechobee Basin SR Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual - (Unaudited) For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Page 2 of2 Original Final Budget Budget Debt Service Bank Loan Principal Payments 690,125 690,125 Bank Loan Interest 39,238 39,238 Capital Lease Principal Payments 200,830 200,830 Capital Lease Interest 5,643 5,643 Total Debt Service 935,836 935,836 Contingency Managerial Reserve 13,397,036 16,183,728 Managerial Reserve-Contingency 4,245,326 4,245,326 Total Contingency 17,642,362 20,429,054 Total Expenditures 126,229,218 126,229,218 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures 68,384,552 68,384,552 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 132,000 132,000 Transfers Out (91,051,698) (91,051,698) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (90,919,698) (90,919,698) Net Change in Fund Balance (22,535,146) (22,535,146) Fund Balance at Beginning of Year 84,713,479 84,713,479 Fund Balance at End of Year $62,178,333 $62,178,333 IV -4 Actual 689,625 38,172 200,330 5,543 933,670 98,196,885 93,943,458 132,000 (91,051,698) (90,919,698) 3,023,760 84,713,479 $87,737,239 Ata I '<:... ..i Iiiii4 I Variance with I Final Budget- Positive (Negative) I 500 I 1,066 500 100 I 2,166 16,183,728 I 4,245,326 20,429,054 28,032,333 I 25,558,906 I 25,558,906 I $25,558,906 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 ofl 1611 Aa. South Florida Water Managment District State Appropriations Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual - (Unaudited) For the Year Ended September 30, 20 I 0 REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Restoration Total Operations and Maintenance Regulatory and Public Affairs Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply Total Regulatory and Public Affairs Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year Original Final Budget Budget Actual $4,985,726 $4,985,726 $332,223 18,931 4,985,726 4,985,726 351,154 58,614 58,614 60,238 18,756,210 3,786,350 22,602,798 6,042,582 6,042,582 28,703,994 (23,718,268) (23,718,268) 24,790,980 $1,072,712 IV -5 58,614 58,614 58,614 58,614 21,603,046 3,536,350 25,139,396 11,471,635 1,449,355 12,920,990 2,437,918 2,437,918 1,361,705 1,361,705 2,148,096 2,148,096 29,784,024 (24,798,298) (24,798,298) 24,790,980 ($7,318) 14,341,309 (13,990,155) (13,990,155) 24,790,980 $10,800,825 .... Variance with Final Budget- Positive (Negative) ($4,653,503) 18,931 (4,634,572) 10,131,411 2,086,995 12,218,406 1,076,213 1,076,213 2,148,096 2,148,096 15,442,715 10,808,143 10,808,143 $10,808,143 16 L1A 2 South Florida Water Management District Schedule of Employer Contributions Other Post-Employment Benefit Plans September 30, 2010 Schedule of Employer Contributions Year Ended September 30, Employer Contributions Annual Required Contribution Percentage Contnbuted 2008 2009 2010 $ 903,976 1,028,112 1,560,396 25.94% 27.64% 19.43% $ 3,458,515 3,675,7'iQ 7,972,296 Schedule of Funding Progress (3) Unfunded (4) (5) (6) (1) (2) Actuarial Funded Ratio Covered UAAL as a Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Accrued (Actuarial P ayron Percentage of Valuation Value of Accrued Liability Value of PIan (Active PIan Covered Date Plan Assets Liability (AAL) (U AAL) Assets/AAL) Members ) Payron (2) - (1) (1) / (2) (3) / (5) 2008 $ 44,993,790 $ 44,993,790 0% $ 115,455,078 38.97% 2009 46,761,760 46,761,760 0% 115,455,078 40.50% 2010 97,110,991 97,110,991 0% 123,626,745 78.55% IV -6 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1611A;; ~~ SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NOTES TO THE REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGETARY INFORMATION · Budgets are legally adopted for all funds and are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The adopted budget represents a fiscal-year financial plan that details Governing Board approved revenues and expenditures. The District's level of budgetary control, defined as the lowest level at which management may not reallocate resources without approval of the Governing Board, is at the program level within a fund and resource area. There are four Programs: Mission Support, Operations and Maintenance, Restoration, and Water Supply. The District is organized by departments which are grouped into four main resource areas: Operations and Maintenance, Corporate Resources, Regulatory and Public Affairs, and Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects. · The accompanying budgetary data represent the original and the final amended budgets as approved by the Governing Board. Three budget amendments were approved by the Governing Board during fiscal year 2010. · For the year ended September 30, 2010, there were no adjustments to the total budgeted expenditures in the Okeechobee Basin Special Revenue Fund as a result of the budget amendments. The General Fund and the State Appropriations Fund realized increases in budgeted expenditures of $6,899 and $1.1 million, respectively, as a result of amendments during fiscal year 2010. None of the reported funds had expenditures for the fiscal year in excess of the final budgetary appropriation. OTIIER POST -Elv1PLOYMENf BENEFITS (OPEB) · The employer contributions reported on the Schedule of Employer Contributions (see page IV-6) represents the current amount paid by the District for the current year cost of the benefits, which were entirely paid to or on behalf of retirees. Accordingly, no assets have been placed in trust to advance fund the employer's obligation. IV -7 16l11\C.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~. ~. .--- - --~ This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank IV -8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 1 A '- FINANCIAL SECTION OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I 16 I ;1 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT A2 I Nonmajor Governmental Funds I Special Revenue Funds I Special Revenue Funds are maintained to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specific purposes. I Big Cypress Basin SR Fund Accounts for the normal operating expenditures of the Big Cypress Basin, an area covering all or part of two counties in Southwest Florida. Funding is provided by a .2265 mill tax levy and interest earnings. I I Save Our Rivers SR Fund Accounts for revenues provided by: 1) a portion of documentary stamp tax revenues appropriated and allocated in the District's name and deposited in the Florida Water Management Lands Trust Fund administered by the State of Florida, 2) regulatory fines, and 3) interest earnings used to fund expenditures incurred towards the management and restoration of environmentally sensitive water resource lands within the District. This fund also accounts for the principal and interest payments on special obligation land acquisition bonds. I I Aquatic Plant Control Fund Accounts for revenues provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection towards expenditures incurred for aquatic plant control throughout the District;, including the Kissimmee River and Upper Chain of Lakes. I Melaleuca Control Fund Accounts for revenues provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection which fund expenditures incurred in order to control the spread of melaleuca trees in environmentally sensitive areas. I Wetland Mitigation Fund Accounts for revenues provided by private and other governmental contributions as part of the required permit to fund expenditures incurred to create new wetlands or improve alternative existing wetlands due to the destruction of designated wetlands. Revenues are also provided by operating transfers from the Lake Belt Mitigation Fund. I I Indian River Lagoon Restoration Fund Accounts for revenues provided by sales of Indian River Lagoon license plates, used in funding expenditures incurred for the purpose of enhancing the environmental and scenic value of surface waters in the Indian River Lagoon. I I External Grants Fund Accounts for revenues and expenditures related to grants that are received and used primarily for monitoring, restoration, and maintenance efforts. This separate fund facilitates the detailed tracking of expenditures and/or cost share contributions. I Alternative Water Supply Fund Accounts for expenditures associated with the development of alternate water supply facilities including aquifer storage and recovery and wastewater reuse technologies. Revenue is provided by operating transfers from the General Fund. I I I V-I Nonmajor Governmental Funds 1611~'- I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Special Revenue Funds (continued) I Stormwater Treatment Areas Operations and Maintenance Fund Accounts for expenditures incurred towards the operations and maintenance of the Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) as required by the Everglades Forever Act Revenue is provided by operating transfers from the District's Everglades Trust Fund. I Lake Belt Mitigation Fund Accounts for revenues received pursuant to Chapter 373.41492, Florida Statutes, which requires mitigation from impacts resulting from rock mining in the Lake Belt area of Miami-Dade County, and related expenditures incurred towards the acquisition, restoration and management of environmentally sensitive lands. I Everglades License Plate Fund Accounts for proceeds derived from Everglades license plate sales, which are used to fund expenditures incurred towards the conservation and protection of the natural resources and abatement of water pollution in the Everglades. I I Capital Projects Funds I I I Lake Okeechobee Trust Fund Accounts for revenues provided by the State of Florida through the Department of Environmental Protection towards restoration projects associated with Lake Okeechobee. Big Cypress Basin CP Fund Accounts for capital expenditures incurred towards projects benefiting the Big Cypress Basin. Revenue is provided through operating transfers from the Big Cypress Basin SRFund. I I I I Capital Projects Funds are maintained to account for financial resources to be used for the purchase of real property and the acquisition or construction of maj or capital facilities. District CP Fund Accounts for capital expenditures on projects associated with District-wide functions. Revenue is provided through operating transfers from the General Fund. Okeechobee Basin CP Fund Accounts for capital expenditures incurred towards projects benefiting the Okeechobee Basin. Revenue is provided through operating transfers from the Okeechobee Basin SR Fund. Save Our Rivers CP Fund Accounts for revenues received from annual allocations through the State's Florida Forever Trust Fund, and related expenditures incurred for the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands. I I Federal Emergency Management Agency Fund Accounts for revenues provided by the Department of Homeland Security to fimd related capital project expenditures. I I I V-2 I 16 j 1 ~ I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Nonmajor Governmental Funds I Capital Projects Funds (continued) I Florida Bay Fund Accounts for capital expenditures associated with restoring a more natural quantity, distribution, and timing of water flows to Florida Bay. . ~ I Federal Land Acquisitions Fund Accounts for grant revenues received from the federal government in support of expenditures relating to the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands. I Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) - Federal Funds Accounts for revenues received from and expenditures funded through the federal government for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I I Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) - Other Creditable Funds Fund Accounts for revenues received from and expenditures funded through various sources for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, excluding revenues and expenditures from federal sources, district ad-valorem property tax sources, and the state's Save Our Everglades Trust Fund. I AccelerS - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Fund Accounts for revenues from Certificates of Participation issued to support the accelerated construction of projects in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. I Permanent Fund I The Permanent Fund is used to report resources that are legally restricted to the extent that only earnings, not principal, may be used for purposes that support the District's programs. I Wetland Mitigation Permanent Fund Accounts for the long-tenn maintenance portion of fees collected from private businesses and other governmental agencies as a condition for issuing wetlands mitigation permits. mterest earned on these fees is used to pay for the costs associated with long-term maintenance of lands purchased pursuant to the District's wetlands mitigation program. I I II I I I I V -3 Page 1 of7 ASSETS Cash and Investments Cash Held by Trustee Accounts Receivable Due from Other Governments Due from Other Funds Inventory Other Assets Total Assets LIABILmES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILmES Accounts Payable Due to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Deferred Revenue Total Liabilities FUND BALANCES Reserved for: Encumbrances Inventory Acquisition ofLand Enhancement of Land Long Term Management of Land Unreserved Designated for: Subsequent Years Expenditures Economic Stabilization Undesignated Total Fund Balances (Deficits) Total Liabilities and Fund Balances South Florida Water Management District Combining Balance Sheet N onmajor Governmental Funds September 30,2010 16' a Special Revenue Funds A2 Big Cypress Save Our Rivers Aquatic Plant Me1aleuca Basin SR SR Control Control $10,208,434 $6,829,415 $ $ 29,072 1,635 144,553 12,500 507,247 34,739 23,710 $10,416,798 $6,867,260 $507,247 $ $406,351 $76,495 $59,998 5,775 4,580,759 390,000 430,752 276,286 412,126 5,030,757 783,533 $ 532;715 34,739 87,342 23,710 3,349,000 886,000 5,202,218 1,812,793 (363,628) 10,004,672 1,836,503 (276,286) $10,416,798 $6,867,260 $507,247 $ V-4 ...' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16 J 1 A 2 "'.4 Page 2 of7 I I Special Revenue Funds (Continued) I Indian River Wetland Lagoon Alternative I Mitigation Restoration External Grants Water Supply ASSETS Cash and Investments $32,471,092 $397,454 $ $ I Cash Held by Trustee Accounts Receivable 59,604 85~ Due from Other Governments 238,470 Due from Other Funds I Inventory Other Assets Total Assets $32,530,696 $398,313 $238,470 $ I LIABILmES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILITIES I Accounts Payable $130,301 $ $161,453 $ Due to Other Governments 1,300,000 Due to Other Funds 487,133 Deferred Revenue 238,470 I Total Liabilities 130,301 2,187,056 FUND BALANCES I Reserved for. Encumbrances 387,959 63,529 2,458,870 Inventory Acquisition ofLand 3,847,740 I Enhancement of Land 19,424,695 Long Term Management of Land Unreserved I Designated for. Subsequent Years Expenditures 8,169,689 329,928 Economic Stabilization Undesignated 570,312 4,856 (4,407,456) I Total Fund Balances (Deficits) 32,400,395 398,313 (1,948,586) Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $32,530,696 $398,313 $238,470 $ I I I I Continued I V-5 Page 3 of7 South Florida Water Management District A~2 I Combining Balance Sheet 16 , 1 '. Nonmajor Governmental Funds I September 30, 2010 I Special Revenue Funds (Continued) Stormwater I Treatment Areas Lake Operation & Lake Belt Everglades Okeechobee Maintenance Mitigation License Plate Trust Fund I ASSETS Cash and Investments $9,059,144 $4,535,070 $474,465 $10,262,631 Cash Held by Trustee I Accounts Receivable 9,224 1,020 Due from Other Governments Due from Other Funds Inventory 23,578 I Other Assets Total Assets $9,082,722 $4,544,294 $475,485 $10,262,631 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES I LIABILmES Accounts Payable $375,160 $523 $192,097 $884,027 I Due to Other Governments Due to Other Funds 23,101 Deferred Revenue Total Liabilities 398,261 523 192,097 884,027 I FUND BALANCES Reserved for: I Encumbrances 185,888 4,168 1,160,100 Inventory 23,578 Acquisition ofLand I Enhancement of Land Long Term Management of Land Unreserved Designated for: I Subsequent Years Expenditures 6,168,088 2,714,210 200,000 8,053,342 Economic Stabilization Undesignated 2,306,907 1,829,561 79,220 165,162 Total Fund Balances (Deficits) 8,684,461 4,543,771 283,388 9,378,604 I Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $9,082,722 $4,544,294 $475,485 $10,262,631 I I I I V-6 I I 16 I 1 A ~ ..j e 4 of? I I Special Revenue Funds (Concluded) Capital Projects Funds I Okeechobee Big Cypress I Total District CP Basin CP Basin CP ASSETS Cash and Investments $74,237,705 $ $68,949,419 $13,233,607 I Cash Held by Trustee Accounts Receivable 101,414 34,725 20,335 Due from Other Governments 902,770 Due from Other Funds I Inventory 82,027 79,403 Other Assets Total Assets $75,323,916 $ $69,063,547 $13,253,942 I LIABILmES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILmES I Accounts Payable $2,286,405 $ $7,137,780 $2,204,526 Due to Other Governments 1,300,000 Due to Other Funds 5,527,520 1,226,167 Deferred Revenue 904,756 I Total Liabilities 10,018,681 1,226,167 7,137,780 2,204,526 FUND BALANCES I Reserved for: Encumbrances 4,880,571 17,765,782 80,503 Inventory 82,027 79,403 I Acquisition of Land 3,847,740 Enhancement of Land 19,424,695 Long Term Management of Land Unreserved I Designated for: Subsequent Years Expenditures 28,984,257 42,572,652 3,158,956 Economic Stabilization 886,000 Undesignated 7,199,945 (1,226,167) 1,507,930 7,809,957 I Total Fund Balances (Deficits) 65,305,235 (1,226,167) 61,925,767 11,049,416 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $75,323,916 $ $69,063,547 $13,253,942 I I I I Continued I V -7 Page 5 of7 ASSETS Cash and Investments Cash Held by Trustee Accounts Receivable Due from Other Governments Due from Other Funds Inventory Other Assets Total Assets LIABILlTlES AND FUND BALANCES LIABILmES Accounts Payable Due to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Deferred Revenue Total Liabilities FUND BALANCES Reserved for: Encumbrances Inventory Acquisition ofLand Enhancement of Land Long-term Management of Land Unreserved Designated for: Subsequent Years Expenditures Economic Stabilization Undesignated Total Fund Balances (Deficits) Total Liabilities and Fund Balances 16jlA<. South Florida Water Management District Combining Balance Sheet Nonmajor Governmental Funds September 30,2010 Capital Projects Funds (Continued) Federal Emergency Save Our Rivers Management CP Agency Florida Bav $15,717,140 $70,100 $3,113,039 33,931 6,829 88,157 323,136 $15,751,071 $3,443,004 $158,257 $330,709 $30,540 $104,974 330,709 30,540 104,974 10,088,075 45,334 135,210 5,134,618 2,155,320 197,669 82,383 1,047,500 15,420,362 127,717 3,338,030 $15,751,071 $158,257 $3,443,004 V -8 Federal Land Acquisition $1,230,447 4,580,759 $5,811,206 $342,366 342,366 230,905 934,959 4,302,976 5,468,840 $5,811,206 WI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16 , 1 Aa~ of7'.~ I I Capital Projects Funds (Concluded) I Comprehensive Comprehensive Acceler8 Everglades Everglades Comprehensive Restoration Plan Restoration Plan Everglades I Federal Fund.. Other Creditable Restoration Plan Total ASSETS Cash and Investments $ $2,225,955 $267 $104,539,974 I Cash Held by Trustee 31,031,994 31,031,994 Accounts Receivable 95,820 Due from Other Governments 471,381 882,674 Due from Other Funds 4,580,759 I Inventory 79,403 Other Assets Total Assets $471,381 $2,225,955 $31,032,261 $141,210,624 I LlABILmES AND FUND BALANCES LlABILmES I Accounts Payable $40,350 $ $3,536 $10,194,781 Due to Other Governments Due to Other Funds 978,854 2,205,021 Deferred Revenue I Total Liabilities 1,019,204 3,536 12,399,802 FUND BALANCES I Reserved for: Encumbrances 115,323 28,461,132 Inventory 79,403 Acquisition ofLand I Enhancement of Land Long-term Management of Land Unreserved I Designated for: Subsequent Years Expenditures 3,816,493 57,772,998 Economic Stabilization Undesignated (547,823) 2,225,955 27,096,909 42,497,289 I Total Fund Balances (Deficits) (547,823) 2,225,955 31,028,725 128,810,822 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $471,381 $2,225,955 $31,032,261 $141,210,624 I I I I Continued I V-9 Page 7 of7 ASSETS Cash and Investments Cash Held by Trustee Accounts Receivable Due from Other Governments Due from Other Funds Inventory Other Assets Total Assets LlABILmES AND FUND BALANCES LlABILmES Accounts Payable Due to Other Governments Due to Other Funds Deferred Revenue Total Liabilities FUND BALANCES Reserved for: Encumbrances Inventory Acquisition ofLand Enhancement of Land Long-term Management of Land Unreserved Designated for: Subsequent Years Expenditures Economic Stabilization Undesignated Total Fund Balances (Deficits) Total Liabilities and Fund Balances South Florida Water Management District Combining Balance Sheet 16 I 1 A ~2 Nonmajor Governmental Funds September 30, 2010 Permanent Fund Wetlands Mitigation $12,682,926 24,710 $12,707,636 $ 12,707,636 12,707,636 $12,707,636 V -10 Total Nonmajor Governmental Funds $191,460,605 31,031,994 221,944 1,785,444 4,580,759 161,430 $229,242,176 $12,481,186 1,300,000 7,732,541 904,756 22,418,483 33,341,703 161,430 3,847,740 19,424,695 12,707,636 86,757,255 886,000 49,697,234 206,823,693 $229,242,176 I ~ I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -- 161 J A 2 This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank V-ll Page 1 of7 ' South Florida Water Management District 16 I 1 A 2 I Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds I For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Special Revenue Funds I Big Cypress Save Our Rivers Aquatic Plant Me1aleuca Basin SR SR Control Control REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes $15,230,491 $ $ $ Intergovernmental 7,094,748 1,871,519 1,194,485 Investment Earnings 256,469 2 Licenses, Permits and Fees 8,850 Sale of District Property Leases 696,483 Other 18,442 47 2,523 1,934 Total Revenues 15,514,252 7,791,280 1,874,042 1,196,419 EXPENDITURES Current Operating Mission Support 750,982 Operations and Maintenance 4,214,223 471,891 2,096,550 1,196,635 Restoration 4,669,419 25,545 Water Supply 1,147,236 Capital Outlay Debt Service Bond Principal Retirement 5,190,000 Bond Interest 1,722,396 Total Expenditures 10,781,860 7,409,832 2,096,550 1,196,635 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures 4,732,392 381,448 (222,508) (216) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Transfers Out (4,240,245) (4,140,583) (220,000) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) (4,240,245) (4,140,583) (220,000) Net Change in Fund Balances 492,147 (3,759,135) (442,508) (216) Fund Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year 9,512,525 5,595,638 166,222 216 Fund Balances (Deficits) at End of Year $10,004,672 $1,836,503 ($276,286) $ I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I V -12 I I 16 I 1 A~2. Page 2 of7 ~,~- I I Special Revenue Funds (Continued) I Indian River Wetland Lagoon Alternative Mitigation Restoration External Grants Water Supply REVENUES I Ad Valorem Property Taxes $ $ $ $ Intergovernmental 119,397 Investment Earnings 519,110 8,930 I Licenses, Permits and Fees 3,341,452 Sale of District Property Leases Other 26,400 I Total Revenues 3,886,962 128,327 EXPENDITURES I Current Operating Mission Support Operations and Maintenance 2,436,472 Restoration 481,413 101,160 1,538,475 I Water Supply 65,828 Capital Outlay Debt Service I Bond Principal Retirement Bond Interest Total Expenditures 2,917,885 101,160 1,604,303 I Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures 969,077 27,167 (1,604,303) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) I Transfers In 6,217,396 Transfers Out (201,233) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 6,217,396 (201,233) I Net Change in Fund Balances 7,186,473 27,167 (1,604,303) (201,233) Fund Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year 25,213,922 371,146 (344,283) 201,233 I Fund Balances (Deficits) at End of Year $32,400,395 $398,313 ($1,948,586) $ I I I I Continued I V-13 Page 3 of? South Florida Water Management District 1 6 I 1,. ~. .i.i I Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances t\ ') < Nonmajor Governmental Funds t"\ C. I For the Year Ended September 30,2010 I 16 I 1 A .~2age4Pi7 t.' I " ;.' I I Special Revenue Funds (Concluded) Capital Projects Funds I Okeechobee Big Cypress Total District CP Basin CP Basin CP REVENUES I Ad Valorem Property Taxes $15,230,491 $ $ $ Intergovernmental 12,579,083 Investment Earnings 933,619 655,636 266,861 I Licenses, Permits and Fees 7,669,453 Sale of District Property 78,640 Leases 696,483 Other 78,740 89,728 371 I Total Revenues 37,187,869 824,004 267,232 EXPENDITURES I Current Operating Mission Support 750,982 (871) (42) Operations and Maintenance 10,420,093 14,588,641 9,080 Restoration 29,237,501 2,517,370 5,230,742 I Water Supply 1,213,064 Capital Outlay 20,369,859 4,312,840 Debt Service I Bond Principal Retirement 5,190,000 Bond Interest 1,722,396 Total Expenditures 48,534,036 37,474,999 9,552,620 I Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (11,346,167) (36,650,995) (9,285,388) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 22,938,044 55,938,484 4,240,245 I Transfers Out (16,618,621) Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 6,319,423 55,938,484 4,240,245 I Net Change in Fund Balances (5,026,744) 19,287,489 (5,045,143) Fund Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year 70,331,979 (1,226,167) 42,638,278 16,094,559 I Fund Balances (Deficits) at End of Year $65,305,235 ($1,226,167) $61,925,767 $11,049,416 I I I I Continued I V -15 Page 5 of? 1611A2. South Florida Water Management District Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Capital Projects Funds (Continued) Federal Emergency Save Our Rivers Management Federal Land CP Agency Florida Bay Acquisition REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes $ $ $ $ Intergovernmental 862,984 428,476 323,136 Investment Earnings 321,091 74,137 34,963 Licenses, Permits and Fees Sale of District Property Leases 237,078 Other Total Revenues 1,184,075 428,476 397,273 272,041 EXPENDITURES Current Operating Mission Support Operations and Maintenance 666,581 Restoration 428,476 1,170,848 Water Supply Capital Outlay 1,051,529 15,005 1,234,485 Debt Service Bond Principal Retirement Bond Interest Total Expenditures 1,718,110 428,476 1,185,853 1,234,485 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (534,035) (788,580) (962,444) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 3,469,991 Transfers Out Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 3,469,991 Net Change in Fund Balances (534,035) (788,580) 2,507,547 Fund Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year 15,954,397 127,717 4,126,610 2,961,293 Fund Balances (Deficits) at End of Year $15,420,362 $127,717 $3,338,030 $5,468,840 V -16 d . . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Licenses, Permits and Fees Sale of District Property Leases Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operating Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply Capital Outlay Debt Service Bond Principal Retirement Bond Interest Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Transfers Out Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances Fund Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year Fund Balances (Deficits) at End of Year 161 1 Capital Projects Funds (Concluded) ~ ?'ge6or1 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Federal Funds $ 190,485 190,485 40,350 40,350 150,135 150,135 (697,958) ($547,823) V -17 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Other Creditable $ 2,225,955 $2,225,955 Acceler8 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan $ 115,960 1,772,131 1,888,091 38,363 7,554 45,917 1,842,174 1,842,174 29,186,551 $31,028,725 Total $ 1,805,081 1,468,648 78,640 237,078 1,862,230 5,451,677 (913) 15,264,302 9,385,799 27,031,622 51,680,810 (46,229,133) 63,648,720 63,648,720 17,419,587 111,391,235 $128,810,822 Continued Page 7 of7 South Florida Water Management District 16 I 1A 2 I.. Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Nonmajor Governmental Funds I For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Permanent Fund I REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Licenses, Permits and Fees Sale of District Property Leases Other Wetlands Mitigation Total Nonmajor Governmental Funds I 216,505 667,654 $15,230,491 14,384,164 2,618,772 8,337,107 78,640 933,561 1,940,970 I $ I Total Revenues EXPENDIT1JRES Current Operating Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply Capital Outlay Debt Service Bond Principal Retirement Bond Interest 884,159 43,523,705 I 750,069 25,684,395 38,623,300 1,213,064 27,031,622 5,190,000 1,722,396 100,214,846 884,159 (56,691,141) 1,777,886 88,364,650 (178,722) (16,797,343) 1,599,164 71,567,307 2,483,323 14,876,166 10,224,313 191,947,527 $12,707,636 $206,823,693 I I I Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures I OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Transfers Out I Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balances I Fund Balances (Deficits) at Beginning of Year Fund Balances (Deficits) at End of Year I I I I I I V -18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 16 1.1 It 2. l ........, This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank V -19 Page 1 of2 16111 A'2 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Big Cypress Basin SR Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes Investment Earnings Licenses, Permits and Fees Other Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $15,416,974 $15,230,491 ($186,483) 413,110 256,469 (156,641) 19,000 8,850 (10,150) 18,442 18,442 15,849,084 15,514,252 (334,832) Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance 2,230,761 2,230,761 219,925 2,450,686 2,450,686 Total Operations and Maintenance 219,925 Corporate Resources Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Water Supply 188,801 294,780 59,080 78,214 1,786 326,095 296,566 483,581 59,080 80,000 622,661 Total Corporate Resources Regulatory and Public Affairs Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply Total Regulatory and Public Affairs 577,237 537,855 39,382 1,299,548 1,276,573 22,975 4,557,054 4,422,919 134,135 1,279,744 1,061,656 218,088 7,713,583 7,299,003 414,580 Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Mission Support Operations and Maintenance Restoration Water Supply Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects 36,099 24,326 11,773 716,668 647,809 68,859 291,862 246,500 45,362 21,494 7,366 14,128 1,066,123 926,001 140,122 V-20 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 2 of2 South Florida Water Managment D19 I 1 A 2 Special Revenue Fund Big Cypress Basin SR Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 .:.1 . .". Contingency Managerial Reserve Managerial Reserve-Contingency Total Contingency Total Expenditures Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) 1,206,871 1,206,871 286,800 286,800 1,493,671 1,493,671 13,346,724 10,781,860 2,564,864 2,502,360 4,732,392 2,230,032 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers Out (4,240,245) (4,240,245) (4,240,245) (4,240,245) (1,737,885) 492,147 2,230,032 9,512,525 9,512,525 $7,774,640 $10,004,672 $2,230,032 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V -21 161 1 Ata it I Page 1 of1 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Save Our Rivers SR Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Final Budget Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) Actual REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Leases Other $6,912,397 $7,094,748 $182,351 2 2 500,000 696,483 196,483 47 47 7,412,397 7,791,280 378,883 Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Restoration 484,352 16,013 500,365 496,773 16,013 512,786 Total Operations and Maintenance Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Operations and Maintenance Restoration (12,461) 9,532 (2,929) 1,797 13,776 15,573 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Debt Service Bond Principal Retirement Bond Interest 5,190,000 1,722,396 6,912,396 5,190,000 1,722,397 6,912,397 Total Debt Service Contingency Managerial Reserve 37,927 37,927 7,478,683 Total Contingency 7,409,832 Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (66,286) 381,448 447,734 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers Out (10,969,998) (4,140,583) 6,829,415 (10,969,998) (4,140,583) 6,829,415 (11,036,284) (3,759,135) 7,277,149 5,595,638 5,595,638 ($5,440,646) $1,836,503 $7,277,149 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V-22 I I I I I I 12,421 12,421 I 14,258 4,244 I 18,502 I 1 I I 37,927 37,927 68,851 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of1 REVENUES Intergovernmental Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance 161 1 A 2 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Aquatic Plant Control Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 4 . Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $3,596,015 $1,871,519 ($1,724,496) 2,523 2,523 3,596,015 1,874,042 (1,721,973) 2,214,483 2,214,483 2,096,550 2,096,550 117,933 117,933 Total Operations and Maintenance Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 1,161,738 1,161,738 3,376,221 1,161,738 1,161,738 1,279,671 2,096,550 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures 219,794 (222,508) (442,302) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers Out Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year (220,000) (220,000) (220,000) (220,000) (206) (442,508) (442,302) 166,222 166,222 $166,016 ($276,286) ($442,302) V -23 161 1 A 2 Page 1 of1 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Melaleuca Control Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 REVENUES Intergovernmental Other Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $1,200,000 $1,194,485 ($5,515) 1,934 1,934 1,200,000 1,196,419 (3,581) Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Total Operations and Maintenance Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year $ 1,196,635 3,365 1,196,635 3,365 1,196,635 3,365 (216) (216) (216) (216) 216 ($216) 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures 216 $216 V-24 ~....,..' .. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 ofl South Florida Water Managmem1~cll 1 A-a Special Revenue Fund Wetland Mitigation Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 t4 Final Budget Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) Actual REVENUES Investment Earnings Licenses, Permits and Fees Other $519,110 3,341,452 26,400 3,886,962 $ $519,110 3,341,452 26,400 3,886,962 Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Total Operations and Maintenance 2,427,864 2,863,499 2,863,499 435,635 435,635 2,427,864 Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Operations and Maintenance Restoration 8,608 481,413 490,021 47,638 668,783 716,421 39,030 187,370 226,400 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 9,195,999 9,195,999 9,858,034 9,195,999 9,195,999 12,775,919 2,917,885 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (12,775,919) 969,077 13,744,996 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 6,494,674 6,217,396 (277,278) 6,494,674 6,217,396 (277,278) (6,281,245) 7,186,473 13,467,718 25,213,922 25,213,922 $18,932,677 $32,400,395 $13,467,718 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V -25 161 1 A2 II Page 1 of1 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Indian River Lagoon Restoration Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $186,000 $119,397 ($66,603) 14,000 8,930 (5,070) 200,000 128,327 (71,673) Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Regulatory and Public Affairs Restoration 101,160 101,160 164,689 164,689 Total Regulatory and Public Affairs Contingency Managerial Reserve 199,405 199,405 199,405 199,405 364,094 101,160 262,934 (164,094) 27,167 191,261 (164,094) 27,167 191,261 371,146 371,146 $207,052 $398,313 $191,261 Total Contingency Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V-26 I I I I I I I 63,529 I 63,529 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of1 fA 2 II lA 11 South Florida Water Managment~strict Special Revenue Fund External Grants Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Final Budget Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) Actual REVENUES Intergovernmental $ $3,998,274 3,998,274 ($3,998,274) (3,998,274) Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Regulatory and Public Affairs Restoration Water Supply Total Regulatory and Public Affairs 3,600,000 65,811 3,665,811 1,300,000 65,828 1,365,828 2,300,000 (17) 2,299,983 Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration 398,274 238,475 159,799 398,274 238,475 159,799 4,064,085 1,604,303 2,459,782 (65,811) (1,604,303) (1,538,492) (65,811) (1,604,303) (1,538,492) (344,283) (344,283) ($410,094) ($1,948,586) ($1,538,492) Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V -27 16 1 1 At2 Page 1 of1 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Alternative Water Supply Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers Out Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) ($201,233) ($201,233) $ (201,233) (201,233) (201,233) (201,233) 201,233 201,233 $ $ $ Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V -28 u. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of1 161.1 Ai. South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Stormwater Treatment Areas - Operations and Maintenance Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Final Budget Actual REVENUES Other $ $7,918 7,918 Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Restoration 15,288,435 15,288,435 308 14,500,747 14,501,055 Total Operations and Maintenance Corporate Resources Restoration 156,716 156,716 156,716 156,716 Total Corporate Resources Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration 1,447,134 1,447,134 1,366,088 1,366,088 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve 4,640,029 4,640,029 21,532,314 Total Contingency Total Expenditures 16,023,859 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (21,532,314) (16,015,941) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) $7,918 7,918 (308) 787,688 787,380 81,046 81,046 4,640,029 4,640,029 5,508,455 5,516,373 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year 16,720,648 16,720,648 16,720,648 16,720,648 (4,811,666) 704,707 5,516,373 7,979,754 7,979,754 $3,168,088 $8,684,461 $5,516,373 V-29 161 1 1\2.. I~ I Page 1 of1 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Lake Belt Mitigation Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 I Final Budget Actual Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) I REVENUES Investment Earnings Licenses, Permits and Fees $ $129,058 4,319,151 4,448,209 $129,058 4,319,151 4,448,209 I I Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current I Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Total Operations and Maintenance 9,500 9,500 4,014 4,014 5,486 5,486 I I Contingency Managerial Reserve 4,014 34,500 34,500 39,986 I Total Contingency Total Expenditures 34,500 34,500 44,000 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (44,000) 4,444,195 4,488,195 I OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers Out Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year (7,972,560) (7,816,560) 156,000 (7,972,560) (7,816,560) 156,000 (8,016,560) (3,372,365) 4,644,195 7,916,136 7,916,136 ($100,424) $4,543,771 $4,644,195 I I I I I I I V -30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of 1 REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current 1611 A2 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Everglades License Plate Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30, 20 I 0 I Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $186,000 $259,319 $73,319 14,000 8,766 (5,234) 48 48 200,000 268,133 68,133 Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration 246,784 242,485 4,299 246,784 242,485 4,299 246,784 242,485 4,299 (46,784) 25,648 72,432 (46,784) 25,648 72,432 257,740 257,740 $210,956 $283,388 $72,432 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V -31 Page I of1 REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Restoration ./ 10 South Florida Water Managment District Special Revenue Fund Lake Okeechobee Trust Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Final Budget Actual $ $2,039,615 11,284 21,428 2,072,327 213,788 213,788 222,762 222,762 Total Operations and Maintenance Regulatory and Public Affairs Restoration 1,202,374 1,202,374 838,048 838,048 Total Regulatory and Public Affairs Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration 6,190,641 6,190,641 5,094,643 5,094,643 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 3,944,908 3,944,908 3,944,908 3,944,908 11,551,711 6,155,453 5,396,258 (11,551,711) (4,083,126) 7,468,585 (11,551,711) (4,083,126) 7,468,585 13,461,730 13,461,730 $1,910,019 $9,378,604 $7,468,585 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V-32 I 1'~ .. I I Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) I $2,039,615 11,284 21,428 2,072,327 I I I (8,974) (8,974) I I 364,326 364,326 I 1,095,998 1,095,998 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of 1 16 J lA 2 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund District CP Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 t Final Budget Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) Actual Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year ($1,226,167) ($1,226,167) ($1,226,167) ($1,226,167) $ $ V -33 Page 1 of2 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Okeechobee Basin CP Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 16 1.1 A 2 I, I I Final Budget Actual Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) I REVENUES Investment Earnings Sale of District Property Other $ $655,636 78,640 89,728 824,004 $655,636 78,640 89,728 824,004 I Total Revenues I EXPENDITURES Current I Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Restoration 41,767,819 34,159,708 (31) 34,159,677 7,608,111 31 I Total Operations and Maintenance 41,767,819 7,608,142 I Corporate Resources Mission Support Restoration Total Corporate Resources 136,359 136,359 (871) 30,225 871 106,134 107,005 I 29,354 I Regulatory and Public Affairs Restoration Total Regulatory and Public Affairs 140,818 140,818 131,646 131,646 9,172 9,172 I Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Operations and Maintenance Restoration Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects 13,490,350 13,490,350 1,905 3,152,417 3,154,322 (1,905) 10,337,933 10,336,028 I I I I I I I V -34 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 2 of2 Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 161 A2 J. '.~ South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Okeechobee Basin CP Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) 35,468,194 35,468,194 35,468,194 35,468,194 91,003,540 37,474,999 53,528,541 (91,003,540) (36,650,995) 54,352,545 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In 55,938,484 55,938,484 55,938,484 55,938,484 (35,065,056) 19,287,489 54,352,545 42,638,278 42,638,278 $7,573,222 $61,925,767 $54,352,545 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V -35 Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $189,500 $266,861 $77,361 371 371 189,500 267,232 77,732 Page 1 of1 161 1 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Big Cypress Basin CP Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 REVENUES Investment Earnings Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Corporate Resources Mission Support (42) (42) Total Corporate Resources Regulatory and Public Affairs Operations and Maintenance Restoration 1,015,601 700,901 1,716,502 1,020,883 700,901 1,721,784 Total Regulatory and Public Affairs Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Operations and Maintenance Restoration 3,375,295 3,960,000 7,335,295 3,306,319 4,529,841 7,836,160 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve 83,000 83,000 9,140,079 9,552,620 (9,285,388) Total Contingency Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (8,950,579) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In ~a 68,976 (569,841) (500,865) 83,000 83,000 (412,541) 334,809 }..~ I ,,--..( I I I I I I 42 I 42 5,282 I 5,282 I I I I I I Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year 4,240,245 4,240,245 4,240,245 4,240,245 (4,710,334) (5,045,143) 334,809 16,094,559 16,094,559 $11,384,225 $11,049,416 $334,809 V -36 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 1 Aa. ill Page 1 of 1 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Save Our Rivers CP Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $8,520,000 $862,984 ($7,657,016) 321,091 321,091 8,520,000 1,184,075 (7,335,925) Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Total Operations and Maintenance 654,581 654,581 165,419 165,419 820,000 820,000 Corporate Resources Restoration 500 500 500 500 Total Corporate Resources Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Operations and Maintenance Restoration 12,000 1,051,529 1,063,529 12,000 10,974,185 10,986,185 9,922,656 9,922,656 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 12,206,685 1,718,110 10,488,575 (3,686,685) (534,035) 3,152,650 (3,686,685) (534,035) 3,152,650 15,954,397 15,954,397 $12,267,712 $15,420,362 $3,152,650 Total Contingency Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V-37 Page 1 of2 i 6 I 1 11; 2 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Everglades Trust Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 REVENUES Ad Valorem Property Taxes Agricultural Privilege Taxes Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Other Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $61,214,385 $60,507,638 ($706,747) 11,630,000 11,678,158 48,158 2,000,000 (2,000,000) 1,102,270 2,220,495 1,118,225 3,319 3,319 75,946,655 74,409,610 (1,537,045) Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Restoration 7,252,706 7,252,706 912,108 912,108 8,164,814 8,164,814 Total Operations and Maintenance Corporate Resources Restoration 2,819,433 2,819,433 1,804,472 1,804,472 1,014,961 1,014,961 Total Corporate Resources Regulatory and Public Affairs Restoration 3,585,781 3,585,781 268,584 268,584 3,854,365 3,854,365 Total Regulatory and Public Affairs Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration 21,557,868 21,557,868 2,303,433 2,303,433 23,861,301 23,861,301 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Debt Service COPS Bond Principal Retirement COPS Bond Interest 5,181,891 14,336,499 19,518,390 5,181,892 14,337,500 19,519,392 Total Debt Service V -38 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1,001 1,002 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 2 of2 Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures SOUthF[OridaWater~~lJ~ A 2 Capital Projects Fund Everglades Trust Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) 19,119,672 19,119,672 19,119,672 19,119,672 77,338,977 53,719,217 23,619,760 (1,392,322) 20,690,393 22,082,715 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers Out Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Flmd Balance at End of Year (17,720,648) (16,720,648) 1,000,000 (17,720,648) (16,720,648) 1,000,000 (19,112,970) 3,969,745 23,082,715 94,565,212 94,565,212 $75,452,242 $98,534,957 $23,082,715 V -39 Page 1 of1 REVENUES Intergovernmental Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Regulatory and Public Affairs Restoration 161 1 A2 I N South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Federal Emergency Management Agency Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 I I Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $252,852 $428,476 $175,624 252,852 428,476 175,624 I I I 475,879 475,879 428,476 428,476 I I 47,403 47,403 Total Regulatory and Public Affairs Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 86,825 86,825 562,704 86,825 I 86,825 134,228 I 428,476 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year (309,852) (309,852) 127,717 ($182,135) 309,852 309,852 I 127,717 $127,717 $309,852 I I I I I I I I V -40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of1 REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Corporate Resources Restoration Total Corporate Resources South Florida Water Managment Di!ct6 I 1 A 2 Capital Projects Fund Florida Bay Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Final Budget Actual $ $323,136 74,137 397,273 7,577 7,577 7,577 7,577 Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration 1,353,527 1,353,527 1,178,276 1,178,276 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 42,886 42,886 1,403,990 1,185,853 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (1,403,990) (788,580) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In .~ Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) $323,136 74,137 397,273 175,251 175,251 42,886 42,886 218,137 615,410 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year 1,000,000 (1,000,000) 1,000,000 (1,000,000) (403,990) (788,580) (384,590) 4,126,610 4,126,610 $3,722,620 $3,338,030 ($384,590) V -41 Page 1 of2 161 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Ad Valorem Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Final Budget REVENUES Investment Earnings Sale of District Property Leases Other $423,950 Total Revenues 423,950 EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Operations and Maintenance Restoration 2,467,436 2,467,436 Total Operations and Maintenance Corporate Resources Operations and Maintenance Restoration 5,791,300 5,791,300 Total Corporate Resources Regulatory and Public Affairs Restoration 1,062,491 1,062,491 Total Regulatory and Public Affairs Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Operations and Maintenance Restoration 35,215,521 35,215,521 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Debt Service COPS Bond Principal Retirement COPS Bond Interest 4,188,109 11,587,048 15,775,157 Total Debt Service V-42 Actual $3,225,808 990,565 5,596 4,221,969 833 1,992,142 1,992,975 2,248 (3,669,972) (3,667,724) (1,279,378) (1,279,378) 2,168 39,630,318 39,632,486 4,188,109 11,587,047 15,775,156 1 1\2 , I I Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) I $2,801,858 I 990,565 5,596 3,798,019 I I I (833) 475,294 474,461 I (2,248) 9,461,272 I I 9,459,024 2,341,869 2,341,869 I (2,168) (4,414,797) (4,416,965) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 2 of2 Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures South Florida Water Managment Dt~ I 1 A 2 Capital Projects Fund Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Ad Valorem Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 i Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) 70,624,284 70,624,284 70,624,284 70,624,284 130,936,189 52,453,515 78,482,674 (130,512,239) (48,231,546) 82,280,693 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year 73,174,783 73,174,783 73,174,783 73,174,783 (57,337,456) 24,943,237 82,280,693 183,793,076 183,793,076 $126,455,620 $208,736,313 $82,280,693 V -43 Page 1 of1 16 I 1.... A 2- South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Federal Land Acquisition Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 I ,I I Final Budget Actual Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) I REVENUES Investment Earnings Leases $ $34,963 237,078 272,041 $34,963 237,078 272,041 I I I Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Restoration Total Operations and Maintenance 1,492,901 1,492,901 1,234,485 1,234,485 258,416 258,416 I 1,234,485 8,806,505 8,806,505 9,064,921 I Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 8,806,505 8,806,505 10,299,406 I Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (10,299,406) (962,444) 9,336,962 I OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year 10,299,406 3,469,991 (6,829,415) 10,299,406 3,469,991 (6,829,415) 2,507,547 2,507,547 2,961,293 2,961,293 $2,961,293 $5,468,840 $2,507,547 I I I I I I I I V-44 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of1 REVENUES Intergovernmental Investment Earnings Sale of District Property Leases Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Operations and Maintenance Restoration 161JAiil South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Save Our Everglades Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Final Budget Actual $116,043,865 $77,076,606 578,211 42,500 429,751 78,127,068 116,043,865 (573) (573) Total Operations and Maintenance Regulatory and Public Affairs Restoration 6,608,886 6,608,886 3,209,648 3,209,648 Total Regulatory and Public Affairs Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration 62,569,826 62,569,826 54,686,410 54,686,410 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 55,299,757 55,299,757 124,478,469 57,895,485 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (8,434,604) 20,231,583 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) ($38,967,259) 578,211 42,500 429,751 (37,916,797) 573 573 3,399,238 3,399,238 7,883,416 7,883,416 55,299,757 55,299,757 66,582,984 28,666,187 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year 1,783,806 1,783,806 1,783,806 1,783,806 (6,650,798) 22,015,389 28,666,187 (25,598) (25,598) ($6,676,396) $21,989,791 $28,666,187 V -45 Page 1 of1 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Federal Funds Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 161.1 A2. , I I Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $75,000 $190,485 $115,485 75,000 190,485 115,485 I REVENUES Intergovernmental Total Revenues I I EXPENDITURES Current I Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects 75,272 40,350 34,922 75,272 40,350 34,922 75,272 40,350 34,922 (272) 150,135 150,407 (272) 150,135 150,407 (697,958) (697,958) ($698,230) ($547,823) $150,407 I Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year I I Fund Balance at End of Year I I I I I I I I I V-46 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of1 16 I 1 A' 2 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan - Other Creditable Fund Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year Final Budget $2,225,955 $2,225,955 V-47 Actual $2,225,955 $2,225,955 Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) $ $ 161 1 A2 I Page 1 of1 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Acceler8 - Everglades Construction Project Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 ......~ I I Final Budget Actual Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) I REVENUES Investment Earnings Sale of District Property $ $636,394 181,096 817,490 $636,394 181,096 817,490 I Total Revenues I EXPENDITURES Current I Operations and Maintenance Restoration Total Operations and Maintenance (100,103) (100,103) 100,103 100,103 I Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects 122,484,865 122,484,865 97,767,746 97,767,746 24,717,119 24,717,119 I Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration I Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 40,807,944 40,807,944 40,807,944 40,807,944 163,292,809 97,667,643 65,625,166 (163,292,809) (96,850,153) 66,442,656 (163,292,809) (96,850,153) 66,442,656 230,217,148 230,217,148 $66,924,339 $133,366,995 $66,442,656 I I Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year I Fund Balance at End of Year I I I I I V-48 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 1 of1 REVENUES Investment Earnings Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current 161 1 South Florida Water Managment District Capital Projects Fund Acceler8 - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 Final Budget $ Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Restoration 536,966,523 536,966,523 Total Everglades Restoration and Capital Projects Contingency Managerial Reserve Total Contingency Total Expenditures 2,000,000 2,000,000 538,966,523 Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (538,966,523) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Debt Issue Actual $115,960 1,772,131 1,888,091 45,917 45,917 45,917 1,842,174 A2 f..'.: ,~j: 1.' L Variance with Final Budget-Positive (Negative) $115,960 1,772,131 1,888,091 536,920,606 536,920,606 2,000,000 2,000,000 538,920,606 540,808,697 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year 536,482,668 (536,482,668) 536,482,668 (536,482,668) (2,483,855) 1,842,174 4,326,029 29,186,551 29,186,551 $26,702,696 $31,028,725 $4,326,029 V-49 Page 1 of1 South Florida Water Managment DiJ 6 1 1 ,A 2- Permanent Fund Wetland Mitigation Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Budget and Actual For the Year Ended September 30,2010 REVENUES Investment Earnings Licenses, Permits and Fees Variance with Final Final Budget-Positive Budget Actual (Negative) $300,000 $216,505 ($83,495) 667,654 667,654 300,000 884,159 584,159 Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Current Contingency Managerial Reserve 1,777,886 1,777,886 1,777,886 1,777,886 1,777,886 1,777,886 Total Contingency Total Expenditures Revenues in Excess of (Less than) Expenditures (1,477,886) 884,159 2,362,045 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Transfers In Transfers Out 1,777,886 1,777,886 (300,000) (178,722) 121,278 1,477,886 1,599,164 121,278 2,483,323 2,483,323 10,224,313 10,224,313 $10,224,313 $12,707,636 $2,483,323 Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) Net Change in Fund Balance Fund Balance at Beginning of Year Fund Balance at End of Year V-50 w. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i b 1 1 A2 4 I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I Internal Service Funds I Internal Service Funds are used to account for the fmancing of goods or services provided by one District department to another on a cost reimbursement basis. I Self Insurance Fund Accounts for the operations related to providing workers' compensation, general liability, and automobile insurance coverage to all District departments. Revenue is provided through interfund charges based on a cost allocation study. I I I Health Benefits Fund Accounts for the operations related to providing health and medical insurance coverage to District employees and retirees who choose to remain in the plan. Revenue is provided through interfund charges and employee and retiree contributions. I I I I I I I I I I I V-51 South Florida Water Management District Combining Statement of Net Assets Internal Service Funds September 30,2010 Selflnsurance Fund ASSETS Current Assets Cash and Investments Accounts Receivable Due from Other Funds Prepaids Other Assets Total Current Assets $16,404,690 581,648 140,000 17,126,338 Noncurrent Assets Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment Computer Hardware Vehicles Accumulated Depreciation Total Noncurrent Assets Total Assets 27,458 8,196 25,974 (16,285) 45,343 $17,171,681 LIABILmES Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Due to Other Funds Claims Payable Total Current Liabilities $44,646 5,777 863,453 913,876 Noncurrent Liabilities Claims Payable Total Noncurrent Liabilities Total Liabilities 5,022,547 5,022,547 $5,936,423 NET ASSETS Net Assets Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt Unrestricted 45,343 11,189,915 $11,235,258 Total Net Assets V-52 16 j 1A a Health Benefits Fund $6,971,323 9,530 577,525 578,000 8,136,378 $8,136,378 $891,391 1,511,650 2,403,041 $2,403,041 5,733,337 $5,733,337 Total $23,376,013 9,530 577,525 581,648 718,000 25,262,716 27,458 8,196 25,974 (16,285) 45,343 $25,308,059 $936,037 5,777 2,375,103 3,316,917 5,022,547 5,022,547 $8,339,464 45,343 16,923,252 $16,968,595 I ii-I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I 16 J 1 A 2 4 South Florida Water Management District I Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets Internal Service Funds I For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 ..1 Self Insurance Health Benefits Fund Fund Total OPERATING REVENUES I Charges for Services $9,106,006 $21,233,915 $30,339,921 Other Operating Revenue 73,870 3,245,117 3,318,987 Total Opemting Revenues 9,179,876 24,479,032 33,658,908 I OPERATING EXPENSES Salaries 489,615 489,615 I Benefits 230,280 230,280 Claims 503,834 17,421,264 17,925,098 Purchased Services 230,206 230,206 Administrative Fees 1,387,584 1,387,584 I Other 1,259,177 1,259,177 Depreciation 5,954 5,954 Total Operating Expenses 2,719,066 18,808,848 21,527,914 I OPERATING INCOME 6,460,810 5,670,184 12,130,994 I NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Investment Earnings 63,153 63,153 Total Nonoperating Revenues 63,153 63,153 I INCOME BEFORE TRANSFERS 6,460,810 5,733,337 12,194,147 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) I Transfers In 11,211,057 11,211,057 Capital Contributions 48,391 48,391 Assumption of Liabilities for Self Insurance Claims (6,485,000) (6,485,000) I Total Other Financing Sources (Uses) 4,774,448 4,774,448 I Change in Net Assets 11,235,258 5,733,337 16,968,595 Net Assets at Beginning of Year Net Assets at End of Year $11,235,258 $5,733,337 $16,968,595 I I I I I V-53 Aj I ~ >.. South Florida Water Management District 16 I 1t. ( I Combining Statement of Cash Flows Internal Service Funds For the Year Ended September 30, 2010 I Self Insurance Health Benefits Fund Fund Total CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITES: I Cash Receipts from Customers $9,111.780 $20,646.860 $29.758.640 Cash Payments to Suppliers (2,026.384) 0,387584) (3,413.968) Cash Pavments for Salaries. Benefits (719.895) (719.895) I Cash Payments to Administrators (140,000) (578,000) (718,000) Claims Paid 0.102.834) (15.018.223) (16,121.057) Other Receipts (Payments) 73.872 3.245.117 3.318.989 Net cash provided by operating activities 5.196.539 6,908,170 12,104.709 I CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING Transfers In 11.211.057 11.21 1.057 I Net cash provided bynoncapital financing activities 11.211.057 11.211.057 CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL ACTIVITIES: Purchase of Capital Assets (2.906) (2.906) I Net cash used for capital activities (2.906) (2.906) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Interest Earnings 63.153 63.153 I Net cash provided byinvestin?; activities 63,153 63,153 Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents 16,404,690 6,971,323 23,376,013 I Cash and Cash Equivalents, Beginning of Year Cash and Cash Equivalents, End of Year $16,404,690 $6,971,323 $23,376,013 I RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING INCOME TO NET CASH USED IN OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Operating Income $6,460,810 $5,670,184 $12,130,994 I Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash used in operating activities: I Depreciation 5,954 5,954 CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES: Decrease (Increase) in Accounts Receivable (9,530) (9,530) I Decrease (Increase) in Due from Other Funds (577,525) (577,525) Decrease (Increase) in Prepaids (581,648) (581,648) Decrease (Increase) in Deposits (140,000) (578,000) (718,000) I Increase (Decrease) in Accounts Payable 44,646 891,391 936,037 Increase (Decrease) in Due to Other Funds 5,777 5,777 Increase (Decrease) in Estimated Unpaid Claims (599,000) 1,511,650 912,650 Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities $5,196,539 $6,908,170 $12,104,709 I NONCASH CAPITAL AND FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Capital contributions from government 48,391 48,391 I Assumption of liabilities for self-insurance claims (6,485,000) (6,485,000) I V-54 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1't JJ 2 -f STATISTICAL SECTION Butterfly on a pickerelweed plant at the Loxahatchee Impoundment Landscape Assessment (LILA) in Boynton Beach, Florida. LILA is a working 80-acre model ofthe Everglades ecosystem on the grounds of the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. This "living laboratory" gives experts an opportunity to research and apply restoration techniques on a smal~ controlled scale before taking them into the 1.7 million-acre Everglades ecosystem. The unique facility was built in 2003 as a partnership between the South Florida Water Management District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I I 161 1 A r!) t_'.c:. ~:,<.i...' ~. .j .' Statistical Section I I This part of the South Florida Water Management District's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report presents detailed information as context for understanding what the information in the fmancial statements, note disclosure, and required supplementary information says about the District's overall financial health. I I I FINANCIAL TRENDS ......................................... ..... .... ....... ...... .... .... ..... ..... .................... ... .... ....... VI-2 . These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the District's financial pefjormance and well-being have changed over time. I I I REVENUE CAPACITy.................................................................................................................. VI-8 These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the factors affecting the District's ability to generate its property taxes. DEBT CAPACITy.............. ...................... .... ........ ......... ....... ...... .... .............. .................... ............. VI -17 These schedules present infonnation to help the reader assess the affordability of the District's current levels of outstanding debts and the District's ability to issue additional debt in the future. I I DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC INFORMATION ................................................................ VI-19 These schedules o..ffer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which the District's financial activities take place and to help make comparisons over time and with other governments. I OPERATING INFORMATION.................................................. ................................................... VI - 23 These schedules contain iliformation about the District's operations and resources to help the reader understand how the District's financial information relates to the services the Dis trict 's provides and the activities it pet/orms. I I I Sources: Unless otherwise noted, the information in these schedules is derived from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for the relevant year. The District implemented GASB Statement 34 in 2001; schedules presenting govemment-wide iliformation include infonnatioll beginning in that year. I I I VI-I '" '" '" '" M C .. N " ~ M M N '" ::::: '" .. .. -:: .... c <. d N ~i <; it '" .. 0 '" 0 .... 0 '" 0 '" '" <I .... '" ~. ~ '" C; '" oC ..; ri E oC ..; ... ~ N N go ::\ ..; -i .. M ;e ~ if. ~ ~ ! ::; .. "! ~ ~ 0 ... ~ :;l 'fi. '" -.f. ::: 5 M ~ ". .. ~I '" 0 ... ~ oC ~ of ~ ~ N '" 0 .... ;;; ..; .. -i g; '" .... '" '" '" '" 8 .... ::! .. '" ~ ~ r. N '" oo d '" oC -5 &i .. .... ~ g: g; '" ~ .. c; ~ 00 .... '" ~ g ... '" ~, '" ~ ..; -i .. .. .., ;: .., .... ::\ '" oo ;;; .... ~ '" a- ~ 2r N a- N '" "': .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" N ~ .... C- O! .. .. r:f ... ~ '" ;:; .. a- R ..; ..; .. e- .., N f;; ~ ::: .... oo ::.! '" 0 ~ ~I '" ~ ~ <. oC d &! .. ~ '" ~ .. .., ~ C ~ N ~ c 0- ~ g :E ... M .. ... ~ .. N .. .. ... .l!l ~ ~ .. .... .... ~ a- ;;; ~ ;=: 8 '" '" .... ~. ..:: .... ~ '" N ... ~ 3 ,,; ~ in g .. on .., c- o 0 0 ... ~ z -= oC -.f. ~ ~ -5 ... '" e- o: .. " .... ~ oi <; .. g '" M M '" .... '" '" '" :;: .... .... 0' '" ~ ::i .... ~ ..; .. ~ '" M .. ~ '" .. o. ~ &l iiil g "': .. ~ '" ". '" g '" ~ '" i :i ... a- '" N ... oi <. .. .. '" :5 .... '" :<; M ~ '" .., N '" ~ M N ~ ~ ~ '" -5 -i :;: ~ ~ a- ~. ~ :; c. '" '" ri -5 c' on c- o ri ~ ~ - '" ~ M N .. ~ ~ '" ~ p ~ ;;; ~ .., N ~ g d ~ ~ .., '" ~ -5 ;! c. '" ... ~ '" <! '" '" .. ... ;:; ~ -i -.f. on :g g N ~ ;; oi .. .., .... M 2 '" '" .., ::; N '" ;::: :! ..... '" -= <5 ::i ~ ~ ..; 5 ~ ~ c; '" 0 ;!; '" -= of -5 d N ... ... O. N M '" N on q ... ... .. >. ~ -" C .0 "8 - " ~ 5 ." !! " e " '" .. M "'E " .. '" a ~ .~ 0 .. " " :; i:' " .. .. " " i: g> .. fI' ~ u U .g :0 Q < ~ " " :g ;; " :j2 1l ~ ... '- c "- ~ u " S .~ " i! u a: .... ~ '" .~ " ~ I ~ .~ ~ ~ .Q .~ " .. ~ - '" ~ ~ .~ i}. ." -< .. " co ." .. ii: .. " "E .- j '" c ;; E .. :; '" c " ~ .. <: ~ ;: ." .0 UJ Z Z ~ " ~ :: ~ 0 '" !j " 8 Ui -= .. -= ~ .. :$ ~ ~ :5 ~ '" '" -' VI-2 I 16 I 1 A 2 I~~ I I I gggggggggg oor.CV)CV-.OVlOV"' "';-;"';t~Mt"-ir-i-:-:614 t.4~~~6I4~~i4(A I =: I -= ~l c:- -= -= N '" 0 0 I ~l .... 0 -= N g ~ <::> ~ N .. ~. s I 0 i;; <::> ~. 6 0 N .., I <::> <::> rl N <::> 0 N 0; I 0 N .;, I I I I I I I I (SUO!ll!l\1 u!l Junowv I 1 6 J 11\ 2 I 0 ;::; '" 00 '" ;1; '" '" '" 00 0 ce ... 0 a: '" M '" 00 .:;; ~ M '" .... '" .... ~ '" '" '" 0 '" ... '" .... <> '" '" ~ '" '" '" <> .... '" ~ .... '" '" ... '" '" '" '" 00 '" M 0 ,.; <:5 ,,;. ,,; ..., '" ....- ..., ,.; ,.( .,; '" ..., ,.; '" ....- cO ,,; ,.( ~ '" '" ... .... '" '" '" 00 1:; '" .... '" N '" .... '" '" .... " 0 M 0 M '" '" 0 '" 0 '" M 00 :;; 0, 0 ?f ;;; ..., N 0 0 -6 M ..., 0 ...= ,.; ..., 0 ....- ...= 0 ..., 0 ,.; ... - !::! !:: ,~ M '" '" '" - ce ~ ~ Co - ... !:! I '" '" '" .,.. '" ... M :;:; ... ... 1:; '" <> '" .... ... M ;;; "" 0: ~ 0: '" M '" ::; '" 0 '" '" .... '" M '" 0: C ~ '" '" '" "": "". '" 0 ... ..... 0: 0 .... '" :: M '" ....- ..., ,.; 0 0 ,,; ....- N N ,.; ;;f '" 0 "j ~ '" ... 00 '" 00 00 .... '" '" 00 - 00 '" a- ce '" ... ., '" ... '" 00 00 '" 0 o. '" .... .... '" 0 ~ ,,' 0 ... '" I <: ,,; ,.; '" 0 -6 ,,; <:5 ,..: ~ ,.; ....- ,.; ,:; '" a' ... ~ ~ !:: '" '" '" '" '" '" ::: 00 ... !:! '" '" 00 M .... '" ;:: 00 ... M ... a: 00 ... '" 0 ... '" '" '" ... ..,. c ~ I <> 00 '" <> ~ 0 .... '" c .... .... 00 .... '" o. '" .... '" '" '" 0 q '" M '" M '" 00 '" '" '" ... ... 0 '" N a' <:5 '" ....- ....- ,.; N N N ....- ,,; !i a' cO cO g ,..: c-: ~ '" a- M '" 00 '" '" 00 0 .... :;;; 0 '" ~ ... 00 ::: '" 0 '" '" ~ '" ..,. .... '" ~ M ~ <> - M '" o. 0:: => ,.; .,; ,.; ....- ,:; '" ....- ....- ....- a: ....- cO -6 ..., ..: -6 a' ... ~ ::; '" .... '" ... M '" '" 00 ... ... ;;; '" '" '" '" '" I '" 00 '" M '" <> M M 00 .... '" M .... s;: '" C- o. '" ;;; a- '" '" '" ~ '" 00 '" .... !:: '" M M ... ... :!: .... '" M 0 M '" 0 '" ~ 00 .... .... '" '" ::; ~ q ,~ ....- 0 ..., .,; '" '" ,:; N ~ N ,:; ....- ....- ;:; <:5 .... '" 0:: '" '" '" '" 00 '" 0 ;; 0:: M ... '" '" :: <> ... ... '" ... '" '" M ~ 0 0:: ~ 00 ... .... .... C => cO ....- ,.; ....- ,,; N N ,:; ,..: .,; N ,,; N !:! ,,; ,..: ... !::! a- ~ .... '" M - '" ~ N '" ~ ~ ~ I '" '" ... .. .... 0:: ... 0 '" :;; 0 0 M ., M .... '" '" '" '" ~ ~ 00 ;;; " .... 00 '" ... <> M '" N .... '" ~ <> M " ~ '" M .... M M 00 <> '" '" ~ 0 :: .... .... :;; '" .... > cO ..., ~N od .,; ..., N ,.; N ..., <:5 ,,; a' od :g <> '" M '" 00 '" <> 0:: ... M .... '" ~ 3 .... => I " '" ~ .... ~ 0:: '" .... M M ... '" ... ::1 0 ... '" '" => on ,.; on cO ,..: .,; ,,; .,; 00' ....- ,.; <:5 C ~ ... - '" = .... '" M '" '" '" 00 '" i::: - ..,. M ,~ ... "" "" I .... = => a- .... 0 00 ... ::!: .... 0 "< '" <> 00 cO 5 ,,; ,,; "j '" '" 0 a- '" M <: '" ... c, '" => ....- ,.; '" od ... '" 0 := ... '" ... I 0 ... '" 0 00 M :: M .... '" 0 <> M 00 M ~ ..., 00 ..; <:5 Ff. ..,. :;:; '" ~ N 0:: => ~ 00 00 '" => ,.; S <:5 '" ,.; ... .... ... 0 ::: I M ,,' ... :: ~ M ... C- o '" M '" :: 00 00 '" ~ ..., ..., i N "j I .., ~ '" 00 ~ .... <: ~ 00 ... .... <: '" :f ,,; "j od ... '" .... M 'e N ... ... I 0 00 00 00 ... r:: '" M !:: <> a- ..,. N '" .... '" ... ,..: a' N ..; ...= N ... '" '" 0: .... .... c '" 00 0 '" '" '" 0 ....- M N ,..: ,.; ..; ... :Q ~ '" M ::i '" M I ~ ~ I is 0 .~ ~ -:: " " c ~ .~ S i: ;: ~ " .. ~ ::.c "" i: i .E 0 ~ .E 8 ~ .E " :: .:: .~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ;;; 5 ~ 8 s 8 ..;j .~ s 8 u " ~ " I :;: c ~ c .~ c ~ ~ e "<l ~ "E .. ~ ~ <5 ~ c c i! ~ ~ " !! ~ " '2 ~ 6 ~ 'a " '2 '" ~ .. " " ~ !-;' ;: -= ..;: ,,< ~ u (;] 0 ~ E ~ ~ ~ 5 t: '" '" t: ~ 1:: gf' a ~ a: >-... .=: 0 " ~ ..;j 0 "'0 "f U 0 "'0 (;] " 0 ,. ~ e.~ c. ~6 ~ c. ~o c. II ~ 0 " Co ,., ~ " as go C 'C.-' =- " 'C.-' "<l c. 'C.-' c ,. =- 'C. " ~ ~ - ~ e ~ = ~ - ~ ~ .~ c. " .n .~ c. '" .9 c. 0 "a " .n .g =- c ~ r:! '" 0 1; 0 '" '" ~ .... .2 = ~ .9 = c. .g = 0 c .9 .n ~ '" =: (;] '" E '" ~ c u I .. '" -$:!:: :: .~ ~ g 5 .~.~ ~ ~ ~ 0 .~ ~ u cE .~ ~ E ~ a, 5 :; i::: ~~ E ~ >! c. C ~ ~ " c 0 ~ '" " j -a ~ " -c 0 ~ ~ ~ " <; " 1i ~ ~ c c: "'0 " c 5~ c. " ~ :E UJ i: 5~ c. " '" 15 13 ::E c. ~ ~ t~ c- O> '" ~ ~ ~ 'Ei " _ u 0 ~ -c co 0 ~ f- 0 ~ 0 '" u -=~< c. ~ i: c. "S. ~ C> ... 8 :z rn rn U..J~ '-l Co 0 0 I I VI-3 ... ~ is C " s " OJ) ~ ~ Gi .~ :e g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<~~ :I'ti'"aO N i ~ ~ .~ .;~~g:: "B :: :Z 2 .:: :::I ell - 0 ~~u3~ .... '" " ... ~ &: I=:: .,.. t'" " :;~~~ ~~.~~ ~~:!=C ~ Nr:::Or-- "1q~~ ~ v~ M r: ~~~~ ~O:N~ ~~;;~ ~~~s .. ~ ClCt r- ~~~~ .... = c ... ~g~~ ~&ig~ \ooov\o ..::J--:ir-:d !;:QC~N ~E~~~ &fg:id~ ~~~~~.. ~r---=~ on g ... ~$~~ g~~2 ~~.~~ .... .., "7 C C ... .... '" <:> oC o 0- .... ..,. .., '" ~ ... ~ . ~ ~ .... .., N i. r'c-7 c ~ ~i ~ 0-: .., ... c c ... :: '" oC ... c ~ ... .9 o v. E ~ ~ t8 :::: <II "" U -=a ~~ r3~ ~ ~ '" C!t!a c.l ]""B <: t;'~ S ..J ..J g}, os, ~ ~.~ cJ ___~ X"'-C <.-. ~~~~~ ~ E5flg~ i]1111"~ ~c- ..:;:20 t-' .., ..,. 0- 0' ~ 0- '" '" 00 ..,. oC '" 0- g N .. ~ a ~ " .~ 0 00 00 2 ... 0 ;;; :: N ,. " '" M g ~ ~ " ] .., ~ :3 6 ~ ~ j 13 i'j -" 1 -= " ~ ... .... !:! 0;; .... o oC ... ..,. ... .... .... !3 ~ .... .... ... .... '" '" ...;..,; ~~ aid ;:: ::! '" '" '" ... .., c ;;: .... ... <:> ..i '" '" 0.., .... '" 0-0 ...:.; r-:~ =-r-."' 0; ~ ~ ~ '" u E ~ 0; ,. '" " " u ::2 '" a l: < t;; u ;; S 3 z 6 ~ - '" ~ " .. '" !!!' c S ~ ~ 0 E ;z :;:; ... ::; ~ .... .., ~ '" o a- M '" .... " ~ ~ c. N~ ~~ ~ ;;. u-= ;:..".= -= g &1~ '" =: '" c =: " 3: ~ g :~ ~ N .~.~ ~ ~ g c ~ ~~ ~g Vj g " " "':: t,;... l~ E .": c."" " ~ .." =: u = li .~ 0 _.. ~ ~ - a~ ,,0 -= 0 =N " ~ ;[ ~] 1=':: <!l '" < o g 13 ~ :: 8 " '" is VI-4 g 8 0 -" .... ~ u '" ] a- 0 0 '" .... g '" .g g c. .... ~ 0; '" '" " c '" '" ~ ~ .g .g ... ... o <"I " OIl " "- -= c ] ~ J "il '" .s '" ~ '" '" " F: ~ ! >. -" 1l ~ "il ~ "f: ~ g '" " =: "2 := o .... 3 >. c ~ '" c ;, e c. ~ c .~ g " ~ ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ;, e c. '" ~ 9- on :; .~ ~ 13 .~ c '" ~ " is ~ ~ '" " " ,. " '" a ~ ~ 1l o ... =: " >. ] '" .~ Q " '" .1 ~ i= 16' 1 A a ~ I .- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~] .~ =::J C ~ ~ 8 ~c < c" ~ ~ c: 0 ~ E .~ ~~~~ ~~~] ~ ~.g ~ ':: c.:! >L ~ :_~~~5~ ~~]~~ ~~~.3~ I I I I ./ .. il ;.. co :; ... '" c co ... g ... ~ :g :;: :g co ... .. g ... g ... a ::'i :; '" ... '" " ] ~ g n ~ t:.,C::::J ] r3 ~~ d~ <. '" '" -il 0- co .... '" N ...:.,; ~ " '" co r:...: oc .. '" c. ~ '" .... - v5 ('1 '" " C"I C\ ::i, .. "'.... .... '" ..,. .... d~ ....'" .... <, ~~ '" .. ~~ ~~ ~o '" - ...:,..: - ... ~e; ~~ "'N r-i ..:; -N .... '" '" '" ... ~... 0... "l"l o oc _ N .. '" <. ~3 "'''' .... - ...: ~r N .. ("-10 ~~ &f~ ~~ ~~ - C'-l '" a- ~~ o~ '" 0 ... '" ::S'N' - ... ~ '" d '" .... ,.: '" ..,. <> <S ;:: ~ ..,. o '" ,; .... r. ... a- ~ M N '4 o ..; '" '" r:; ;q '" ~ gJ ,; '" '" ,; M N r;; ,.: M o ~ ;;; '" ~ a- ::i N '" N d ::: ;i ..,. .~ ~ :: ..,. ." -~ "5 5 o :9 ~ l3 .... N '" ..., :! .... - '" '" ~~ "'.... M N ;i ~f - '" :! ::f .... c ::: - M M :1'. 0 ~ -M.... r"ir: ""OM o '" ~ r-:M !::&; .... ~ .... oi N '" 'B ~b;g """'... ..n.nN ... '" 0 0""'" -..:j';- ~~ .... a- M '" ::: N c N .... '" a- - - f"". -........ -..:5~-.CJa ~ -.Q "" ...."'- o5d '" M '" '" "i ... .... ~ '" '" C 0". co co """'.... d rl'.r Il5 M"" ~ ~ ('~ ..,.~ ~ c ,.: '" g N ;;:;~N N., .... eti>6d' t'ooo-N .... ., - r-:a: '" N M '" E ,.: ~ 0-"" O\rI.)Q'\ rl M- ;;8- '" .... r:~ '" ., N C ~ N ::: ..,....."" :gfl!~ .0 "d ~.... M ~ '" N "r M "" ~ ';! ~ -g .5 & ] ~ ~~;a 8.. >~.~ &: ~ ~' u-o~~ii ~~~~'~5 ~ ~ ~ tI.l U c.. be:::~ 5 ;;: ~ "" '" "" '" ,.: '" .... '" .... ~ o o <:$ co ~ ,.: ~ ;1 .... ~ '" i. '" ~ QO .... '" '" ,.: "" c- o' .... M "" .... .... g '" ,; ~ '" ., o a: ~ '" ... .... "" ~ '" '" ~ ~ ~ '" "" oi ~ '" N .... ~ '" o ,.: ;;; ~ ..: ." ;; e 5 i; o " ..c o ;;: -a "5 r- VI-S $ .... <:$ .... .... :::: QO '" '" '" E oi a- '" .. '" ~ '" '" "" a' co ] ~ '0 '" ] " a. ~.!i c . ~ a" ~~ ~..~ ~'g or. " "'c ~!.:: g-E g'o a2 ~ 0 :0(5 .= Z ..0.5 0" ~ 5 ~tE ";: 0 OJ.<I '" C ...: " ~~ 5-B :J" - "" c c .9 :.0 - c .~~ :e S ~~ '- " o'r: ~r;; cO ~~ 8.~ ''01; OJ eo ~ 2 a :.IS ='= J8 ~ ~~ ~3 -;"0- e So ~~ ~ ~ S] g< [~ _ " " c ~.~ .= 2 " ;;; OJ C " 0 " ~ ~ 0 .<1.;5 " 2~ "" c ... " ;n '- " " ~:g .S ~ " 0. ~.9 .. N o .., g q 18 gj ~ o o' '" M 5 '" ." -. ,.: ~ ~ '" ~ N "! g '" ~ '" :il * '" o ~ QO o ~ :;: 3 '" i '" ." "5 .... ';! e o ~ o Z ~ ~ . = C ~ ~ = " c " "" g g g g g g g g g ~ O'OOl-\CtI'l"TMC''- ~ 00 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (saonm.\I DO ltmDmV ff ?1 Sl:: C '" g '" .... g '" .c a '" r. ,.. g .. 8 '" ..,. g '" M 8 <. rl C C r. 00 a rl .. -g ::J I:. - ~~ - c a E j f t '5 E S 8 ~e" ~ ~ ~ ~ - c U!. ~ ~ z:'~ _:=c::c:) ~]>~ ~~~g -:~.5E:; "3 f=: :: g I~ ] :5 SS ~ u ~ ;: :I) ~ ",,,,u.s~ '" '" '" .. ... ,. " ;;.. " ;: r:: '" '" '" .. '" ;:; .. ~ a:: l"'- C" "'T -Vlt""'l70 ("t r-- ("~ ri oQ c~ ~ ~ Or---.:::occ r---covo.. ...;' "'t'i-id '" ". ... ... ~~~~ 0: -.:t' N ~vi"M-i o 7"'" \!; ~,;;-. vi' ri c--i '" '" '" .. :.e5~~~~~QC~~ c::i o U"Io ("1.-. ~ "7 t""- 0 ~ ..... -i.no~Me15oo['ivi'-:fM ~ ~~~~:;::~~~~r--- ~ :::i -r:oo..:Sc-S -6d- 00 N_C\C"~ _ 00 ~ 'D '" 00 '" o ... __ C\ (]'. :;10 trl -.0 0 ('t - rl 00 0 G>- 0> lI"i 00 C'l ,0 ~ "T\Oa.oc~O'.l"'-r--o.C\ r: ,,; cO 7 r-: 0; ...: 0 d. d "T \C r-- MI a 0 rl \C VI 0 l"'-('t'700\l"~ V'l~I.CV'l :IS .. \Ci r-: v; ri roOvi' .. v 00 M Vf (',1 r- = .. xt"'-oo.....r- V)-CO VMOOrr)"T"Tl"'- ('1 r--O\:;.oV\C"'."T-TO", :c ~i88~~$-.i~-i :)0'-00011') lI"i'OOO-.Dr- ~ .. ~ r-: :0 co; vi' -.i .. "T _ a "T vo. ("t ... Mt"'"'O'":TCOt"--V"IV'l_CO :::: 0 ("t 0' ("'t "7. ..... 0 0. CC ::;-. co ("1 0 00 lr. 0 ("':. 00 co ~~~~g~~g~~ l""- 1.1'\ V'l r-- 'J'. 0' (;', C"I 00 0 vi' "oo~<6" -i-i-i ..,. ...- ... ... :!~g,;;~!::s~g$ M.....VloO "TG'>rtooO Md~<6c-~0..roO\i3 .. 'J"I"TMr--o. \:)OOC"'V'l o MI va> 0-. 00 V\MC"V'l >.6("r-=.....:v;do-.i~~ ,.... _ 0 N ... M ... ..,. g ... - - CC ..... ("1 ::;- 00 co V'l a- ~:g~8~c:o$~g~ "'>6 "-id:t5orr.~c5 f"-MV"or--V\l"'-r-r-_r-- ..cC"tO'MMOO..... \0 "rici0t5:.6C'i ~- ....-". M '/> a c ... :.c_''cc-V'lr-C'''\Clr.c_ - M 1.0 r-- 0 ~ v, _ rt '" C'1tr1Co- \Ccortc.:;:l r-: r: ~ ri 00 00 0 ~ c\ r: I:""l'(r,~v. '.CIOOI:""_ oor-"','"1"V,O'IOO r- "': ri ~ d C'i C'i . M M ri ~ - ('1 ('t '" ... o c ... ::-_oeoo_'.::l..ocr- Il' V>.::l\::lO"M'\::IO_-:rr- 0 -:;C'MOOV'lCO'VV\":f"'"1" ~~~:i~~ff~~~ c:i tI"i"TOCOOl'a-.('cOOl' ("'I .r,- C'i r: d 11\. M ri - ("'i _ -- rt "" N ~ \D ;:; '" ... r-- ~ r-- ("'I ~ rt .;0 00 rl. M r- :~~:~~~~~~ ~ NC"tOOooorla<\:=i_QO 0 ~r-""T1oI"i MQ\O'OOO V\ f"'irrooo,~r-i"';rid r...: ;; -- ("'I - :;;. ... " " ~~ &_€2 €'~ .,,-g--g,.g ~.2 ~e:fl2g :t:~1i-~ -~~~ E=Et:J~~ ~ ~~~c ......;::;U ~~~?~~];g,.)~ ~~-~~~.2~"*~ g-5 ~<<.5-=...Jr:r.~_...JO ;> ~ c: c:l '" c' '" <. vi 0- or, N 1'" a~. ("I Cr-ON 0- rt C ('I QCi N -7~dd \!S co 00 C .". ("I "" ("I 0 lI"\ r: ri' r-: C"i M (f._lI"lM 00 '.0 0 C""I &;oC:~ ~r-i ",,0: ~O'''T'''' \0 0" r- \,0 C'id ~ 0 0- v 1.1'". o ". r- -0 '" o o ~t-C'!:: C't rl t""" M ~or-:("i rl r- ~ 0 .,., M r- r-:OOOM ;;:) ~ ['I r- _ _ ('.I c:: M .., '" o rl M ,.: .". co .,., ...0 \0 0 V'I ,'>> 0- ~.oI:"-CO ~r:r-:c\ C"'I ':10 00 _ ..,. :::> 07 ri ..6 r-.: C-lI"lf'oo _ _ C'l. :<; ..; g ,.: ... 0- \:;1 .0 c..o OOO'.~V'l \0 ,0 V'I "":vleOO MOM '"'T \0 0 t'- 0 ('i r-: 0' .. =3~1"'- ;;: <. vi M c' ~ ~ '0 o QO '" 7 o ... '" M !;j <> <, '" or, 00 ... r- oC '" ~ ,:;'< Pi ill o c' N r' 7 <l M r- ~ vi ... '" 7 r- r' ~ " ~ '" :s o .... " " S ~ t:~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~E~~f5- t ~g~~~ .... 0 -or. c.9 U Z~~8-~;; X 5 "'() VI-6 ........c; l:"-I ('-I 00"001:"- <>.., ... o ("i ri ~ (j'. ('I M '- 1"'-:tJ ('.1 vi' .. .. <. 00 c' '" o rl,- o r- co C"'1 o "f"...c ~ d ri c: r-~t"Ir- a,. c-. :0 ('I ...;: .. . 0,..,0\0 0 M"Ta~ \0 Mor,O,,", 0 ~vi'~g ~ 0'''; r-: C"'.t rl '" _ C'I 0 M '" _ 0 C' ... 0 '" M ri .,; cD C"--_-.!) <> r' ~--6 r< 1"'-""1"0<o:r 000\00' co 0 ('I r.J ~ vi 0:- -::I ('-I r;-........ V\ '.0 v, r-:0 r. gg o a.. cOt"") "'''' '" co ... '" '" "'''' ~~ ... 00 ~..,. 0'8 -600 0-<>- rt ... '" "'M ....<>- ~8 '>;- '" - ....'" v. cOM '" M "'''< '" " ~; t'-o. 0<1 -=0 ("'I :;.e ,,<>< ~ o s -.!J g ~ -~ ~ ~ 5~~. 6: Q 5 U~ 2.~_~ ~~.9-ii~_~~~~ = a_E.3~ 1Sd::.sn~ _E-~&:t.5 gu 0 u_ff"t' g t g Egg 3 g .= ~ '~~~~~~]ii~~ ~~~~cgn8888 :ll ~ M .... '" o M o ~ .... M 0"'''' 000\0.::" 0' 0 '"T 0"- v\MC-:d co ""1" ...,. co- I:"" riM ~ ri M .., '" or, -0 r. <1 7 ::; o _ rl r- 0'::;'''''' v O""1"ro"lX oMr-:6 "'0""'" o.C~:OV"l ~ r-i-6 co ... ..,. ~ ..,. ~ a~M:::- o ("I V\ :;j'> o '" O""1"C-:o- o " I"'- ~ V\ -:- V"I l' V ri M ... c:: o M 7 '" rl o O'--~, M a r-I 0\ -.c 0..,. .... oM['id \Ocot'-o. ("'I In 00 ..c ~.C"i';; o '" <l ri '" '" &I <1 O...CO~ 8 ~ ~j s: vi'''':cO'vl N '" '" 00"11I"'I0- r-i -= 0 '" r' rl oC ~ ;i N 8~ oeO '" <. ....... M ri '" .... '" -0 r' ... ,.: .., r. <> <> 8~ oC-: '" r- '0 -itfi ..,. ~ <5 rl <> ..; SA C> '" vi'-= co '0 co '" MM ~ 6 :s 'c. 8 ... o "!. g :5 161 0:: M ..,. -0 ... ": C 5 ... ..; '" ... ~ g c- r' '1 Vi co ,,; ... ~ ~ i'i .,; ... 0- o '" M ..; '" v. 7 .... 0' ... r:: d ... r' ..: ~ '" '" '" ~ o oC ... '" Vi '" r' '4 ... o ~ [e M d M "!. ;:; r- '" c- co ri .0 ~ M r- Pi ..; '" <l d :<; 0:: co rl d [e d .... ..,. co ~ '" .". -0 '" '" ::; '" r- ..; 't 3 ... ~ 7 :;'< 00 d ... '" .... '" ..,. -0 rl o '" '" r. ~ ~ C"i cC ..,. '" V'l ~ gi ri ... " '5 Ii ~ '" ~ 1= e 3 ~ " ~ '" :s {3. " 2- " ~ >< '" .S " " ~ '" ~ C " ~ 1 A 2 I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. " ::J r:. I - ~:s .!l g C E .~ ~ t 5 E ~ g ~o -< c ~ < ... => c ... ("I 0; .... N ". '" ";.n ". '" .... '" M~ ..cr-- c- = 0: ... "';;:; C'JN "'''' :Coo ""'" ".". -:f~ '" or, "'~ '" => => ... ".:;;:" '" 0 '" '" ~:i '" '" ~..,f FiB- I"- o => ... ....r:: O'C> .... .... rri~ O'C> .::f:!~ ~\:; ("-1 t!. r:r::: ::1500 0'0' .... .... C'i ("i NB, ::c ~. '" .". "'''' "'vl '" '" N ~, r-i N "'1"; .. g ... ",;;, MPi XryJ "'0' ('I (". ..c.-;.6 ".". .., 0: => ... ..0 G'o ~~8 uiuicS ... '" '" a. 0\ V\ ~~;t ... o 0: ... c;.Sa ~~8 a:~o coco- "<J'1'OO oeM :O~N <> => ... r:::r::: 00 f"i'~ .... .... ... '" :8~ ~ :;; C> q ". ,.: 0' rr .... C> ". ~i '" :::: ::: vi 0 ~. "l " '" ~ 00 ... ,.; ,:; I"- '" Ul ... .,; ... ~:) 0 .". .,; 00 :e .... i 8 .... 0 0' ... N ~ ::::.. .... 0 ;; N 0 ,.; ~ N .... 0 00 ..0 ..0 r-1 .,; N ". .... 00 '" '" ... .. 0 0 '" 0 0 ". 0 0 .... g 0 ..; 8 '" 0 '" N r-1 co co '" 8 '" ... g: 00 ~ 0 '" ... <5 0: c; ~i <:i" 0 '" ... ... 0 G- G- N co ,.; ,.; ..0 co '" t'i G- .. '" <5 '" ... d 8;:!:8 0... 0 or-:d r-- ("~ 0 ... co '" a-i""': ~gg 0000 ggg _"'0 '-'''':~ ~ u; "- fj;' 0 ~ i} 2- ~ ~ c ~ ~ I u 8 '5 'u ~ ~ ~.~ o .58-0-0< 0;:: C ] g ~ ~ ~ a g ~ Z ~~~~~o....Jp tJ ~:g.g~~~1~ ~ :J~~~cS~&58a ~ o.~<c;gg.91;d~ ~~~<-35gfi-g.:g~ ~~~-gg'E8E8g3 '"-~e!:.:3~J:a$J:~J: o ~ '" N ". ~ '" M N '" '" 00 d d ~ 00 '" d C Ul '" C> 8 c::i 00 .,; '" .. 0- '" ,.: ..; .. ... 0 '" '" ,.: ~ 0 ~ co 0 0 I"- o .... 0- o .., '" ..; o ". 0, ;;( '" ..; " :2- II ~ .Jj <I) " '8 " " E: " (5 1i o ... N ~ g .,. vi ~. .. " " a ;;; !!l -g " ... I " o c ;; " co ~ ;; g "- " ?J_ 8 2 .~ .~ r:i.l-g ~ 8. a ~ ~ a .<: () ... Z VI-7 "Ci'? N o ,:; .., .' ::; '" ~i 2) '" "" 2) ". <'i .' N ., " ::; c <'i " -5 '" c ] 1!' .. '3 o o <:> o o N ..0 .,. '" ~ o ;; o E " " ":> ..0 <:> o ~l !l "fi '" 00 I'- a " .~ c. ~ " t o ~ <= .tj (5 ~ o . ".:!l g fi 3 E ::: g ~~ .9 '0 ~ ,~ ~ -;; 8~ <l 0 a~ ~2 ]~ ~ .5 .5 -g .g ~ ;.8 " " .~ ~ ~.g .c ." ~.~ -5'2 -~ ~ .. " ~~ A;; ~ ;::0 ~ " z g i'l " ~ ~ " " -5 c o "- " ] .c 1l I g .c <> 11 8 <. 8 N " u >. g ~ ~ .2 e " J! u .<: ... ~ ~ ~ co 2 "- ~ .g, E ." " " " ~ u e " ~ .;:1 ~ ~ o e " is " .:; <5 <; N " " >. g t.= co .5 3 o e " !'J " li e E " '6 e "- is iil <: E 2a oE " 5 ~ -5 ~E~ ~i~ ';;Jc:_ " " " c u t.(j E~~ :] .5 ~ ~u:: .!l g.!! .g..g .-; ~i~ .".,,~ ,~ ~ 0 ;.~ ~ - " " o Q B ~ ~ ~ ~5.5 2 ~ -; -" u." ]g~ ~~ ]j ~ _E fi u"O E "0 ~ E ~ :J ~ >f. l: 0 ~~~ ..e g n " L. 0 l: B c ~:g-E " 8.!!l ::2~g !;- c; t:.. g .So.S g g ~ o " e l: :3 ~~~ fi . a ~j ~ ~~~ c..?: c: B " " g ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ Q":::: :s an ~ ~ C -= Q ,,~:>: ~ ~ '0 ~~ fi ~"'O e .~ ~ ~ g ?; C'S 00 0 ~ E.5.g ~~o~ ~~.~~ ~~~~ ~ E g ~ g ~ g ~ ~-a';.~ cj'- ,.. "C ~~~8. ~~ ~ ~ i]~~ 8 " e .~ ~ :0 :E ] 5 '" ." 5 " 11 t! .51 ;; l'l ;; "- E 8 1; -'" ~ ~ .a "C " ~ a ." " 2 " u .~ 1i g .5 " " ~ :!! :0 ~ .~ -g a& .l! 8 d~ <; e ~~ ~~ 8-5 ~~ "'..: .~ fr " ~ .~ ~ &s g ~ o ., " ;p "- 161 1 A 2 - ... ~ - 'OQ = "5 Cj ;; ,. 0 ;; u Oll " .. < .. .... .. 0 :; fn .. '" ~ E ~ ~ ::~~~ r:n c; 0 lfi ~ GJ~-< .. .._~ tft t:.. "'0 :g!!. ~ fi ~ ~=~t:g c;oui2:2 rnr:nlX...J_ .. .. ... )0 ii .!I [0;, co :; N ~ <: N .. co co N r- co co N '" co o N v. co o N ~ ~ N a o N N co co N ;; co N .,. o. of o .... ..f on v <It <:> co o ..f on .... d N on ... o co V ,..: It 06 v on '" co V .... a: v co ,o=- V '" <It .... <:> ", a: It ~ .". '" :b .... M '" o ..0 .... .... '" .... t''1 r- ~ .... .... '" '" ;:; ,..: .... '" '" N '" 0- :b d .... on '" ..., 01 ... r- N ;:; v M ;:'i <It '" " ~ .... ~ Co o tt co on oC .... "l. 00 o '" '" r- q ~ iil ("-i '" ("'! r- .... q ;;; ~ r- o 00 or "l co 01 .... ? v .... of on .... ..0 .... N of .... on ,..: .... 00 d 8 ,..: '" v rf v '" oC n .... of '" " x ~ " ~ ~ E 3 ] eo < .... .... '" ~ 5~ .. '" n :i i"i ,..: ~ o 0- '" oC ~ ..0 co n 5 ~ 8 t N '" o. 0' <>5 o on oC v v a o on 0' ..., '": '" .. v q :9 -6 (1 '" '" co ..f '" .... ..0 ;:; .. '" .... M '" co ,..: <l .... r- r. '" '" .. v C 0' ~ ;; S i: " > ~ ~ a v .... ~ v ..f '" on M M 00 v :xi rl 00 00 .;: .... 00 ,..: ,., r- '" on <3 or. ,..: v g -6 r:: :xi 00 '" ..0 .... a. ,..: 1? ..f .... .... :xi a r- 0- r. ,., or. <5 00 a 00, ;D 00 a: N M 00 or. :xi ~ "g ::1 c " ~ ] 3 c, 0' '" o. <5 CI .... .... oC ,., on ..0 .... o. '" ,..: o '" '" r- .... o. M oC '" N 00 ..0 ~ ..0 ~ g:- o' '" N '" ~ '" ..0 v. o ai '" v d ;;; "l '" r- '" '" ::J :B a' '" " " t%. ":l '" .~ "- ,; ~ g :J :B v M ::J d '" '" o t o. rf o ~. (1' on '" '" ,..: ;b .;: a: '" oC a 00 ..f 3 '" '" 0- 0- M on '" o .;: '5 16 \ 1 01 '" a: '" 01 vi o on ... 00 <l d '" '" <5 <l r, .... .;: ;;; cr. .. '" ... <:> a .... '" o. on .;: <:> a r- .0 00 o cS 0' ... on 00 '" vi .... .... d N .... .... '" d 01 .... ,..: V 00 ... :g 00 d r. q v '" ,.; Ii! ,..: <!. ... <:> .... 'D d rl "! ;;; v .... rl vi .... 0' .... .... ... -a: on M '" o. a: 00 <l q o on '" '" on '" '" r- '" ;i q ,..., o ..., M g d '" on '" .... :q on '" ,..: r- o ;:; r. d '" '" ... 0- r- .... .0 '" .... '" "': <5 on ,..: v -: ... ~ o 3 ~ VI-8 Ac. 1:4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I " ~ is I c b E s " 0 aou 2E :!: 0 .. = I 0 c ~ C! o " .. " ~ 0>- c:: ~ c; -';;' ~ c:: U "0 ... ;: E- ~ E 0 0 fi: ~5~ I :; ] 0.....::: :; Co_E- U 0 e ~ 0: !;f.l !;f.l c..~,=- I I ... j ~ t ~ ~ ., ... ~ " a ... ~ " 9 E " :; .. ~ c; u c Q tl ~ ;:! o 'E ~ c; ell .. U t2 .. ... ... s~ e.". ~r--.: \C ~~ ~~ ;;:; ~ '\';l \;~ ..."" rf...; ~~ ~~ ;;:; ::;!~ \;::a ~~ ~~ Q", - 0. :1~ "If' ;S~ ..... '" ;;:; ~~ .. "- ... "- =0\ on _ e = .... 1"'"' ~~ ~~ "':t--: ... '"1' ,~ ~~ ;;:; N ,~ '='~ ...", ri.....: ~~ .... - ;;:; M~ on '" ....... ~~ ~~ e_ t:'-ti \C~ l.t1a ;;:; '''If'~ .. - ....00 .n~ on _ ... e e .... t- ~~ ... "- "'<'" ~ee CiIl'J ~~ ... - .., - ;;:; r-~ on 0. "';.00 MQ' \C ,~ ...~ "'''' ;;:; N ~~ ....... .. - r-:u) ... '" C\ ~~ ...", ~.... Q-O ... QI) ~~ tn~ ;;:; M~ '=' - .....:~ "'''' .., Q Q .... ~~ ....... ~cci Q ~~ "00 ...'" <:i .- ,. - ~, ~~ ri~ .. ,. '=' 0' ...:s ;;:; ~~ .. - o\~ oc'" ~~ Q1": ~\O C\~ ... ". '" ;;:; \O~ C\f'r'; oc'" aC~ ... ". .. Q Q .... -- on 0' ...", ... "- ~C($ N~ "'0. "'''' ;;:; a~ C\~ MQ QC d~ "''<> ....'" <:i ~~ "l..... g:~ ~~ Q "- ~\O V) d~ ...~ <:i t- ~~ oc "- -00 r-:'c\ ... - on <:> <:> .... VI-9 ~ - '" ..... !i~ 1;1 ~~ 0000 "'''' ;;:; ~~ ~ r-, QO.. ~ "'''' ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ -.... \Q Ir: = r-, 'o:t 'Q ~~ ;::;\0 tn ~~ =:~ <::i \0 ;S~ 00 '" on.... c\Q\ 00 _ ... <:> = .... ..,., ~~ - r., ... "- O~ ...;:: ~~ <:i N ~~ "'''0 ....... M1:::5 ~~ on", <::i ~ ~~ on:G ='~ ~ "1 tn~ "0. ....0. ~\O !:;~ Sl <::i N ~~ ~~ 11100 ;::- ... o o .... 161 1 =~ '" 0..... 00<;:) on_ II) ~~ ~~ <::i M~ 0.... -.... M~ 01 ~~ ""0 "'" <::i M~ on_ 'D"" ttl\O :!:'" ~~ _"0 ~\O N ~~ ~~ <::i = ~~ 0'" ....'" \l!C>,j ;::- 00 o = .... M ~~ ... "- ~.... 0", on \,Q ~~ ~~ <:i o~ 0.". "'.... M~ =: ~~ ..~ ;;:; \t'I ~~ - ... "- '" :!~ ",-- '4)~ "l.OO ~\O \C ~~ '='~ <::i 111 ~~ .. "- on", "':0: ;::- '" o o '"~ ~~ "!..". "''''' .., - '" .... o " tfl " "- o ~~ ~~ <:i ._ "Co - " "0- ....... ~~ ''If' ~~ ~i5 <:i .~ l' :; o -" .. ~ a ~~ ... "- 0' to': !:l'" ~ ~ "3 .. ~ ~ ~~ "l.~ ~~ ~ " u :5 .... o i5 'i: ~ :5 f"'l ~~ ..~ <:i .. ~ ~ ;; "' ... '" .s ~ "- g Co f"'l~ ....... ..'" aDo: 00 _ OJ ~ Co 2 .. g <: :: = N A2 .. '!: .. Q c~ E ; ~~ = .... " .Q :!: co ~ g ~ 'i ~ g ::&!> .g ~ ~ fn ~i::::i:a Cj ~ ~. - ~ :g t;:!2 ~ g e-i 1= ooooc..~..::.- " ... co -;:; ::l ....l t;5 .. .:< ~ .. ~ c -; c.. .. g .. o ~ .. g "" 5! " g .:< o .. E C " ::E ~ '" ::E fi ~ ., .. ~;;... c~ ~~ -=~ "'''' ... - -~ ....'" "'- tti'('\j ...,.~ ~~ .;;; u.~ 0", "'- '" C\ f"r'"; '" '" ~~ ....'" ..c C"0I vr ('\1 ~~ -.... ~-.c ....~ 12:q .;;; ~~ r--~ \IS (",j -~ ........ = ... r:~ !: N ClC~ ....'" =", c'~ .....'" ... - N~ oe", vi'ri ...,.~ ..... ~. ....- 0:; QC ~~ 0.". ~~ :;~ ~~ ... ~ \C~ = ~~ ClC.". "'''' ~\Q '0 0'. "'.". ... '" .;::; ~~ ........ r-:"c--i M:R = '" "''0 r: ri !:! = ... .,.~ ""~ =l~ ~~ .... - ::::~ ....'" 'Ii ri o~ :;~ ';;::5 ~~ "'''' -5"'1 ..... '" ~~ ~~i QO~ -'" ....'" ~'" Q~ 0.... r- f"l 0:; t")~ -.... ....... oC ri ~~ - '0 ai ri .... o o ... :lC~ 0", "'''' M~ ..,.~ .... - ~~ ... - w:-= f'i ,~ c; l::l'. ....~ 0:; ~~ ....& vi....; ..... '" ~~ 0.... ~(',i E~ ~vi ~ ClC.... ..... '" 0:; ~~ ~co c:J't. "i - ,~ _ 0' ...'" ..'" r;O ri .... o = ... ~~ ....'" aO~ QO~ ... - N~ - ... ~'~ ~ ~~ tIf~ 0:; ...~ ::6:g vi' C"i CiC (''1: C\~ '" c\~ \O~ ~~ ~.,.; Q~ ~. '" '" 0:; \C~ - '" I'-:.~ =~ ~~ "l2"..c 2ri :g o ... VI-lO M~ "'''' ...'" r-:;::; .,.,~ .... - C'> ,~ =~ ~::i Q~ "'''' ..... .,; s~ -'1- .....; ~ ("1 ~~ ~""". :: C"i II.n '? "l!" ~I "'''' ~~ \C~ - '" ~~ - '" ~~ ~'" :! no-; ~~ .... ... !ir-i ;g = ... o~ -", "l~ \C~ or. _ .- ~~ - 0' :;S! ~('i N ~~ ...... ~'" -;;:5 o~ 0'1- ..... - ae....; - ". ~~ "'!1;.",; :!M ~~ ~:.; ;~ -'" -:;;:$ t"-~ 0", '" !i~ ~~ oe... rir-i ..... o o ... = ~~ - '" 0", ~~ ~~ "'''- ~I:"i ~~ "'. '" -;;:: ~~ art~ N-=E -", o~ -'" ..", ~t">i CiC ~~ ....... "'''' ~...; C\ ~~ "'''' ~ r~ - ~ _ '0 ~ 0' "'''' "'''' ~~ ~~ "'''' .......,. ~ ri "" o o ... o ~~ ....'" ....'" M:::5 ....'" '" - ~~ .'1- ~r-i ~~ ~~ -0:; o~ "" ". "'''' ...:;~ :: C'"<l ~~ - ~. "'''' ~r.i &1~ oe", ~'" -- ,:= -... ;:" - ~. C"!.~ -'" N ~~ ~g vi" C"~ - ,-: _ ., ..... '" ... ~. !ic-.i '" o = ... I lal!Aa I o~ QO-=:: ~'" ...o~ "'''' .... - I N "- o '"~ " ~ Co. I ~~ ~~ I ~ ~~ 0.., -..('\! -<:: I I ~~ "'''' -nQ '" ". I t'- "l? -~ 0", ti (\i I rl .C .. ] <$ .<> '" ~ 15 I ~~ '" ... ~Y'i ~ I 03 '" .. :: I ~~ -:. ('"'1 -~ ~ 8 -:S ..... o <$ '2 o '" -5 ... :E ~ i3 ~ '" .5 I I .... '0 _ 0' "'~ !i (".l ~ " Co e Co I ='" ~~ ..... ". '"!-..". = ri <; r! Co ~ '" <$ := <: I = o ... I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .. ~ .. is ~ .. = .. OIl '" " " ~ .. .. ... ::; " ." l' .i: " 0 :; 10: ." ~ -= u 0 0000 g- O; ;> .. ." ~ ~ ::: " ~ ~ ~ ...3CO ">a,> 0- t3q =-..- f:i: ... c.. _ 5 t~~ ~jg ] " ... OIJ"'l"''''tnV'lI.f'l''lt"-o::r~ ~~~~~~&::;S~ oddcidcidc::idd " -;; " C!:l ~.; ... " C!:l o "''''V\'''I.I'\tnV"lllitn CClNNNNNN\O\O\O ~~~~~~~~~~ ciddciddciddd u 25 " ~ c 000000001.0.0. ;;;~~~~;:;~;;t;:;;~ f'l N N C'l N N M N ("1 N ciddddddddd s " ... 0000000000 r-r-r-r-r-r-r-~~..,. 0.0'\ C'C\C'\C\C\NNN \0\0'01.01.0\0\0\.0\0\0 ddciciciddcidd ~ " C!:l ~~ " " 1~ o ~~~~~~~~C\;: "I!"~'":t"~:;:;oo:t"~~~ dddddddddd - ~ is ooococoC\o.o- ;;;:~~;t~~~:A:;; NNNNNNNNNN dddddcicicido ~ ~I r.:;:~ t"1M.~r.n\Or-QC)c-.o 8ggggggggC; NNNNNNNNNN VI-ll " e Co oS " :;; S ~ " e g S ~ S c " > " CO "E 6 ";0 e " .. " .. i5 ;; " ;; ff ~ ~ "" "E ~ ~ ~.s :3~ 6 Co ~ ~ ..:: to :i .: " "- en "- o:J":: .~ ~ en c ~ ~ " ." ~ 'S C" 2 ~ 1 ~ as ~ " .9 t " " ~ ri Co " .~ c .. ~~ 2 .: ;. ii ..,,= g 03 N ~ 3~ >> ;; c:.!) " " ~ 5 0; 5 " ;> E ~ !j 3 ~= [-c 21? =-.. .... " c ~ -~ .5 -6 .~ 2 0 ~~ ... " . Co";) o " ~'"'; o > ~..!! ...0 ~E ~1; 00 ~~ 0;: fA .2 a o Co ~~ " - ..::<iA r::::- 0:: :: g- ~ " ~ t ~~ :=:-; E"S ~~ .. .. .5 ~-a " " E!'.2 ~~ ? !!! U 25 'C 0 -;;2 O~ ." " .S ~ .0 . Su o " "= l! ;> -= " ..:;; :~ ~ ~~ -=8 .l!o " . ;if;; ;; 2 " o 00 16 I 1 A ,2 ~:4 'E " ~ .. Co " C u co 12 ai .~ .. i:5 C .. " ;; co " 5 ~ ... ~ ?i " ." 'C " ~ :i " en I 1 6 l 1 ~ 2- I I I I ~~ ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ?f.. c':: 0' ,0 ,0 I 0' 0' 0' o~ 0' C' - - > .n N 00 00 C>- oo '=! N '" r- C Q .,; .,; '" '" '" on '" .. .. ~...:: ::: ::: '" '" '" '" ~ 0- '" <>' Q=C c.. ~ c ~ I " '" ~ ... on 0 on '" '" g; &1 '" >. c '5 0 00 on .. ~ '" ~ ~ i 0 '" '" 00 N 0 '" 0 ,;:; on .. ,;:; -i' .. '" .. ..: -i' ~ .~ " ..2 "" 0- ~ ~ c on r- '" '" " c::. .. .. on '" r- '" ... 0 on r- ." ~ 1! Q C ~ ,,; -i' ;;; on on .. on '" M Q .. U '" '" r- N on ;;'; on " .s N N '" '" '" ... on on .... ~ I .<> -= C :g I ~ " ... ~ 8 " B ~ '" .2 ~ ..... i;;1 0 ::t ~ '" ..... ... ... ~ ;; r- '" '" '" 0 '" '0 ] i .. '" r- '" on "'- on 0 C>- o r- ... ~ .. .. '" on ,;:; ..: \!5 ,;:; M '" ,,; or; Q I .s ,.. '" on '" r- '" g '" '" on C'I 'C " p':; ?:. ~ '" :; "": '" '" 00 N ~ '" '" '" M on on c::. j~ " ... .. ... ;;: U Q .. 0 ... .. " > '" E ~ ... e ] ~ " .!: " ;:; I 2 -0 >. .. ,0 ,0 .0 ,C ,0 ,0 ,C .;;: ~ OIl '" ~ ..0 -0 .g " C' 0' 0' 0 0' C' O.~ 0' C' C' 0 C > c ... N '" '" .... '" '" ~ is c::. .. Q ....l .,; '" '" '" '" on .,; .. .-= .,; ::> u ... ::: '" '" "" "" '" ::: '" '" "" .. el .- .. " " Q ~ :g ~ Q .;;: I ~ "8 ~ e ~ '" N '" 0 ;::: '" 0 r- oo '" c; '" " .. 00 '" 0 N '" .... on r- 0 u .s == g "! <", r- '" .. '" 0 '" :3 '" 'Eo ~ > ~ ;:; '" .-= <", ..: .. ,,; .. .. ~ c; ~ '" on 00 on ~ .... ~ '" 1 "! 0 00 '" '" on '" '" -0 '" c :; -i' '" 0: <"i M -i' '" ::! '" ~ ;z " ~ '" '" C'I r- ~ on '" :;J: ,.; '" I E: C'I N '" '" '" on on on " .s ~ E 2 -0 Q " -0 ;: .. >. '" U '" " ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ Eo 0 0 ;;:; on 00 00 0- on M ~ r- oo on 5 '" ~ on '" M " -- "" '" .... .... ~ '" '" ~ -0 I ,.. .... '" -6 ,;:; '" ii '" .. 1l " " ,.; '" .... '" r- r- 0 N .... " 'S: ~ ... '" 0 r- M :; '" c 0 .... '" '" ~ > ""': '" .,; .,; .,.: M '" .,; '" > c. S .. ... '" '" '" r- ... on .... N or, '0; !! ~ ....l '" M '" '" ... on on on .... " " Q <", i! ... ;: .,; ~ !! ~ " ~ " ] " " I en ?; >. ~ '" .. ~ c " ~I ~ " ?; ~ >. - ill 0 on on on on on on on on on >. .5 " c .. C'I '" N '" '" ~ '" '" '" ~ '" ::> ~ .. ec;; 000I! r- ..,. .... .... .... ... N N N ~ S " .. N C'I N N N N '" C'I N N .~ is c::... ... .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; 0 .,; 0 .,; 0 C ." ~ .a Q iS~ " '" ~ ;: s -5 ~ :2 -5 I -0 ~ ~I 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0: 0: 0: 2: ~ ~ 1l " u 3 c M .... .... .... .... M '" C ;; Q .;;: ,., :; :; :; :; :; :; '" '" '" N ~ Oll) r. .. ... '" '" .... ~.,; ~ >." " 0 .. ... .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; c .,; .,; .,; 0 Q E8 '" c ~ ,,~ " .. "0 " ~ " >'N ~ :; c ~ :!! .s "2;; .. .~ " " ~ '" .. ~ ~I 0 0 0 0 c c 0 '" '" '" o ~ U s I .. ..2 e - .... .... .... ... -- ... ... ;;'; ... ... ~~ ~ ~ '" ... ;:: .. ~ .. '" .. 00 .. 00 00 .. 00 on or. ~5 " 0 == c " ~ .. d '" N N N N N <", N N " Q -g -.- u > ... .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .,; .= r.I) ~ " 0." 5~ ] 0 c '" ;; Q c.: ~ ~ ::: ::3.r:: g "" Jo. --- .. o. t:., ~ :; t::~5 ~ .. 1l N '" ... on '" r- oo '" 0 ~ I -0 Qe- ~ -0 <5 0 0 0 0 c 52 0 0 :; b ~ ;; c::._ c 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 e l'! E: > ;.il N <", N N N N '" N N ;z " c <n rn c.. ....l I I VI - 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ :; .. u oS t' .. c. .. .. c.. .. ::; " "" " ... ... _ .. ~ ~ ~.a 25> c~ .. " 5"'> ..... ga ~ ~ ..'i ~>L. "b'" ==t~ = Co- ~ i f ~ c:;,oSc..u: -;'-'~ 'g:-;g .c :I ~ ::J ~~e:o I I I I I I I .. " -= ~ .. :e ~ ~ .. .. ell " " c >- ,e ,e ,e ,0 ,e ,0 ,e ,0 ,e ,e ,e "o~ ,e ,e '?$~ ,e ,e .. e' e' e' e' e' e' 0' e' e' e' e' e' 0' 0' ~ .. 0 0 M - M .". M '" .. '" .. '" '" ... M .". ~ ~ r- '" r- N M M ... .. '" '" .. '" 0 '" '" .". " 0 M 0 .-.: ~ ~ '" .,; 0 0 0 '" .,; ~ .-.: '" <,i .., r- r- .. - M '" r- '" r- r- V> r- '" r- '" '" r- .. 'E ~ .. .. " -= ~ .. ;; lot " "" ~--M-M~~OO~MO=~MN ~1-MM-~MO.~~~~~N~~ ~M~~~O~~~~~OM~~~~ ~~d~~~~d~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~NMM~~~-OO~~~~ ~~~v-N~~NO~~v~O~~ ~~~~~~~~~d~~.~~~~~ O~MvM~N~M_=~~~~~~ ~-~~-~~O~~~~~~~M~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~i~~~~d - M _ r-- '" '" .. " -= ~ - .. " ..., ~~~~'nM~~M~~~~=O~O ~~~~~CMM~~-~M_MOM O~N-~~~--M~~O~M~~ ~~~O~ciN=~d~~ON~NN ~~~NNCO~~~MM~M~~~ ~M~M~-MN~MO~M=~~~ ~O~~~~~~N~MN~~~~d ~O~MOM~~M~O~~~~~~ ~NM~MN~M~~~O~r--~M= ~ ~M~~N~~~~~N~Nci~ N ~ ~NMM ~M~ Nq '" l ;> '"2~ c 0 ~ S]:; .....c 0 CQuu ~ rn ~ ~ lU -5 0:: -g=~() 6==.3 * .g .8 =:IoE~J~ -egeno .~ .~ s ~ E ~ 222000 ~ ~ :,) ~.. O2 E.:.c..:s ~~ti5 VI-13 '" '11f) ~I ,1 A 2 .; " oc C ... S o .0 ~ " ~ is ~ .s :g 'S ..:.a ...; e g .~ 10 ~ en Vol :: c c; co -..:: 8 ~ 0 ~ ~ t:. ~ ~ ~ ~ -g 5 .9 3~_~S]:::;; _ u_:g.~ g ~ ~ ~ ." - 0 ~ g.~ >~~E::= ~~-:s~~8 Co"" to-, I: =.0 e~O~~] ';; ~ 2 -O'C ~-r;=_~ 'g 6 ~] is ~ Ii: "'C ::E ~ "J ~ ~ ~ ii 2 5~;~~s ii ~ 't- EP ~ =.g~c2E~ ~ ~ is ~ ~ ~~a&~: EDES~~_ l~~~.gao c : ~ ~~ .g ~ ~ ... ~ t:.. ~ "'C .~ E ~ -= ~ 8 s - g u: :::J - ~g~gJ5]~. o~~=u~..,.. ~'~~>~x-E ~~a~~~~ ~ ~ ~ c Co ~ o ~ ~ ;; o U ... ... ~ Q ... c ... E ... llll 5 ?;o ;; .. :!: ... Co .. e ~ ~ c.. " <: ... " :l; " >- 0: .. "0 8 ." .E t) i: c: .~ .. " >t:.. -= :<: .. 0; ] ::; E- :; eo ~ '" " " 0: rn 'LJ E- ...J 0; ... .. ~ .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... :c :: '" .. ::, '" C>- o. C>- o. '" M N N '"' Q E- IX -= -0 <:i -0 -0 <:i -0 -0 -0 ,,; ~ ~ ~ .. ~ !:l .., !:l M .., !:l !:l o. 0- '" '" '" '" .. .. .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..; ..; ..; ~ CQ E- IX (5 ... ... .. .. .... .... .... .... ;;i; .... .... on on on ... & .. .. oc .. oc co on on on m ~ N N N N N N "j N ,,; N Q ~1i~ bit ~ :2 Q u<d: 0; c; E- g;S~~~~:!:~~fd ~V"loNM"d"'..oNvOC:C: vioOr-:"'\oC~oCdo~ I"P\OOC',~\::IV'lo('l"\V\"<1"o. C\\'o~r-Vi~~NM\O r-..:'u-i'cO=O'MMr-:MNd O\\O_\ODOO~V\oo:tor: OMO-"1"\OMOr-r- ..:;.n-=r:~=cvi..&";~ >OCII\Or-r-oo:tMC\OC M-T"l'f"V'lV\\OCCo.oor- ... NN""''''T~OCr-O'oo:t'O M\Oo..__N"'C'V\~ t"'--.:t'-OCM\o-('f'\C\ v\v\";-6c'r:rJtI..ooc"'o -1.f'lo\:;)COO-MOOoo:t- "Of"~C\M..cr-NOOff'\N r-:v\c\C:~'o"';o~d ---Moo:tl'OCO\OC' NNNMN('I(".1MMM ... N ';i ;.. ~ ~ Q 0 c.. c!:: _O_r-~MOC';CION'" o,\Or-~o.._o.o.V\or; ~M\O'-OC'-Ci'Noo('".1 r-:oOv1"';":;N~oGc'M ..oN('I~V'I\Or-\ONa.. NOCNr-('"~M-a.OOO ~1.6d'r-..:":":MN.n.n ~S\~~~~~g;;;;r:: M'-.:E-.6r:r-:c''''':-NOC MMMMMMoo:t~~woT ... "i ~ Q! l: c.. \OV\f"--\O"TooC"_oO" .,oQCC"I_..o__~V'lo\C - \0 oo:t \0 V C"J V'lo C\ 00 \0 N~"":t"-iMvi"Mvi""':oC V'lo 0 0 0- ("1 r- N 0- \0 CC N\OM\O\ONC'M-M ....:rri'c\-=C"'r...;~oOr--:vr Nr--O'V'loV'lr-_V'loV'lol'"- OOM\O\ONV'loOiOOO\O NO~c'vlc'f'l'iN",rN Mr--\OMMOOoVi-T MM'oo:t''''TV'I\OOC0000 r- ... 0; ~[ :; M .., .... on '" .... 00 0- C ~ 0 0 o c 0 c 0 0 c 0 0 0 00 '" c c '" N N N N N N N N N N VI - 14 " ::l <; :> Q<:.o.. :D C '" ~ x '" t": ~ E- " o G':. -= 0 -g~ -= ::l ~c m> C .- .g ::l :: 51 ~ "';i 0 oU " " -;S ~~ 0"::: .=;' ~..Q ,,'" :C:E " :> ~ ~ ~ S! ;" a -::: - ~ .0_ ~'~3 5 - ~ 0.6:: e ~ Q C. 0 "1: tr; ~.~ " "0 .a~:E ;> ""0 :: ~ ,g.S:! ..Q17:"E. ~~s- .s c, 0 o -..:: - ,,- ::: u ~ o ~ c - =:.= .E~g ~:g ~ .s~g !tl g ~ Xi ~.g ]:-g] = :i g :~ ~ ~ o '" 0 ~~- -= g ~ u t:: ~ g.g g i:j5cr...:; .3 ~ ~ ~ .. .?;> ~ 0; " ..... o ~ S x " a ~ ~ .5 " ~ Of ~ o <: ::: "t:l " c 0 fill ~]2 '~a3 l71o":E eB 8. - c: o..Q .3 a ~ -.5 5! ~.s~ z:] f;;..... ~ ~ 5] 03~ eO a.E ~ eJ; ~g~ ~:g ..Qs.: ~~ ~; ~ ~ .E ...,g5 ~~ :: 0 c.. :.c'i; c:: :::: P _ 0 fIJ ~ So ~ ~ 2~,g E-P gg5 dd~ 2~2 ~~a'o c.; >. ;>;> (5 >.= ..."'0::: ]l~ II~ -~t:D ~=~ ~~~ ~c....~ ="'0 r.J ~~ ~ B~e ggg E c.. ~~ g ~ ~g ~ ~ ~ - (.) G'1 8. 8.. S ~~~ 22~ o a e: c: = 0 2" = ~ ~ ~ ~ ";: =~EgEEcS goSo~~C) O:::c..c.>aE-E-.;:; ..LO 1 1 III. I ~.~ a t I ~ o U ... ~ "0 c.> I I I I I I I .; I 0 <'I .... a: 0 E I 0 t:. ;: U ~ " <:. C I " 0lJ 1l ~ '. .~ 15 I ;; " OJ 0lJ " c " ::;;: I " " ~ ~ 0 E I 0 '" <; I e ::l 0 rn I I .; .~ o " '" ~ ~ " .~ is -5 ..... o on I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. :E .. is ;; .. " .. .., .. C .. .. := ~ ;- ~ t ~ g ~~~ ,:g.g =:E=~ ~s>c3 :g~]; .::;::~ ;.I 0 17.1 fn 0000<.3 I I I I I '" ..; '" ..... ~ '" d o '" ..: ... ..... ~ '" '" '" ~ .. ... '" ..: ... ,,; M '" on o ..... ..: G ..: ... N '" ;;1; on N on ..., o on ..: ... ... '" ;.; N on ..... on '" '" 0 .. 0: N .. on N .. M '" > ..: .. ... .:: ... ;: .. on .. M ... ... U ..... l;1 on on d '" ~ d ..... ..: ... en N .., ,..: 0 '" on on M !:: ..: l:l N ..... ..: ... ... ~ 00 00 ::;! .., ..... '" .; '" '" ",. 00 '" .,; en ... M 'Ii ~ ..... 0 ... ... .., .. N N <5 ..... '" .,; ... ... ,,; ... '" ..... .. .., N ;n ..., '" ~ on .,; ... ... g ~ ~ " Co e~ "- .. -g .~ ~= .,<!:l <:a c ~ "3 Co c: .~ C .. '" '" M c ... ... ..... '" \!:!- ... on .. .. M ~ .~ C en ~ on N '" M "a: ~ "i: <: c. ~ Q S "C .. ~ "5 5! --g ;:: 6 o .<J ., -= .~ .~ l"~ .<J is " " -= ... -; ~ :.s 1l .~ ~ ~ ~ j 8 ~~ 'D ~ Co- E -= Co ;; -::l -= ~ ~ ~ = ~ j >>- e:E -= g. 8 to -g E ~ 8 s o<l ~ 02 Co g :;t ::: 0 ~ ~ cE co ~ 8 1.= ~O " " ~ t= ... - o = ~ ~ .. '" " '" " ." "E -5 > - ~ is ~ ~ " " ~ c.. < c: " " ~ ~ " Co o a:. - ]'~ rsd ~~ VI - 15 1', (L ..~ \J~ IJ "~ G.:J .s c. " u ... ~ " " ;; > ~ Co '" c': -::l ;j ~ '" '" ~ 8 8 g N 0 8 8 0 c5 c5 " 8 0 .",. r. g g 8 8 ;;; ;;; g 0 .:, ;;; '" .. .",. d ... r. ... Junomy A,2 ,4 '" 8 r. 8 r. 8 r. 8 r. 8 N ... co ~ ~ 8 r. 8 o. rI C C N :5 " r. " ~ Q - = ~ 0 ~~;E ~ =' E = c.. g :;~~ 1..:" = ~ i;1~ ?;~~ .g f ~ ~"t::'6 .. 0=>- "5 t:.: =- ~ ~:~~ ~ ; 1: :: oooo~Q .. " " OIl _ ..!! Oi !i .5 ;;. .C -,c of:? 2f. .C ?,~ ~~ ,C .C .- ,. -: 0.. C' O' 0' 0' c' c' ~ t '" M ;:;; N ,., C-. ~ '" , C- OC ~ ;:;; ;; .. 0- N '" '" '" ~ ~ 0 0 0 ci ci ci ci ci 0 0 '" " C Co .( .:< - N .,. M on '" ~ ..... OC 0- = := .. c a: N N OC '" ;:: M '" '" . , ..,. 0- 0 ~ '" on ..,. '" M '" DC M on '" oc .,. "'. DC ..... C- on M .. ..: ..; ..: M '" ..; ..; 0 vi " ] .... N ,., '" '" oc on N ..,. :E .. ": ~ on 00. '" on '" ..... M .. " ..; ;; vi ~ ;; -6 0 N .. ..; "" I Oi .., 0- '" C- oo ..... ::;: C'l ?!. ;0- M ::: ~ ~ q M on on r- -( -6 -6 ci ... ... " c.o_ .. .. r:C " '- " : .. - ~ 0 :: e '" :E~g c - " ;0(<:1:; ~~> " " CI~ Oi", ~ i Ii! .;: ~~ c9.. Cf. e~ "d9.. c~ -=9 ~~ '09. "09.. t:J~~::V\~=g;~b I ~dcSddodd,:;;;d .:< c .. a: -Nf't'l~I.n\::')r-OOQ\~ t"'lIO~O-_o_"'oe I t"-V\-:t"V\0\.0 C"l_o-O -..QOCr-N\OClOtn\l'\CCr- r:";.n~.r:NoC~"';N ~or-\QOC\O-""co- r-r-V\\OM"'V\O-C oc" ..:; N r-: -: ~ ~ -= N -: o~ocr-C">-~-MC"I '.:J:CV\M-C<.OOr-V'oVl c'v:S"':"":""; ... ~ c .. c "'" oS .= 5 .ii g- -~ o ~ o '=.J - ~.~ ~ = ::: :::; !:- E ~ S g i)CJ..2 ~ ~~ d:;; "iC -5Co~ .~ d ~.~ :;:;;:<:l::l ~ -- ~ .9 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.-_~ ~".2 ~ Q L: _ _ t.) u ~ ~~~~~~ t~ 6c..~g-E~ ~~ ,g l:J) 0 ..J - IT. .~g;~= ~2.g~ ~ ~ ~.= ~.~, of ~ ~.~o.c ;23';c:5:...... .,- ~ ] VI - 16 "? .. ..... '" M N ~ vi C'l ..,. ci ;:; ..; C'l ... '" ;;; ~ " " g ~ ~ 0; > " '" = :s ~ g '0 " <= 2 ;i !l -;r. '" C E c: 5! 1= ~ 0; 11 Co,,; ~ " ~ 'C ~~ 9: :: = 0 ......Q ..: _rII ~.~ 5 u: go ~ " c...... -== 0- ~ '3 0::: .2 ~ ~ ~ -0-;:' I~ - Co >. ""'" 2 0 Co~ 2 " ~ ;:; .!! o C " :0 <: g ;.; " '0 Z .~ Co E o " ~ '" ~ c " >. " ;<l .is -E " .:::l .~ '" '" o C'l u ;;l ~ .,; '" '" N ~ c " >> -;; g r.:: '" " :E c :a > c '" c: -;; -0 .. u ~ ~ '" ~ ;; >. ., " :c " " " t: 161 1 A a " -0 ~ :i: o '" 1l -g ] !! .. ~ '" .~ ;; o u ~ tiS " > .~ " to ~ '" .. " .~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ .~ c. <'. €.g " c 0.." 8 = ~ ~ 0- ~= .a .~ ~-= " 0. = c: 8 ~ ~ ~ f- '" ~ .g "a; 00 0:: g g ~ ~ o " :tl~ ~ ~ =~ 8;;: '" " g go ~ c c .e E o E- O u ~ " ~ ~ " ." ." c E ~ :0 o '" I ~l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .. ~ 25 " ... c >. CiI_ ~~ ao::; I: " ;i;~ ~ .E ~ - "" " c: C :Ji ~.s> :@~] ~;OE: .;5:'cs 1l_ ~~ "5;; ~ ~~~.J I I I I I .. "" :P ~ or. ~ ~ ~ .. :a- .. <: " ti '- > Q. " " - :D c: '"' .s ~ ~ C rIl - 8 ~ ~ L.. ~ C ~:.-- Q. " co c :0 ~~~ :; o '" " .. <: ] ~ = E So " .. " t:l '" ] ; :3 j"E>: ::I c: Q. "r:, ... ~:; ~-~ ;:!i ~ ~ ~ , u .. < 1! " co .. "": :;~ ~ :t ~ ~>~ ~~ j, u JI '" c ;; " " co ...J i ~ a j ,,~ on r- N o <:3 co 0> ... ... tic;' ~ on o <:3 M on c- ..; co o o ... ... '" ... '" .0 r- .... N M ... ~ ... ..; r- r. ..0 ... ... o '" '" on r- o r; r- .... ;:; o N (j~ ~ N o <:3 r- '" ... o~ '" 0> .... o <:3 '" ;;; ti r- o := on ~ ... '" r- ..0 M - '" e- on N ... o '" '" on '" oo d '" N '" '" M ,c c' \0 .,. o <:3 e- on '" N ,c c' '" co c- o <:3 e- ... '" ",. '" e- ,..: o M co co o 00 oe co ..0 M ... '" ... '" r- ... ..; r- or. .. N :!: !::! '" '" <::> on on on 'n '" ... o o '" ,c c' e- M .... o <:3 ... M ci ... ,c 0' oo ... e- o ci N ... d N '" ,..: N o '" oo d N ... ..0 ... '" ... ..; r- ... ..; oo ~ ..0 a- ... ... ... o '" o .0 ... '" ..; '" ... '" o N ",.= .' ~ ... o ci ... co ... r' ,.c 0'- '" N r- o ci o o r- ~ oo N oo o .. co ..0 on ... '" ... ... r- oO o '" ..; r- oo '" 00 := .0 o o '" '" .0 r- M .0 '" on o '" N ,c ~ M C C r- q ~ 'n oo c C oc oc "t ~ ..; ... N r- N '" 00 r- oe ,..: a- on ... '" ..; '" ;:j- '" on c;: r- '" ,..: r- '" g o' r- r- on '" '" '" C N VI - 17 ,c 0' .. '" r- c C on N ~ 'Q':!. on '" M N ci o '" '" ..0 r- ... c< ... '" o '" '" .0 N ..0 ... on r- ... ~ ... o. oc r- '" on 0> .. ~ ~ N o .... o '" '" ;:" r- '" '" N ,.c c' r- r- '" '" <;; r- oo N co ?,~ ... ~ M ci on oo '" ,.: '" oo ..; ... '" '" '" o on ... ... 00 M on o '" ..; co r- ,..: '" ... ..; a- M ... ~ .0 c:: ci ... '" o '" on N ... ..0 .... oo o o N ,c c- on ... '" '" o o~ ~ r- o o oo '" r- .. on ..; r- ,c 0' N on 0> o ,c c' 0> on ~ o co o q ... e- ..0 r- on '" ~ cO ... ... o '" on o '" '" .0 ... ... c;: N on o '" o <:3 '" '" .0 M on oo r- '" o on 0> on '" '" 00 ... o ... ... o o N o "" '" .0 on "l :0: o '" '" .0 ~ ..0 ... a- o '" N o ;:; r. 161 1 ~ 0; " i ~ ~ <E -5 .9 '" " g ~ ';: .f a c .= -g ::0 <2 Jl " " " :g " "" ell c ~ a :3 ::0 " '" ~ i i5 " -5 .~ 'E c to e '" c 0; C ~ j] ~~o '* 2 ~ ,9 oE-Ec~ -;;~tE.,gc "ga ~~ N...J v c,- a _:20 ~ ~.~.~ ~ ;;; ~D].'E] O=O"5;n ~:2~s~ -:.~~~~ g~~~; N '- _ __ atE~~~ U v. :::l ~ ::: ~"C "'C "C "'C r;a~1!.,g .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ .~~~~~ o~~~~ <; '0 Z Aa .it "" .. " " :; .. E ... .. .. II ..2 :5 -= :;;: .. " ~ ,. .. IX !'5 ~ "> ~ i 0 c .. is c.. C .. .. ~ :: " .. ... ~ .. ,. c ~ .. .. u ~ ~ '" ~ c .. c E ;; ... ... co ~ v.; := ~ = c il .. .. " .. ::: " >- Q " c ;; :!: "" ~ " ;: Q!ti: .. .. -= ~ ..!. ::: -;; ... - " "" ~E- ~ " .. ;:! :; .., - >- u .. '" co - ., rn rn ~ ...J " E ~ 0 ;;0 0 ..... ..... ..... .". '" N '" on '" N M on r-: 0 .. " ,.; N ~ ....: ....: .0 vi N N ,. a: 0 u .... 0 r: .... '" .", 0 '" r: '" " N CO 0 N N CO '" U CO '" '" '" .... .... 0 M 1: -.6 ....: .,.; -.6 ,.; ..; ,.; .,.; vi (', ] .... M ..... 0 .... .... '" N " CO CO 0 CO '" '" '" '" '" ~ '" ....: ....: -.6 ..; vi -.6 -.6 -.6 <6 \6 :Q .. Q 1:: ~ '" :Q .. Q " ] ~ ~ t a: - ., .. ... " ] ~O-VC;.\O-\O-\O C'lccr-OMNoccr--o- :.o\OMC'~-'"':tO-M -=r:~"':M~""-Md("'-i \0 t"'- N CIO 00 V 0 'V V C"t OO\Or--o.I,f\"d"M-G'r- MMC"i-=NC"ic-iM"-=""': ... ~ ooooooaoco oocoooooco 00010000000 .noc.nooo.n'vi"o OO\Qln N\C 0\0 00 t"-C'\ o.-'l::tON 1,f"I\Or-C'- M-:;MNM":;~";~'" "" V"'ll'Vl-r-_M_voa M C' \Q ..... V"'l U"'I "<1" _ (".I "d" M__llnl:-ooO__a d("rd~d"';M-c't:"i'lS _..or-Mr-Nr-MOOV"'l MOr-o-~OO~r-ClCv "';Nr:"':C";C"i..cr-:-=~ NNMM~-t"~--- ... :!~g=g~~~~6 ~-o\C-occoC\\C"d" ~dr"i~~c\'M'r-:Nr-: o-.r-c-r--ONvOMM ~.r--;~ocqoo_o.."1.lJ"I~ N-- ----- ... ~G~~~~~;c=~ N-oor-M-'I'"I""O- ...:..rrr-:O;"':o,Dor-:o..o MOr-("l;~lI'l_~V'l~ o-.~~r--\Or.nQC3<o:t ... -'"':tN 00 In Vf"-Mr-r- -_tf"looor-cca-oc-o. r-C",M-Nr-V"'lOO""~ ,..i r-= 00 eOv-; r-:", Me: ("1 C"r-OMN~I-C'Cr- ..oOMMCOv\:)_C'o.. ~~~g~~i~~:=! ... ONM~V"lo\Or-oec-.O ~~~~~~~~~~ VI - 18 '" u ~ <; () f <; '" '" < ~ ;; 8 g li: Q ;; e :> = ] .:: "' {:. " .. '" ~ ~ .3 '" - .:> ;; ~ C ;; OJ ff 3 ~ ii ,. ~ " " :i. :>: <i 1: ~ .. .~ ~ u .f '" "0 ~ " 3 ;; c ~ (j ~ 2 Q .~ ~ "l ;; ... .~ .. ;; (j " ~ '" "' Co ;; C c " ~ "'" ~ 'C 0 E Q ~ 0 "" 161 1 8 g .~ 5 l'J:l ~ .D C!:O . . 8888&&&~~a ",o.nCtnOlriOIl'l ~a~~t;!&J~;;Y7 (.po..nOlU ull JOnoury I A2 ~ '.,' I I I I I I I 0 I 0 CI ". 8 CI co I 8 (', 8 '" ~, ~:; I ('I :: .. on " 8~ ~l "" 8 I CI .... '" fi el I 8 e. 8 ~, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .. i ., is ~ I -:::~ c; = ~oo ~~ c C e': Q ~ g ~ " I .. .. " ~~ >- ~~a ....c"" ';.2] :!l - -= d .. .s ;-~ I :; t;:;. .... - en" "" ':Cr- ~ - C ~ " - C; C .. r:n r:nQ ....:I I I c ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ r=l " ==(;~ :- a E u r: g ... Col .s ~c.. .!: "2 E ~. ~ 5 :; d:.E:s g - C E~ !'~ Co " ~ ~ C ::J C o :;:: " :; ~ .. 5 5 ";i >- u ,0 ~ vi .... on vi .... ~ '" := c: M ... '" .... :; M ,,; ~ ... .... '" .... oC M .... ,,; o o M ,0 0' -0 .... 00 .... .-;. '" ~ .... '" on c: M .... '" fif a- M 00 .... .... ~ '" 00 ,,; M o o M ,0 0' 'n vi '" '" oo .; oo c_ o .... .... ... oo ~ '" oo .0 M .... '" .... ,.: M o ,.: .... c C M Ci~ o vi .... on o ,,; c- ~ .... N <,I .... ~ o c: M ~ .... M .... .... '" 0:- ~ ,.: .... o o t"'1 -,0 0' o .; '" ;::: N o 00 M M .; .... a- '" .... ,.: o ~ on M M on '" c: 'n .., ,.: 'n o o <,I '09- .... ,.; .., .... .... ~ 5 ... M on ,,; .., oo ~ o c- o .; .... M on M on .; o on ,.: '" o o M VI - 19 ,0 O' .... .; .... a- <,I N oo ~ co .., '" ,.: .... '" a- .... oC .... '" .. (",1 on o .... ,.: ;:0 ,.: .... o o M ,0 ~ -0 '" .... ~ .... ~ .. '" .... .,,; .., .., M '" .0 .., <,I .; '" M '" .... '" oC .... '" ,.: 00 o o M .0 O' '" ~ ,0 0' o !:! oo M .... ,.;. .... q .... .. .; .. ~ .... .... .. .,,; .., M oo on 0:- .., .... :l 0:- 00 on vi a- M .... .... 00 ~ .... ": o .., ~ 00 0:- o '" ,.: .... '" '" vi ;:0 ,.: '" o o N o o '" 161 1 A 2 "ii ~ is .~ 1; "[ u ~ c &.~g u c e d i2 ~~.a ~ U., " ~ ~ ~ ~ o :: ~oN &b ~ E e: rn t;; ~ ~ g :-" .g -5~-5~~ ~~~a] Ji 'i cE .W 0 ~ g ~ :g ~ 5< 2]~ ~ .~ 2 iE O:::O-~O ~ .gg&gc == c.~g.ce~~ f4.0E=:Ill:--:s s>~",~s..S..5 E" .2!:l:; u e:g-e::u c..O c:s ~ ow ~ ~ ~:=I~g:g3::q .~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ O~~::j..::;"V~ 8~~~;;]~ lJJ~ji~ o~~~~~~ ~ 'S ~ -= ~ .,g ~ E-o S g. t...l ...: :: 5 esL..o..5=-= ~~-g~~-~ rl)g~~~a: -5.2L..:>=:;B c: It.2 f g :: 5 .~:~=Eo~ -52~~~;SB l~ti:~~.s~ ~ -= .~ .2:- .. 1: " Co >. C " '" " 'C ... "" :: " "" '3 '" .~ " " .. .e "" ~ ~ ... ii " "" ] " ... o ;; "0 z: '" .". 0- ;.; '" r- '" oc '" oc '" :;;: oc .". '" r- '" '" .,.. co N r- N .... .,.. C;; '" r- :;:; '" '" .. M .,.. N "l q '" '" OC OC or. r- .., '" ~ "i -0 "" -0 :;;: .. -0 "" .. .. .. 0 -0 ...: -i vi .... M r- - .... r- '" '" r- oc r- => ~ M .... '" - '" '" <"! N '" ... e-. ...: N r- N ... - 0 .,.. ... '" or. 0- a- 0 .". 0 .". N N .. M .". N r- N .,.. N '" .". '" ... M '" on a-N 0 '" "', "l '" .. 0- '" M '" M .,.. oo oo '" ~-:5 ,.; e-i :;;: .. .r. ,.; ,..: .. .. 0 ...: ,..: ri d => ... M !:j: - '" ... r- '" '" r- OC - r- '" => ~ M - N N e-i N '" ... ri ,..: ... 0 .". 0- M '" oo .,.. OC M .,.. N .... N .,.. a-. 0- 0 .,.. oo N N '" oo 0 N r- .,.. r- OO r- ... M 00 N "l "! r- r- OO 0 '" oo "'. '" on .,.. '" 00 .. .,; ri ...: .. ..; M- -0 d d 0 -i ,..: 'is .. => .,.. M r- - .". N .... r- M '" r- 0- - r- .... '" ~ M ... '" - N N "i N '" ... "i ...: r- M oo '" on a- :;;: r- r- 0- C; .,.. M ::2 :; .,.. 0 N on a- or. or. '" M oo .... N M '" r- OO OC e-' '" r- r- 0- N .". M 0 r- ::: r- r- vi ,.; e-; d 0 vi ,.; .. .. \!So"" vi .. ...: => '" M '" - M - :; .". r- M r- '" '" r- :c '" ": M ... - N N "! N ... c-i ,..: N N oo '" '" oo r- .. .,.. 0 M ;; on r- '" on on '" 0 on N a- r- on 0 .". '" M .. r- N oo '" '" r- '" '" '" '" or. .. oo '" ... M on '" ..; .,; ...: 0 .. d vi '4 0 ...: d vi ...: .. ;:; -i => on N M - M .. .. M '" on .. ~ => ~ M .... on - N N <"! N ... ... e-; ,..: .. .. >- ... i r- '" .. or. '" '" '" N '" M '" ~ '" '" OC '" ~ oo r- OO r- N r- N .... on ;;;;; 0 N M Ci '" r- r- '" d M '" .". q .. .... a- 0 '" on 0 ...: e-i .. d d :;;: c-i"': 0 -i vi .. 0 =' U '" .... - N '" .... CO M '" M '" ... on '" ~ ... on - N N <"! '" M N c-i ...: ;;; on '" .. M .... N M r- '" .... ... '" 0 '" '" ... CO CO ;; M '" CO on M M ... oo M r- N '" r- d M ... ::;- '" ~ N .". N "'N a- .... ..; .,; d r-:~ ,..: ...: ..; vi ,,; r:-.o d => N 0 r- M N '" CO M on N .". e-, ::: '" ": M M on - N N "i N ... ,,; ,..: on 0 '" N '" 0 CO C;; r- a: C;; r- OO '" oo M N '" '" M N oo M 0 .... r- o. '" ... r- .". o. r- .,.. M C .... on .... r- OO ":. '" "" M M .. M vi 0 .,; d vi -i 0 -0 vi d ,..: ...: '" a- o. .... - M a- M oo M ... '" 5 M '" '" ~ N '" .". - N N 0 N rf ...: M M r- oo .... .". ;::: M :;:; 0 '" '" or. r- '" 0 00 .,.. .". '" r- '" '" r- .". N '" r- a- M '" M r- .". .... ~ '" q oo '" r- on M r- ... 0: ...: e-. -0 d vi vi .. "i ..; ...: "" -i - '" '" r- M r- M CO M .., '" oo '" ;g .. => ~ N M .... - N - N ~ ... c-i - -0 2i - = .. '" M '" o. N N '" CO M CO .... o. on M N M r- e ... N N r- '" 0 oo o. r- OO N '" o. r- .... '" '" .. - '" r- ... 00 ~ M '" oo '" .... '" '" .... .... N .... ""= d -i or; .,; d -i .. 0 vi ri .. -i ,..: .. .. " = => .... '" OC M '" '" oo M M r- '" ::: N = " Q ~ '" N .... - N - -:. r- " U ... rf -0 ::;; ... '" ;; ... ... " .. = >- << ~ ii ~ " "'" .g :; :: " + :: c.- ;: " " " + " 5: c.~ + "" " Q .. '" -E ... + + .. ~ .. ;;; ] .2 ~ " !2 " " 11) .c ~ ,... 0 ~ '" ~ ~ g ] " a:l + "g ;; ". " " "" =' 1i E .::i ~ ~ e .. "" ~ ]l " ~ (; E " "'" U " is "0 ~ " " " -'" 0 ~ "0 <n <n ...J !:l 5 0 B "'" ..J :2 :2 0 0 "- <ii 1- VI - 20 a - I 1611 {\ I I I I I " I ~ 0 ~ ... " '" " I "a "" :: " 0 .0 .g C. f I :tj " u :tj .a ~ ~ I C .S! ~ ~ c- o '" C. N "" '" .g Eh I ~ " <: " !i C " 0 .0 "" " ~ -;; Cl I .is ~ "" u E ff E "" " c. = '" if C Cl I .!2 " ~ "" 'C " c- E ~ ,,; '2 " " ~ ~ I " ] u co: 0 :E .0 .f! 1i' ~ to 0 '" I 0 ;; .a Cl ~ " 'E .~ " c .2:- c " I ~ t:l ... 0 c. u >. ~ C is c '" " ~ r:: I :; 0; 0 <! 0 " 0 '" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - '" ~ Q - I c .. C .. OIl " C " ~ E: I .. " " .. ~>- ;: ..;;: :.. ::: " " Q~ ~ .g -=i! 1: g c: .. .. eU I ;; ~ ~5 ] .c -E- ;; c._ U :: "' .. - " fI.l <IJ t;:'l..,J I I ~ = 'C' ;;.. ~ on 0 0 .". ... '" 0 .. ~ c. .;l vi '<:i vi vi -i M -i '<:i ~ ~ E " " c: " .. Q i:! :~ c :J ... "' ::l "2 l5 c:J) - c. .s g OJ) " 0 :8 ~ N 1l .~ " "' ,., .... .... on 0 M 0 ;:::: .. oo 0 .~ F= l! .. ~ 0- M '" oo M '" 0; ::l C. .... 0 M t- OO t- ... on .i:> .~ 0 c:J) ..; '" vi .,; '" .,; '" .,;: '- 0; ,., " >- 0 c - "0 c = .. ~ " Z is "' .~~~ ~ 'S " -= 0- 0 0 t- V> t- oo M oo 0 ] ~ g .: ~ .. .. .. '" N ... 0 .. on '" N ;; 0 " .. " OJ) .... '" 0- ... t- ... '" ... 'S; '" .; .. ..; ..; on"" M ..; 'li on 0 .,; 0 .c l! "' :E C. ... '" N N '" oo oo M ;; 0 .2 ~ E N N M ... on '" '" '" ... g .:: <:J ..; ..; ..; M ..; M ..; ..; ..; ..; .~ 0 .. ~ "' 0: N "' l! ... .:! " C '" C .9 " ~ => "'" '" .. .. " " E " =i "'" , ... ..s "'" = ~ .. c.~ ~ ~ M .... on .. oo t- O- '" 0 "'" => " :0 " .. 0- 0 t- O ... M M M 0- .i g :S "" .s to. N t- O- t- V> M ... on on 0- -5 .. ... ..: '" 0 0 .,;: on on .,;: .,;: on .c Qj ~ ;; t- N 0 'n ... ... t- "'" ... ... .. ... on '" t- oo '" .. .. '" " " tS .. .0 >- S " ..; ..; M ..; ..; ..; ..; ..; ..; ..; fi .E " .0 ...J " =i "'" j "' " .0 ;g "'" i!J - ] " .c .. CD " !! " " E: u: " l! .. " .. 0 CD .. ... -= 0 N M .... on '" t- ~ '" 0 C " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;; ;; ~ .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >- N N N N N N N <'. N N ;; fl U "0 ::l Z .. '" VI - 21 161 l A 2 t~ ~ .! C ~~ ~ ~.g Ol::c.. 1: .!!: l! .. Q " 5.5~ ~: g ~'i;z ;;~~ iJ ~ : _= "S. ;i :::E> CII ~ ... ~_..= ~ ~ ~ 5 =_;;;:i:;a - ~ ~ Q ~~~~ C> C> .. .... c- C> C> N - -~ .. .. ~ E ;.. Q c- ~ E Q t::: ".0 ,CI -,0 ...0 ..= ~C ...c .... 'C ,0 ...0 ...C I :I' co. C" Q' C" c', C'" 0" 0" C" go. 0''' r--- C't-\Otn~O"':f"r""lI~"" . dooodoocicici 'E ~.. .. .. ~ 0 c- :; E z~ OO-OOOC:COC o\Oo...ooocc: OvCt-\Coo "";.nc5t'1'i'd'lS- III ('f'J"'" N --- 0_ III 0 00-.-0 V'I N C ":oO~c\ ~I -N,..,oo::t'tn\Oc- co r-2 c ~ ~ ~ '" ] ] "';3 ~cr.O en l;;"ECO p .2 ~-5gcr.g C~:g -ctl:-:-:: ~= c.. '.I ~ == c V >-.>.~~:I)7o.,2 ~. ~=S~~-2'~=cr.>; ~ ~ a 0 ~~ g -= ~.= 1;1) ~ g ,. ~ ~ 5 :: u g .~ ] Ie 5 u ~""O~8%~:::;:~:n~8o .~8Q~u 5.!!';C::='":J 3 ~ t~ I ti] l~ ~ I: ~:::E:::Eooo""<o:J'=;oo",, E "" - -~ " .. "5 E :- ~ ~~ o C;;;;J Q~ o~ c':. ge ?;r::. c.~ oft "iJf:!. o~ oft :lCI_ClOCC'<.O\Otn"':t''''1''~ "':"':ciddcidocio 'o~ :J .. .. ~ c ~~ z~ ~I 00.0"'1"00000000 O_CMC_COC\O NOOC-Cr-COO"'d" OcCO:oCN'-=..cMMN o.O,..,("INN("<I--__ _NM~I.tt\:)r-ClOClO:::1 :: .. '"' ..!! '" o ~ g ~ ~ <3 '":J ~ 0 ;;I) ~ ~ g::: g - c:) ii g :To 0 8!~1~~!j ~ ~ ]~~~cfg~s:!3~>.5 3: u u ~ ?? 8 ~ .9 :g @ ~ 8 ~.g.g8 E~= ~~~8-5 .~ q 9 "2 tJ 5] ~ c: ~"2 ; :: OE 'a ~ ~ ~ 5 -g ~ ~ ~ :: c:.~.~ 2 ~-a-6.e'E~ 2~ ~::;;:::Eo:lO""<O:J.=;OO"" ~ ,I ~I VI - 22 '"I .. N ,..:: ~I ~ ~I oc ~ M .... M ] !1 0; '" ~ Q .- ;; " ~ ]- ::l ., ~ ~ oc ,..:: '" M ~ " l ~ '. ~ .. g "- " ::l E ~ > e ~ '" 't: " ,,; Co e " .. Co ~ <: c. :s c '0 ;; :!i " ,. ~ g .". 0; ~ -g " ;; " c '" E ~ '" ..!! " '" ~ ... '" ~ " ~ " ., ~ " =E 1l ~ C "5 ~ 0 x " " " ~ .g " -5 ~ '" l! ~ " "5 'C .. '" g ] c '" 0; " ~ .<> c " " " .. " ~ '" t :B Q .a "f; OJ > ~ 2 ~ ~~ '" .. ~~ ~ ~ 't: " l; ;t~ -g ~ e ~ " " 0; o~ ~ " a- " ;; g " ~ ~ " ~ " a " "5 " x "- "~ " .g -0 ~ ~ g ~ "5 U '" .,g '" " '0 z '. ~ Q " ;:. o 1 " ;0 r- 16 I 1 A a ~: I I I I I ..:! -s 02 c. "- " I !! ":!i I '" 1: C Co ~ ~ 5 C t:: I " " 5: ..;: I " os !! e '" c c CJ ~ c: " c " .. .g os: ~ '5 0: 0 -g:g " !! 5~ ~ s ~ i c 5! ~Ui == rIl > c- ~g ~<'l d &.. ~cE ~~ c ~ fi:= "~ ~ - >, e-.E ~ g. .;j::l I I I I I I ;; e " J5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c " ~l '" " Q go _Co ~g == ~g- c- o: .. ~ ~ ~ '- U') ai ci]~ >- = ~ ";~-g "'_w";S 2 1:~c3 .!!~~ = t.. I. 5 ":I~cE- .:=~~ ~Jj<l:.:i I I I I I .. e: .. >- .. e: "" c .. c; U o ;:; '" '" o o '" co o o '" .... o o '" '" o o '" on o o '" .". o o N M o o '" '" o o '" o o N <:; :. .. ~ ~ 00. .". .. r-; ;::: ~ ..... ~ .... ~ ;::: ~ .... r-; ..... r-; -", " ~ 0;: c!: "" 1;l 'C li :; < .... c ~ " 1:1 ;; z .... ... :g N '" '" ...: '" .". ~ '" ci o '" ...: '" .... '" .. .". '" ...: ... '" on o .... ...: '" ...: M '" on N on .,;: o on ...: .". (', N 'n '" ci on .., ...: ... N ... M '" ci ~ ...: on '" .., '" .., ...: N o ...: on '" co M .... .,;: '" 00 ",. '" '" .... '" .". 00 N .... ..0 '" N .~ ~ c. o 0.. ~ " c. '" .g .~ .;; -= ~~ ",,0 .~ ;; 518 =0 "0 <- 16~ c1 A2 " ~ .;: c c. "" " '" 'C ..; 'g Q ~ '" is -5 9 <:i .~ 1:- c t: Cl c. >> C " '" .. Cl 1! ;; o ..c 2i :~ c c. 11 " " Cl Co 1! a '" " .g .;; c c. "" ..!! 2 '0 ..c '" " -g u .: .~ '" .~ ;; o " ~ ..e ~ :& " .. .. ..c '" " '" " '" o Eo = c. OIl .: Q OIl "" = ..c .E ." " .~ ~ 1! ;; "'2 Cl ~ " ~ ::i -a. D ~-5 " !! 5 ~ Cl 0 oll ] cS .. ..c ;; <; g Eh c " c g ~ E " 's o " g '" '0 tr. g 8 :r.~E s-ao ".o:::i ~ 0 .2 .~ ~ ~ c: i~~]. N ...!. ~ 8- c c l:t) ~ -= 01) CI C == C = ~ c: 0 " e: ~.9C~ L.o _ .2 e ~ ~ .5 rn gg"s.~ ;z tn ~ C VI - 23 E E ell ~ c.. .. o 'Ci' _:::!! ... ~ ~ 2i e c< S ~ ... " SO~ :~ "'" ;.. .. .Cl ... c: ~ g == ~>- .g 'a<5 ~i:=~ .. ,...-~ ~~:: ~- ... =~~ ~~2Sr5 ... .. o .. "'C ~ ~! ~ c. -_~ u E _. ~ ::J 25 ~ t a ~ ;- ~ :: ~ Cot C ~ ~ ~ g. ~ ~ til IX '0 :-5 J.. p == ~ 0' L. ~ "E. e z ~ ~ of?.~~o~~ (;l Vl ioo~ g~;~cre?JE ~~~g ~OO~ ":t"NM::e '" '" N ... E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.. " ... ~ ~ ~ :; J ~ ~ ~ ~L:.G ~ i ~] i ~ ~ en - ~ IX..~_ s~O: .- t; ~... f .~ ~_. ~ f.~O~ ~ .3 u O'?C~Q;~~,#- ~=~ ~ ON~O\C .., .., ~~ ~~ o~ o~ tf ~~~~g ci r'C'i 00 cc_ = O>.OMN ,...CC '" on '" ;; :; Eo- 0; :c r- " '" .. .. ~ ~ " " ~ ~ &: g a: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 c ~ :E ~ "& - ~~ ~.~;o]:~ iioll~i ~ ~ 5~ ~ ~ 5 5 ~$~~~ NOOce vioC"ij~ ~~~~~ ("'1 QO t"'" = dOO:Me C"I \02 '" c:- "'N.... ..,..,'" N .., " " ~ " ~ 0: " v.:. u ;a ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a _ ~~ ~5":s]:~ ..... '" i5 o'E ~ ~ ~:~I~g~ "':2o~~ co ~ ~ VI - 24 ~$$d~~ d~~d~ ... ;9..;~;~of?~ ~"o:b~g r-:ociN= _l""- = ] o Eo- I!'J ~ " 51 c: I!'J ~ " 5l " IX " .. " I .s 1>. " " u S! .'<1 ~ ] .~ E,...~ ~ [ -g ~5":_ 'Ir. ;I) _ C ~:~fi ~:2o~ :.J '" '" ,... .., .., 161 1 A a ;:.~ "o~ 09.. 09.. ?f. M\O \0-.0 ~o 0\0 -.i-cicid.J ~*g;;~~ ~::~-~ c:- :; =~ .... oc-N-: ~ t= '" ~ a C! ~ "'" t. ] ~ U '.u Eg-:c~~ r;~S-=::J "";,. C f!~",,~ .~.~ ~ - ~:E8"~~~ '" '" [:l roil II .... <;> ~ 0; ~ - .. ... '" a 2 " I E E ell ~ ~ .~ "E E ~u; ~ () ~ ~~ ~ .E v. .~ ~ ;: .~ f eo " S c f! ~ .~ .~ ~o ~-B o c ." - " ~~ ~ v. ,., 0- - ,> " -= ~] 5!J ~ 'C v. 81= ti '0 z I ~. '-- I I I I I I I ;; ;:; ,., ] <.: I ~ '0 "E ~ :S " ~ .g .;:;; o Co I I -:::J ~ :r. ~ ! '" :~ o Co ~ I I -;; '" " "5 ] I ~ u " ~ ~ ;:; c ~ " -g :; z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - .. ~ :: Q ~ I - .. = c ~ .. ==- .. .. ~c =C' ~:e I .. ..., .. .Q !l ~ .. " " " ~ ~> c- " - " ... eoO N ;: ~ '" - .- " c <.:I- I ii: " :; 1:;.~ E ;; ~= u c a!j rn rn I I , E e .. = .. =- .. .. = = C?> :;-:: >.u .c~ lIl~ u_ ~. ; ~~ ,au - u .. ~ Q ~I on co on '" Is~ .... on on .... .... \0 ... '" ~I on .... "'''' I~I ... ... on .... ....\0 ....'" .. ~I " oc '" ... - I~I .. ;;.- '" on '" '" ~ ... \0 ... '" ~I .... '" '" 0 Ig~ '" '" '" .... .... '" ...'" ~I _ \0 '" 0 151 '" '" '" ... ....\0 .... '" " e E c.. .. c ~ " " s ~ ~ ~"O fii! ~O'~~ .~ is s {3. ,.. a. g. ~ )!! .. ~ c c: o 1; " 10 .. a: . ~ c: .. ~ ~ "C :; ~ c: o ~ Q. o . " Q. Q. ::J '" c: o ~ ~ . VI - 25 16' lA 2 ~.:, NIl -5 B " ::J o ~ " ~ " e eo E eo ~ ! " E on E eo .. '~"E c c; "'3 i: ii~ "... l! c c; = ,,'" ~ 0 _ 0 - '" ~ g >. .- " ... " " '" .~ ~ ~..s ~~ - > .g e .~ ~ 0.<:> 2._ '; ?; ",' - o C 0''::: '" " .. :: " c ~~ ~.~ OIl 0 .~ ~ Cl !! .~ = 11 c; ~ e '0 " 2 e~ ~ ~ ~~ "2 ~ o ~ 1! .~ ~ o ~~ " ~ .~ "~ Q Cl " S!; ; c =~ o " '" irl :0'<:> " .. ~:g ~-5 '-= S! ;:!l~ 'S ~ CSe:: ;; " o ;z - u ~ is - c .. c ;;... eo u 55 .:: i ~ .,.. u ""::=: ~ :: 5 ~ == 0 ...=:.. " " ~ ~] N _ C. u: ~ ; <-E: -= ~ _ 5 ] = ~~ u 0 :,! e: 00 en c.. ....J .. c: .. ... ;; :i! r:: =: N '" '" '" '" ClO := N ... := N ~I on = e '" ... = = '" .... '" e ... ... e <= ... '" e ... t- o .. " -; '-l ~ ~ d: ..... c;. .... N '"': .... ..... "< '" N N N '" e ..... N o '" '" ..; ..... ... on N .... on .... N ... <:> .... N G- o .... N ~ " ;;. '. <>:: ~ ~ .g ::: t:i '" N ~I !I "'I N ..... ..,f ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I 31 ~I ~I ..,f .. .... '" ..i ... ..... .... '" M ~ '" '" .. M ;;; .... '" on N ... on N o N '" ..... ... N '" .... .. ~ ..... .... .... .., ~ ... .. ClO '" ~ ClO .... ~ i5 u 1= o .. ~ o ~ " :'j .. " -g E> " ~ <<l :2 ~ '" " .?: E. <= ~ o ::; ~ " ::- "8 " '" .. ~ .2 "E. Co < "'2 ~ VI - 26 16 ~ 1 " 5!' S ti . g ~ ~~ g ;r. ~~ Co _ ::: g .~~ as "5>. rn--; .~ ;;.. ~g E e .g"2 u""O ~~ ~~ ~ g 0", ~~ .. - " :> ::: 0 .,E -;i " c: c: _ _..5 5 ::: ~ .~ .- " c..~ :;--c. _ Co "E .~ " c.,-. s ~ = ~ "5 ~ " - ~:2 :i.:' C .. -;; i5 - " == Eb>. ".c "'~ ':j 0 -5 E a 8 " e " o :!! :; .~ Me;; .. " .. .- "'- ~~ g~ c E 0:0" "2 ;- Ci] .~ i5 ~ ;; "" ~ ::E .. " ;i; ~ 5 r:: ;; '" -0 ~ ;: ~ " Q .~ ... :; "" " '" ~ ;i ij l! " Jl I A2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - u ~ ~ 25 ~ :: C ti5 E Co u e CIl = ;: r:. ; t; :.; 1: ~ i:3 ~ ~ E'> .. -= (i .a ~ ~ ~ 'S ~ ~ '5E~ei ~ .... .: ~ u is ~ ~ tn r:.t:l ~...J I I I I I ~I M ... 0 M ~I 0 '" '" M ~I 00 '" .... M ~I M .... :1 ~I ... 00 on .. M " .. ... -a ~I 00 ~ ... I:: a- M ~I ... 0 ... M ~I <::> ... ... M ~I ~ M ~I ... ,,; ~ - ~ .. = " c t:.. ~ ~ 0 ~~ .: " " >> ~ .~ " ~ " ~ o I:: ~ OJ u "'S! ;; :; o '" .S ] .~ ... Co '" " .. ~ ~ o " Ch " e ~ ~ ~ .E " " ~ ~ .... o l': c " >> <; ~ ~ ~ g ~ " F: ii "0 Z ... ~ is OJ " OJ or, c c: ~ - " ;; ::: :g o u: :; o '" ..... o :~ >- is c " E gj 1;l < .q '5 6 - " ;; ::: ~ g o '" VI - 27 16 J ~A 2 'il .. " :;; .. .. ::; ::: ~ @ ..:f ..:f 8 ~ ~ :q. M C"f (spunsno,!,! Ul) JOO.!l-OJ3V ~ ~ 0 # o o N 8 - ~ Q- ~ c:.J ~ "'" =E c ti: NC.!~ .S! ~ c...S .;:;;~?; Col ':: ;:) :I:l ~ ~ ~ j ~I ~ I OC .., ~ g ~I ~ ~I ~ ~ ~I ~ ~~ E ~I ~I ~I ~I o on .., r: M r- 8 c: .., r- .; N :c on. ..!: .., "i on ~ '<> N on <:> 0 0 .... N ~ :i >. on e " C' ~ .... '<= '4 .9 1; 'C c.. 1l 0; ~ !'i Q < .:: ~ E ] ;; '0 ;z " ~ 15 ;; ., <l rf ;; ~ Q ;; ~ e ~ is E :; o '" .... o "~ 15 c.. ~ "E e ~ " ir. ~ 2 ....l ~ o " @ o r- g ;:6 ) j".[-"'V (spu.molI.I11J ~ 1: <5 '" VI - 28 @. ~ ~ c g N I 1611~a . I I I I I I o <3 e. I ~ e. g c. I g c. I .. :s ~ p, ~ I ~ ~ I g c. I e. g c. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - '" :s ., is I - OJ E ~ g ~ .. ~ .. .. 1; rf.I ~ ~ E >- ~cE1j III ~ -=.~ ~.s~~ "3':.5~ ~=~u; ..c = e ., ~ J3 Co....J I I I I ~I .., N on ~ ~I c;, g :1 ~I ~ N on " ~I on N '" ..0 '" gl M >6 .. N " > C; ~I ... 0 !i ~ f:: ~ ~I N :l <5 .., ~I on on on ;f ~I 0 ~ ~ ~I iO ... '" -0 " 5 .c ~ .< ., " .;; :9 .~ " .c E o u B "0 B " .~ ~ "'- Co ;: " :a " " .c ~ " " "" o " -E ....l "'" :!! t: :l .c ~ " ~ ~ o o q '" on ~ " > o .-: o o N ~ " " >. ] eo " ." :l C <l i i5 c " E " if ;; ;:;; ~ " " ?; " -0 ." o f:: :; o '" ..... o " .~ 'S: i5 Co ~ "5 ~ " i.1i -0 j o R~~g~"~ @~~ "d'o(?,_ d' g ss :;;: .... '" 00 (spullSnoq.L uJ) l..,i-.J'V ;; ~ = '" VI - 29 16 t l A 2 1 o o <l 8 o. 8 o. .... ~ ~ ::: t'I ~ 1i ono!!; 8::- N 8 <l ~ ~ 01 ~ - .. i Q - ~ c; OIl " C " ::;; .. .. c; == .. '" ." N ;: .; ~ ." ! "5 u CO 00 00 c ~ ~ ..;: 0 ,,>- :e. 5 ...- ii~ l.~ c Z j ~ 00...1 ~ >- .. .s " :: ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I ~I ..j. "'I ",0 ",0 _N c o M <:> <:> .". c <:> <:> <:> '" <:> <:> M <:> '" .,.. <:> <:> M '" <:> .... <> <> 13 ,. o ::: e '" ;:: o ~ S C. ..... o '" .E .g ~ '" g g ~ " - :-a. o " -= g 5= ;-'"'0 - " o > 5 " i::: ":::: s::O C " o 2 ';j Q a~ 0'" C:::~ '" - ~ .= ,. - ~ a "';;ff' 2-= co..::: ..::: u ~:.E . c ;lo :II ~~.~ li~ o u :; - ... ::: ~~ t " ,,::;; ~ u _ o .... :Il t=.<u ~ c ~ ].~ ] rPu- ~C< ~c:?ii ~:r.- =.g~ E~< ~~- ~~~ 2 0 E ~~~ :g ~ 3 _..... c: is of ~ ~~~ r-.:::iZi ii "0 ;z I 16 I 1 A.a I I I I I I I I I I I d .... ,: o Co " ~ I Co <: " e "a ,;j I ~ ~ ~ i5 ~ 2 ~ ;; ~ g ~ ~ .;! ~ " =E Z :; o '" I (; "" I "'0 .~ ;; Co .a c " >. ~ " .. 3: <: ;; 2 " o '" I I I VI - 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I u ~ i5 I - ~ ~ ~~ ::: ... cCo. ~~ .. " ~ ~ ~ ~3 ..->- "Zl_ to- := ~ ~ N ... ff.I v.: -E~<E -g~Sc .<:,,:;c.~ Q :: ~ "" '" UU I I I I '" we Q 3.b " c u ~ 8 E en d <; ,... ~~~~ ~ trlM"d-d ..; M V'I r--- 'J:) ~ ("100M _ '=' :a~~"': ~ ~;; 5 '" '" QC QC .... 0 QC '" MO ""0 qM.. ~~ ~ JI , ~ C\ t"'\ I ('I a. I- ..,'" M o\MM -(3). ('-I N'<l'" G~ vS 1.000<.0 NOOC"M M-r-O r-i' -= C"i -= ~~~~ -=v5-= -('1- iJ :~u 3.g -- r.) "" " c ~ 5 .EO ~ ~I ~~~o r- oa ("1 ,:j a7: trio"' rr 0" 0"'''''''' ...q.'-OI.I'lo- M ... v _.". cc ("1 0- - ("10 -\tS-6 ~ ("I r- M Q\ t- ("I U'\ ri ....: ("v ~ ~ .!!: c:J g t B....J ('10 ;?;~ ~M" - '" ("I 00 rr}("\ .... QC M " :fl ~ ~~ (; ~- r-- III '" \0 ~ ("I _ '.0 '0-"'0 -..6.n ...: vi voc ""'_ -O'M_ ..oON .., v '" ~" idl :!: g .~ L.o C U SO c ~ - 0 Z '" 0 on QC '" .... r-=~ - C"I '" QC r:-= .., ... "C C .:i rlO QC ('I V'l N on '" .... -= ~ \0"' .... on 0'" v\~ QC .... "''1. ~~ e ~ ~ u u 5 c " C ~~ ~~ .:0 ~ g .9 g: g'~eoo '0; L: B u ~8-~~ '" QC .., ..; .... '1. ... QC V '" '" C\ '1. '" ... on ~ '" N ... '1. .... ... ... o on ... '" :::l ,.: <:; ..; ... '" C\ C\ ..,. .,; l:l '" '" '" ... ..,. '" ~ c ,.: Vl Vl .. ... ;; QC .... on '" .... '" .. Vl ... '1. ... ..,. ..,. '" ... '" -= ;: .. ~ ;0 '1. ... '" d 10 f-< " 'C 1;1 o 161 c o ] .c ."l " :; "C g ~ '" i= ~ .3 ~ " " a, e C- o .~ 1! ;; g " " e :s ~ .~ "C .~ ~o S :i ~ '0 o ~ .~ C; o " .5 .~ 2'~ <> '"' N (3 " " ~~ ]11 !;: .t: elL!! -E Q ~ ~ 0-5 ..... ~ i5 "5 c ~ 5 ::E ~ " 3' :s "C "C o E; :; c '" '- :s -"l C ~ " ~ "3 "0. 8 ;; 15 Z ~ :s c '" VI - 31 1 A2 . -:>: I ~ 0 j 1.~j '.l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~ - -~ This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank VI - 32 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t6~ t, A t:. DISCLOSURE SECTION S.E.C. RULE 15C2-12 DISCLOSURE The Florida Panther had dwindled down to as few as 20 adults during the early 1990s, but is showing indications ofa comeback. Florida panther sightings have been reported within the stormwater treatment area (STA) of the Compartment C build-out project. This project is located just southeast of Clewis ton between existing STA-5 and STA-6. The species photographed in this area include feral hogs, coyotes, a bobcat and a single photo of the large male Florida panther, which has been observed numerous times since construction began on Compartment C. I I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGE~LTJcr A 2. II CONTINUING ANNuAL AND EVENT DISCLOSURES I The following disclosures comply with amendments of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEe) Rule 15c2-12 (b)(5)(i)(A) to CD). Effective in 1995, the amendments required municipal bond underwriters to gain reasonable assurance from bond issuers that they will provide annual information and notices of material events for disclosure to the secondary bond market To enter the bond market, the District and other issuers of state and local government securities are indirectly affected by these amendments. We are using this section of the District's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to comply with our continuing disclosure agreement I I I I I I DISTRICT AGREEMENT AND EFFECTIVE DATES In respective Bond Resolutions, the District agreed to provide continuing disclosure of annual information and notices of material events upon issuing its · Special Obligation Land Acquisition Refunding Bonds, Series 2002, · Special Obligation Land Acquisition Refunding Bonds, Series 2003, and · Certificates of Participation, Series 2006. I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF CONTINUING BOND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS Notice of Annual Financial Audited Annual Notice of Failure to Provide Recipient Information Financial Statements Material Events Annual Financial Information SECRule 15c2-12 SECRule 15c2-12 SECRule 15c2-12 SEC Rule 15c2-12 (b)(5)(i)(A) (b)(5)(i)(B) (b)(5)(i)(C) (b)(5)(i)(D) Effective FYE (1) Effective FYE (1) Effective Effective April 1 After Jan. 1, 1996 After Jan. 1, 1996 July 3, 1995 After FYE (1) Each NRMSlR (2) or the MSRB (3) X X Each NRMSlR (2) X X Paying Agent (4) X X X X Underwriters (4) X X X X (1) For the District, the date first effective was for Fiscal Year Ended (FYE) September 30, 1996. (2) Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repository. (3) Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. (4) Required under Governing Board Resolution 95-28, Section 24, in connection with the issuance of the Special Obligation Land Acquisition Refunding Bonds, Series 1995. I I VII-I 1611 1\2. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5)(i)(A) requires annual financial information and operating data that are generally consistent with the presentation included in the Official Statements for each bond issue. The following paragraphs summarize the "Security for the Bonds" and the "Security for the Certificates" appearing in the Official Statements. Subsequent paragraphs, tables and exhibits contain the required financial information and operating data to include: . pledged revenues, . funding and allocation of monies and deposits of the Trust Fund, and . lease payments. SECURITY FOR THE BONDS The Bonds are secured by a ftrst lien on and payable solely from the ''Pledged Revenues" as provided in the Bond Resolution. The Bonds are limited obligations of the District. As such, the District, the State of Florida, or any public body in the State shall not: . pledge its full faith and credit to the payment of bond principal, interest or premium; or . directly or indirectly be contingently obligated to levy any taxes or to make any appropriation for payment except from the pledged revenues for debt service on the Bonds. Pledged Revenues consist of all monies collected, allocated to the District, and deposited in the Water Management Lands Trust Fund (the "Trust Fund") which consist of: . a share of the Documentary Stamp Tax, . investment earnings and civil penalties. The pledged revenues equally and ratably secure the Series 2002 and 2003 Bonds. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection maintains the Trust Fund. DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX The State of Florida imposes an excise tax on documents (the "Documentary Stamp Tax''). Under current law, the Documentary Stamp Tax is levied upon certain instruments whereby interests in real property are conveyed, original issues of stock, bonds and debentures issued in the State of Florida, promissory notes or other written obligations to pay money, and mortgages recorded in the State of Florida. In general, the amount of the Documentary Stamp Tax due with respect to an instrument is based upon the amount of indebtedness evidenced or secured thereby, or in the case of documents transferring interests in property, upon the consideration for the transfer, or, in the case of stocks and bonds, upon the face value or actual value thereof. The Documentary Stamp Tax is collected by the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) and by the Clerks of the Circuit Courts of the counties in Florida on behalf of the DOR The Documentary Stamp Tax is distributed, for various purposes, pursuant to a statutorily-prescribed formula. VII-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1611 A2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Under current law, the DOR distributes the Documentary Stamp Tax collections and investment earnings, thereon, as follows: I I · The fIrst 8% to the State of Florida General Revenue Fund to pay a portion of the costs of general government · The costs of collection and enforcement ofthe Documentary Stamp Tax are deducted by and for the use of the Department of Revenue. · A portion ofthe then remaining Documentary Stamp Tax collections (including investment earnings) are required to be deposited in the Trust Fund. There is no assurance that the Florida Legislature will not change the percentage allocations to the General Fund, the Documentary Stamp Tax collections to the Trust Fund, or the percentage of the Trust Fund allocable to the District Likewise, the Legislature could implement an appropriations bill affecting the distributions to the Trust Fund. Such changes, if made, could affect distributions to the Trust Fund. However, there exists an implied contract with the State to allocate sufficient documentary stamp revenues to cover debt service. I I I I I I I The following table illustrates the current and historical taxation rates and percentage distribution to the Trust Fund. I I I I I I I DOCUMENTARY STAMP TAX RATES AND TRUST FUND DISTRIBUTION Tax (per $100) Tax (per $100) Percent to Year Effective Stocks/BondsIMortgages Deeds Trust Fund 1963 $0.15 - - 1981 $0.15 $0.45 7.20% 1985 $0.15 $0.50 9.80% 1987 $0.15 $0.55 9.20% 1990 $0.32 $0.55 6.90% 1991 $0.32 $0.60 6.56% 1992 $0.35 $0.70 5.84% 2001 $0.35 $0.70 4.20% FUNDING AND ALLOCATION OF THE TRUST FUND Deposits distributed to the Trust Fund began accruing to the District and the State's other four water management districts in August 1981. Under present law, moneys from the Trust Fund (net of DEP's administrative expenses) are allocated monthly among the State's fIve water management districts in the following percentages: 30% - South Florida 25% - St. Johns River 25% - Southwest Florida 10% - Suwannee River 10% - Northwest Florida VII-3 .L 0 l 1 'i 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT USE OF THE TRUST FUND Expenditure of moneys from the Trust Fund is limited to payment of debt service and the acquisition, management, maintenance and capital improvement costs of certain lands included within the District's Five- Year Plan and to DEP's cost to administer the Trust Fund. Moneys in the Trust Fund not needed to meet land acquisition and management costs, or current debt service, are invested by the State Treasurer to the credit of the Trust Fund, in the manner provided by Florida law. Interest received on such investments is credited to the Trust Fund and proportionally allocated to the District ESCROW AND RESERVE FUNDS Security for payment of debt service on outstanding bonds is provided from two sources: . an Escrow Fund within the Trust Fund and . a Surety Bond issued by AMBAC and held by the Trustee. Trust Fund Escrow An agreement between the District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection CDEP) requires DEP to set aside and escrow from the first moneys allocable to the District in the Trust Fund, sufficient moneys for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds becoming due in such Bond Year. DEP is obligated to pay Trust Fund moneys sufficient to pay debt service as it becomes due on the Bonds to the District's Paying Agent. However, such payment shall not exceed the District's cumulative portion offunds in the Trust Fund. Debt Service Reserve Fund/Surety Bond The Bond Resolution provides for establishment and maintenance of the Reserve Fund for the purpose of making deposits in the Debt Service Fund in the event the moneys therein are insufficient for the payment of sums due on the Bonds, and for no other purpose. Moneys on deposit in the Reserve Fund shall be maintained for the benefit of the holders of the Series 2002 and 2003 Bonds, and any parity obligations of the District issued pursuant to the Resolution. The District is required to have on deposit in the Reserve Fund an amount of money and/or Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety Bonds equal to the Reserve Fund Requirement. Beginning in 1995, the District obtained a Debt Service Reserve Fund Surety Bond to meet this requirement. The Reserve Fund Requirement is defmed in the Resolution to mean, at any time, an amount equal to the lesser of: . the maximum amount of principal and interest on all outstanding bonds due in any succeeding fiscal year, or . the aggregate often (10%) of the original proceeds of each series of bonds. VII-4 ~ I '.- , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 lA 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SECURITY FOR THE CERTIFICATES OF P ARTICIP ATION I I The Series 2006 Certificates evidence undivided proportionate interests in the principal portion and interest portion of Basic Lease Payments made by the Governing Board to the Corporation under the Series 2006 Lease. The Series 2006 Certificates are secured by and payable from the Trust Estate established for the Series 2006 Certificates (the "Trust Estate") pursuant to the Trust Agreement and any amounts payable under the Financial Guaranty Insurance Policy. The Trust Estate consists of all estate, right, title and interest of the Trustee in and to the Basic Lease Payments under the Series 2006 Lease, and all amounts held in the funds and accounts under the Trust Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the Master Lease and the Trust Agreement, including investment earnings thereon, and any and all monies received by the Trustee pursuant to the Series 2006 Lease and the Trust Agreement which are not required to be remitted to the Governing Board or the Corporation pursuant to the Ivfaster Lease or the Trust Agreement. I I I I I I I I I I I I Purpose of the Series 2006 Certificates The Series 2006 Lease is entered into, and the Series 2006 Certificates issued to provide for the lease- purchase fmancing of the acquisition, construction, installation and equipping of certain facilities and improvements to land for the restoration, protection and preservation of the Everglades ecosystem pursuant to the AccelerS Project; refinance certain interim financings of the District., a portion of which was used to commence construction of certain of the 2006 Facilities; and pay certain costs of issuance of the Series 2006 Certificates, including the premium on a fmancial guaranty insurance policy for the Series 2006 Certificates. The Series 2006 Certificates are executed and delivered pursuant to a Master Trust Agreement dated November 1, 2006, and as amended and supplemented by the Series 2006 Supplemental Trust Agreement, dated November 1,2006. Lease Payments All Basic and Additional Lease Payments and all other amounts required to be paid by the Governing Board under the Series 2006 Lease and all other Leases are payable solely from legally available funds budgeted and appropriated by the Governing Board for such purpose. Revenues available to the Governing Board for operational purposes and capital projects such as the Series 2006 Facilities include, but are not necessarily limited to, ad valorem taxes, operating grants and contributions from various sources, including the State of Florida, and capital grants and contributions from various sources, including the State and Federal Government I I VII-5 16l 1 A 2 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS Debt service requirements on the Series 2002 and 2003 Bonds, and Series 2006 Certificates are as follows: ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE (principal and Interest) REQUIREMENTS (in Millions) Fiscal Years 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 - 2019 2020 - 2024 2025 - 2029 2030 - 2034 2035 - 2037 Totals Total Series 2002 Series 2006 Series 2003 $ 42.15 $ 42.14 42.14 42.08 189.47 175.28 174.71 173.99 103.96 2.54 $ 2.54 2.53 2.54 5.05 1 4.37 $ 4.38 4.37 4.35 8.69 1 35.24 35.22 35.24 35.19 175.73 175.28 174.71 173.99 103.% 2 $ 15.20 $ 944.56 26.16 $ 985.92 $ AUDITED ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Section II of this Comprehensive Annual Financial Report contains the District's Basic Financial Statements and related Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants. These statements are consistent with the Basic Financial Statements contained in the Official Statements in compliance with SEC Rule 15c2- 12(b)(5)(i)(A) and (B). 2 Scheduled payoff - October 1, 2015. Scheduled payoff - October 1, 2036. VII-6 ~I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 1 A 2 I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT I REQUIRED NOTICES The following table lists each material event and required notice defined in SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5)(i)(C) and CD). The table confIrms that no notice to the NRMSIR or the MSRB and the SID was required for any of the material events related to each of the indicated Land Acquisition Bond Series currently outstanding. This confirms compliance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5)(i)(C) and (D) from July 3, 1995 to the date of this report. I I NOTICE OF MATERIAL EVENTS LAND ACQUISITION CERTIFICATES OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED BONDS ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION RULE SERIES SERIES SERIES SEC. DESCRIPTION 2002 2003 2006 (C)(l ) Principal and interest payment delinquencies. None None None (C)(2) Non-payment related defaults. None None None (C)(3) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial None None None difficulties. (C)(4) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial None None None difficulties. (C)(5) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to None None None perform. (C)(6) Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status None None None of the security. (C)(?) Modifications to rights of security holders. None None None (C)(8) Bond calls. None None None (C)(9) Defeasances. None None None (C)(lO) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of None None None the securities. (C)(11 ) Ratings changes. (a) (a) (a) (*) Default of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection None None None on its obligations under the Agreement. (D) Failure to provide annual [mancial information or None None None operating data in a timelymanner. I I I I I I I I I I (a) Previously all debt issued by the District carried an AAA "insured" credit rating. In fiscal year 2009, the credit rating for the District's bond insurer, AMBAC Assurance Corporation, was downgraded by the major rating agencies. At fiscal year end, Ambac was rated Caa2 and CC by Moody's and Standard & Poor's, respectively The rating on all District debt is now based on the District's underlying "non-insured" rating for the current fiscal year as follows: · Certificates of Participation, Series 2006, rated AA3, AA+ and AA by Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, respectively. · Land Acquisition Bonds, Series 2002 and 2003, rated A1, A+ and A by Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch, respectively, which includes the downgrade by Moody's. I I I I VII-7 .....~ -- ~ This Page has been Intentionally Left Blank VII-8 16' 1 ~ I I I I I 1 I I I 'I I I II I I, I I I I I 1611 A3 \' /JE~ERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT R~:. c E ,v U c/o Special District Services, Inc. - . \ 4 201\ 2501 Burns Road, Suite A ~.PR Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Board of county comm\SSiOller5 (561) 630-4922 Fax: (561) 630-4923 April 8, 2011 . l"") "" ~ CJ n - I r- ~ r., "" .." :;0::; :lO :::0 '=' Pl :;II( or-;, 0 Sm ..., -'-- n ""0 -1< ;<[11 0 :J: ..,.....-, cz: .\.... :lIf N I ... .. 9 VI ,-.J . w c:.; l"'~ b J.... C.') . VIA CERTIFIED MAIL- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of the Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6th Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Verona Walk Community Development District To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Florida law, enclosed please find a copy of the following document relative to the above referenced Community Development District: 1.) Proposed 2011/2012 Fiscal Year Budget (Oct. 1,2011 - Sept. 30, 2012) If you have any questions or comments, please contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. l Enclosure Misc. Corres: Date:.Q2Lu2LLL It~m #=-1 blX.U!3 CfDf:33 fa: 16 1 t 1 A 15 V erona Walk Community Development District Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2011/2012 . October 1, 2011 - Septentber 30, 2012 . . 16 J 1 A j CONTENTS PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET II PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2004) III PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2006) IV ASSESSMENT COMPARISON V DETAILED PROPOSED OPERATING FUND BUDGET VI DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2004) VII DETAILED PROPOSED DEBT SERVICE FUND BUDGET (SERIES 2006) VW Proposed Budget Contents 2011-2012 4/7/2011 11 :48 AM " 161'1 A1j PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALX COMMUNITY DEVELOPEfiT DISTRICT OPERA liNG FUND FISCAL YEAR 21111/21112 October 1, 2011 . September 30,2012 FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 94,583 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2004 600 579 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 2006 693 890 OTHER REVENUES 0 INTEREST INCOME 540 TOTAL REVENUES $ 1.389.592 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 2400 EMPLOYER TAXES (EMPLOYER) 192 ENGINEERINGIMAINTENANCE 20 000 MANAGEMENT 35412 SECRETARIAL 4,200 LEGAL 7,500 ASSESSMENT ROLL 10,000 AUDIT FEES 4500 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2004 1575 ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE - SERIES 2006 1575 INSURANCE 4000 LEGAL ADVERTISING 1500 MISCEL\J\NEOUS 800 POSTAGE 500 OFFICE SUPPLIES 700 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2004 3500 TRUSTEE FEES - SERIES 2006 3500 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2004 1,000 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIES 2006 1000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 104,029 REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES $ 1 285 563 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (SERIES 2004) (555 5361 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE (SERIES 2006) (641 848) BALANCE $ 88 179 COUNTY APPRAISER & TAX COLLECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (47 922) DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS (56 257) EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ (16000) CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 16,000 NET EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ - Note: Projected Available Funds Balance As Of 9-30-11 is $115,000.00 V.run. WIlt. vw &clgll!s VW &clg0lS 2011-2012 VW Prvpooed Budge\ 2011-2012 VW Clp<<ali>g Fund Buclge\ 2011.2012 41712011 1\:4SMl " 1611A3 PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2004) FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1,2011 - September 30,2012 FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 500 NA V Assessment Collection 555,536 Total Revenues $ 556,036 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 140,000 Interest Payments 413,010 Deferred Cost Expense 3,026 Total Expenditures $ 556,036 Excess/Shortfall $ - Verona Walk VVI/ Budgets VVI/ Budgets 2011-2012 VW PropDsed Budget 2011-2012 VW Debt Service (2004) Fund Budget 2011.2012 II 417/2011 11:48 AM '. 16 j 1 A 3 i PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2006) FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30,2012 FISCAL YEAR 2011/202 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET Interest Income 500 NA V Assessment Collection 641,848 Total Revenues $ 642,348 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 160,000 I nterest Payments 476,763 Deferred Cost Expense 5,585 Total Expenditures $ 642,348 Excess/Shortfall $ - Verona Walk VW Budgets VW Budgets 2011-2012 VW Proposed Budget 2011-2012 VW Debt Service (2006) Fund Budget 2011-2012 III 41712011 11 :48 AM " loll Aj) J ~ Verona Walk Community Development District Assessment Comparison Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Flllcal Year Lot 2008/2009 200912010 201012011 2011/2012 Size Assessment Assessment Assessment Projected Aue..ment Phase One Townhome 26' Administrative $ 49.13 $ 48.21 $ 47.99 $ 47.79 Cayman ~ $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Total $ 649.13 $ 648.21 $ 647.99 $ 647.79 Duplex 36' Administrative $ 49.13 $ 48.21 $ 47.99 $ 47.79 Capri/Carrington ~ $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Total $ 649.13 $ 648.21 $ 647.99 $ 647.79 Single Family 50' Administrative $ 49.13 $ 48.21 $ 47.99 $ 47.79 Oakmont Debt $ 706.00 $ 706.00 $ 706.00 $ 706.00 Total S 755.13 $ 754.21 $ 753.99 $ 753.79 SingJII Family 60' Administrative $ 49.13 $ 48.21 $ 47.99 $ 47.79 i Cal1yle Debt $ 812.00 $ 812.00 $ 812.00 $ 812.00 i Total S 861.13 $ 860.21 $ 859.99 $ 869.79 Phase Two Duplex 36' Administrative $ 49.13 $ 48.21 $ 47.99 $ 47.79 Capri/Carrington Debt $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Total S 649.13 S 648.21 $ 647.99 $ 647.79 Single Family 40' Administrative $ - $ - $ 47.99 $ 47,79 Garden Debt $ - S . $ 600.00 $ 600.00 Total $ - $ - $ 647.99 $ 647.79 Single Family 50' Administrative S 49.13 $ 48.21 S 47.99 $ 47.79 Oakmont Debt $' 706.00 $ 706.00 $ 706.00 $ 706.00 Total S 755.13 S 754.21 $ 753.99 S 753.79 Single Family 60' Administrative S 49.13 S 48.21 S 47.99 $ 47.79 Car1yla ~ $ 812.00 $ 812.00 $ 812.00 $ 812.00 Total S 861.13 $ 860.21 $ 859.99 $ 859.79 Single Family 65' Administrative $ - $ - S 47.99 $ 47,79 Estate ~ $ - $ - $ 812.00 $ 812.00 Tolal $ - $ - $ 859.99 S 859.79 There are 1.979 units In the Verona Walk Community Development District. Includes 2% County Tax Collector Fee, a 1.5% County Property Appraiser Fee and a 4% discount for early payment of taxes Phale I No. of Units 246 350 242 97 935 Phase II No. of Units 326 224 345 61 66 1044 Front Foota e 26' 36' 50' 60' T e Du lex SF SF SF SF Front Foota e 36' 40' 50' 60' 65' Verona Walk VW Budgets VW Budgets 2011-2012 VW Proposud Budge' 2011-2012 VW AssessmBnl CClmpIIIisa1 IV Maximum Annual Debt Assessment $ 600 $ 600 $ 706 $ 812 Maximum Annual Debt Assessment $ 600 $ 600 $ 706 $ 612 $ 612 41712011 11:48AM " 16' 1 A.,3 . 4 PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OPERATING FUND FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 . Seplllmber 30, 2012 FISCAL VEAR FISCAL YEAR fiSCAL YEAR 2OOll/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 REVENUES ACTUAL ANNUAL BUDGET ANNUAl BUDGET COMMENTS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENTS 94 954 94.974 94,583 Exoend~Ullls L.ss Int.rest & Carrvover/.925 DEBT ASSESSMENTS. SERIES 2004 596 602 600,579 600,579 Payment To Truslee/,925 DEBT ASSESSMENTS - SERIES 200Il 683 256 693 890 693,890 P.ym.nt To Trust.oJ.925 OTHER REVENUES 0 0 0 INTEREST INCOME 448 720 540 Inlor.st P,,'-octod At 545 P.r Month TOTAL REVENUES $ 1 375 460 $ 1 390 163 S 1 389 592 EXPENDITURES SUPERVISOR FEES 0 2400 2400 Supervisor F... EMPLOYER TAXES (EMPLOYER) 0 0 192 Pro'ected At 8% Of Suoorvisor Fees SUPPlEMENTAL METHODOlOGY REPORT 10000 0 o Fisc.1 V.ar 200912010 Expendill.... ENGINEERING/MAINTENANCE 2185 20 000 20 000 coo 0Wn0 W_ M.....menl & On...,. SlnIoUn MANAGEMENT 33 984 34896 35412 IncbSa Inlltion k1crHU tOased On Consumer Pro. nde:r) SECRETARIAL 4,200 4200 4200 No Ch.nge From 201012011 Budget LEGAL 2,680 7500 7500 No Chona. From 2010/2011 Budoel ASSESSMENT ROLL 10000 10000 10000 As Per Contrecl AUDfT FEES 4000 4250 4500 Accepted Amount For 201012011 Audn ARBITRAGEREBATEFEE.S~ES2004 1575 1575 1.575 No Chance From 2010/2011 Budoet ARBITRAGE REBATE FEE. SERIES 2006 1575 1575 1.575 No Ch.nae From 201012011 BudQeI INSURANCE 4,000 4.000 4,000 No Ch.na. From 201012011 Budo.t LEGAL ADVERTISING 652 2000 1500 $500 Decre..e From 201012011 Buda.t MISCEUANEOUS 337 BOO BOO No Ch.nce From 201lY2011 Budget POSTAGE 219 500 500 No Ch.ng. Froni 201lY2011 Budll9t OFFICE SUPPLIES 285 700 700 No Chang. From 201012011 Budo.t DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 175 175 175 No Chance From 2010/2011 Budoet TRUSTEE FEES. SERIES 2004 3233 3.500 3500 No Chonoe From 201012011 Budoet TRUSTEE FEES. SERIES 2006 3231 3500 3500 No Chance From 201012011 Bud""t COHTlNUWG DISClOSURE FEE - 9ER1ES 2004 1000 1000 1 lXlO No Chanoo From 201012011 Budgel CONTlNUlNG DISCLOSURE FEE - SERIE9 2OD6 1000 1000 1000 No Chang. From 201012011 Budget TOTAl EXPENDITURES $ 84 331 S 103 571 S 104 028 REVENUES LESS EXPENDfTURES $ 1 291129 S 1 288 592 $ 1 285 563 PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE /S~ES 20041 /555 536 1555 536 /555536 2012 Princill.1 & Inl.r.st Paym.nt. PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE /SERIES 2006l 1541 B48 1641 848 /641 B48 2012 Princioal & Inter..' Pavrn.nts BALANCE $ 937" $ 88 208 S 88179 CQ,HIT""....,.&TMCGJ.B:TllIIII~CDS'I'a 127,659 /47.936 /47922 Tlvee And One Half Percent Of Tolel Tax Roll DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PAYMENTS /45 942 156 272 /56 257 Four P.rcent Of Total Tox Roll EXCESS/SHORTFALL $ 20144 $ 115 DOO $ /16 DOO CARRYOVER FROM PRIOR YEAR 0 15,000 16000 C.rrvov.r From Prior Vear NET EXCESSlSHORTFALL S 20 144 $ . S - Note: Projected Availeble Funds Balance As Of 9-30-11 is $115,DOO.OO VITUNI Wail: vw Budgctll vw BudgetD 2OIl';!o12 VW~Budgel20n';!o12 vw 0p0n1lngFiMllrIdgot20I1-2012 v ~nl2on n ;~. MI i611A~ ~:J1i ~ PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2004) FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1,2011 - September 30,2012 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 2011/2012 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 1,000 500 Projected Interest For FY 2011/2012 NAV Assessment Collection 555,536 555,536 Maximum Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 556,536 $ 556,036 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 130,000 140,000 Principal Payment Due In 2012 Interest Payments 420,908 413,010 Interest Payments Due In 2012 Deferred Cost Expense 5,628 3,026 Deferred Cost Expense Total Expenditures $ 556,536 $ 556,036 Excess/Shortfall $ - $ - Verona Walk VW Budgets VW Budgets 2011-2012 VW Proposed Budget 2011-2012 VW Debt Service (2004) Fund Budget 2011-2012 VI 4n12011 11:48 AM , .. 10 j 1A 3 PROPOSED BUDGET VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEBT SERVICE FUND (SERIES 2006) FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 October 1, 2011 - September 30, 2012 FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 2010/2011 2011/202 REVENUES ANNUAL BUDGET ANNUAL BUDGET COMMENTS Interest Income 1,000 500 Projected Interest For FY 2011/2012 NAV Assessment Collection 641,848 641,848 Maximum Debt Service Collection Total Revenues $ 642,848 $ 642,348 EXPENDITURES Principal Payments 155,000 160,000 Principal Payment Due In 2012 Interest Payments 485,228 476,763 Interest Payments Due In 2012 Deferred Cost Expense 2,620 5,585 Deferred Cost Expense Total Expenditures $ 642,848 $ 642,348 Excess/Shortfall $ - $ - Verona Walk VW Budgets VW Budgets 2011-2012 VW Proposed Budget 2011-2012 VW Debt SlllVice (2006) Fund Budget 2011-2012 VII 4/7/2011 11:48 AM RECEIVED APR 1 1 7011 ~~ ~ B Hiller ttenn1ng ~ 16 I 1 c.Oy/itl == \(. = January 7 2011 CtlletfuJ v' , V' 1 ,:'..~ Board or County C:Omrtlission6rs MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE PUBLIC UTILITIES/RPZ SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, January 7,2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee - Public UtilitieslRPZ Subcommittee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1 :00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: David Dunnavant, DSAC Melissa Ahem, CBIA Dave Aldrich, CBIA (Absent) Joey Hatfield, Imperial Fire Protection David Hurst, DSAC Chris Mitchell, Waldrop Engineering Ed Riley, Fire Code Official (Absent) (Non-Voting) STAFF: Nathan Beals, Associate Project Manager, Utilities Joe Bellone, Manager- Utility Billing & Customer Service, Public Utilities Howard Brogdon, Water Department Pam Libby, Mgr. Operations, Water/Wastewater Joe Thomas, Manager - Water Distribution, Water Department Tom Wides, Director - Operations Support, Utilities ALSO PRESENT: Judy Puig, Operations Analyst- Staff Liaison C['~:33 'LCP: 161 1 B 1 ~ January 7, 2011 I. Call to Order: Chairman David Dunnavant called the meeting to order at 1 :30 PM. n. Approval of Aeenda: David Hurst moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Joey Hatfield. Carried unanimously, 4 - o. In. Approval of Minutes - December 6, 2010: Chris Mitchell moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Joey Hatfield. Carried unanimously, 3 - O. (David Hurst could not vote since he did not attend the December meeting.) IV. Public Speakers: (None) v. New Business: (None) VI. Old Business: A. Billing on Fire Services Chairman Dunnavant requested that Mr. Wides provide a summary for the Committee. Tom Wides, Operations Director, Public Utilities, distributed a 2-page handout to the Committee (responses to content of availability charges) and a one-page proposed draft to the current Ordinance, David Hurst noted Tampa's charges appeared to be reasonable to both parties and he requested additional information, Chairman Dunnavant reviewed Melissa Ahern's comments from the December meeting concerning the proposed implementation of a utilities charge which she noted would affect users throughout the County, Her concern was the users would not have any knowledge about the new charge. He noted there has been considerable debate about the merits of stand-by Fire Service charges, Chairman Dunnavant reiterated his opinion that the current billing procedure regarding fire lines is inequitable. In lieu of establishing a monthly rate which could become a precedent for the future, he suggested maintaining the status quo even though it was a "struggle" for him to support since it was unfair, He asked why it was necessary since the cost should be a covered function of the existing system, He was not sure he could recommend the stand-by charge. 2 8 1 16' 1 January?, 2011 Chris Mitchell: · Agrees with Chairman Dunnavant's opinion. · Cannot understand why a user with a dedicated fire service should pay an availability charge when the delivery mechanism is the same for that user as well as a user without a dedicated fire service, · There is less stress on the system with a fire suppression system. · He would have no problem supporting installation of a meter if the losses were reduced and recommended utilizing the Double Detector Check Valve, · With a meter, you can determine if a problem exists and whether it is a leak in the system or someone illegally tapping into the system. · The greatest concern is if there is unaccounted water- and the goal is to stop illegal usage - there are other options to prevent that without introducing an availability charge, · In the first paragraph under the Code, it states" ,.. unless otherwise supported by the Utility," Somewhere in the rate schedule for domestic water use, I would assume there is a number for availability for individuals who only use fire hydrants in the streets, · If I am already paying for service to the hydrant and I install a fire suppression system but am also paying for the availability fee, the Utility is supporting the individual using the hydrant and penalizing the user with a fire suppression system. Chairman Dunnavant: · It is arduous for all of us to sit in these meetings and review what has been said because we are falling on an impasse. · We have been trying to understand Utilities' position on this, · But there have been enough counter-proposals and points that make it difficult. · I hear the water loss issue but the disturbing thing about the meters is that there is only a single fire-rated meter available. Nathan Beals: · Spoke with Master Meter who has an ultrasonic meter that is in the final stages of approval and should have FM rating within the next two - three months, Chairman Dunnavant: · What did they tell you about friction loss on that meter? Nathan Beals: · Very similar - it's 2 to 4 psi, depending on the flow rate, Chairman Dunnavant: · Chris (Mitchell) mentioned something that is germane to this - all of these discussions where Utilities is trying to protect the consumer even more by trying to capture one of the last possibilities for lost water is bringing the cost to the Industry when we are all trying to construct things without adding additional costs. 3 B 1 ..4 t 6 1 1 ~JI7,201l · Chris mentioned he could almost support a meter without being forced on the RPZ, · A big part of that reason is the cost and friction loss, and the downstream effect of that friction loss on the piping system within the building, · I'm inclined to agree with that if we can obtain more than a single source for a meter that does not have significant friction loss in the system, Joey Hatfield: · I'm pretty much where everyone else is - we've said what we feel about these availability charges - and the cost for the meters is really the issue that this all started from and that is being "shelved" and clouded by the availability fee. · We're trying to apply the availability fee but we still have the meter issue on the table - my personal opinion is - the meter is still a cost which will double the cost of the installation no matter what you do - whether there is pressure loss or not. · The evoQ4™ Electromagnetic Elster Meter has a 4-inch - about 3.62 pounds and you add that into additional pressure loss on the RPZ and we're talking about pipe size increases, · I am not moved enough to believe that we should agree to these charges unless we have some movement from Ed Riley agreeing to the RPZs, · I'm not convinced that either one is right for the County, Chairman Dunnavant asked Mr. Hatfield for his position on the meter issue. Joey Hatfield: . I still think it's a charge that is excessive for the benefit. · Causing someone to spend $14,000 to $16,000 to potentially recoup some few hundred or a thousand dollars over the system - we can't quantify what that use on fire lines is - that potential loss - and I think that the number of buildings that are going to be built in the future... if you add on the $14 - 16,000, it's a substantial amount of money that will never be recouped by knowing how much water someone is using. Chairman Dunnavant: · The last piece to this puzzle is - once again, we have a problem that seems - if people are stealing water from the fire service lines, we think it is a minority of the instances where it's occurring and to implement a County-wide requirement to try to detect that seems to be over-kill, · Utilities understands what the losses are right now and is trying to identify sources to reduce them, but the amount of water recovered from -I'm pretty sure if you analyze it - the amount of water recovered from fire service theft would not anywhere equate to the cost to Industry to implement meters on lines., · And that has been one thing that has concerned all of us who are not connected with Utilities from the beginning. 4 16 I JAU~7~OIl Nathan Beals: · That's why we are at a standstill on the requirement for the meters and RPZs because we're trying to work with the Fire Districts. · We have installed the requested sites for pressure monitoring, · They have requested that we monitor for one year and, at your recommendation, we will review the data after six months - through the end of season - with them. · When it comes to the meters and back-flows, we just have to wait and see if we can get them to raise it to 60 or 65 psi to offset the cost of pipe downstream. Chairman Dunnavant: · There is a cost also to meter - you're right about downstream - you're trying to offset a friction loss which is not offsetting the cost. Nathan Beals: · Ifwe are able to increase the pressure available from 50 to 60 psi and we only get the RPZs or one of the other that add 5 psi, then there's an additional 5 psi that you're gaining that would be able to reduce possibly pipe sizes or the size in general, . Am I correct, Joey? Joey Hatfield: . Maybe - maybe not. Nathan Beals: · Making it a ''win/win'' that you talked about at the last meeting. That would be the goal. Joey Hatfield: · That would be a good situation if we were able to do that. · But you can't say that it would overcome the cost of the meter. Chairman Dunnavant: · None of that is making up for the meter and the strainer and the components involved with that meter - it would overcome the pipe size issue. · I don't think Fire has given anybody an indication that if the pressures come out even high on the monitoring that they are going to modify their stance, · We ought to figure out if the pressures are there, what are you going to say? · We really don't need to wait six months to a year to find that out. · If Fire is not going to support it, it doesn't really "go," David Hurst: · What is currently in place in terms of fire line charges? · Secondly, is this option of the service charge - is that for future users or is that for current users as well as the meters? · Ifwe're going to meter the line, is that for - is this retroactive? Is that the intent? Or is it from the point it is adopted forward? 5 1 (1 P 1131 c~ January 7, 2011 Joe Bellone: · The current Billing Ordinance states there are no charges if you use 5,000 gallons or less in any billing period, · If you use more than 5,000 gallons, you are deemed to have used water that is not for fire suppression purposes and you will pay the consumption charges whether it's 6,000 gallons or 600,000 gallons plus the full boat on the availability charges. Tom Wides: · In terms of notification to the public, the notification would be when we modify the Ordinance. There would be legal notice published in the newspaper, · In our Ordinance, it would become applicable to all metered situations going forward, · When you say "retroactive," I think you mean existing users and it would apply to existing users. But we would not go backwards and try to bill for back dates. · It would be 1112th of the availability charge per month. David Hurst: · Assuming that it was adopted, those existing private fire suppression systems would be required to install a meter, . Is that correct? Tom Wides: · Not as far as this, , , David Hurst: · Not in the current Code but in this proposed". Tom Wides: · No, this is assuming no meter. · Today we have situations where we are charging for 5,000 - if you go over 5,000 gallons, you will get hit with a :full availability charge and a usage charge. · We're trying to come up with something else that might accommodate the environment. We saw what other municipalities were doing - and found the FAC ("Florida Administrative Code") was supportive of 1/12th, · This is something that we are not making up, Is it perfect - absolutely not. · There was a listing of approximately 20 utilities that we benchmarked, David Hurst: · And the availability charge is intended to be in lieu of a meter for capturing lost water or is ,..? Tom Wides: . It was in lieu of a meter. · We still don't know the lost water, 6 t 8 1 16 , Jluaty7,2011 David Hurst: · So you're just going to write it off and assume that at some point it's going to average itself out? Tom Wides: · I don't know that we can even assume that. What we're basically saying that this is some attempt to at least assess that usage, · We got into a discussion in prior meetings - well, is that raising the revenue- no, · What we're saying is it is going to re-spread the revenue. I am only recapturing the costs that have been incurred, · I know what I've made in terms of water- I just can't tell what's being used arbitrarily and '" we've all struggled with this. Chris Mitchell: · If we make it retroactive for all known, separate fire connections: o (1) Do we have an accounting of how many separate fire connections and what sizes they are within the system? o (2) How would that number of the monthly availability charge which we've all agreed, at this point in time, would be 1/12th ofthe total- so it would be one month spread over twelve months - if you do the multiplication out - how does that equate to the lost water revenue? o I think we established that 5% was not accounted for. Tom Wides: · We do know the separate fire connections - we have that information in the billing system, Joe Bellone: · We have, in our billing system, those fire connections that have either a meter or a Detector valve, · Those that don't have either of the two, we don't have in the billing system. . We don't know all of them, Tom Wides: . No, we have not done a calculation. · I have estimated that we have revenue of approximately $1 OOM per year and if our water loss is running at 1 %, which it is not, you can figure approximately one million dollars for each percent is attributable to this situation per year, Chairman Dunnavant: · I thought each percentage was worth about $150,000, Ifwe are dealing in 5 to 6 percent ofloss, it would be a total of$750,000 to $900,000, Tom Wides: · We have done some other calculations, but I'm taking it simply right off the top 7 16 J 1 B~l ..~ January 7,2011 · We have one hundred million dollars, okay, and quite frankly, of that $ 100M, each one percent is one million, Chairman Dunnavant: · All right. But I'd have to understand the $150,000 figure presented at previous discussions, (EXCERPT -March 3. 2010 Minutes: " He [Paul Mattausch] further stated inspection of cross-connection facilities has shown irrigation usage, domestic usage, and other connections to the fire service lines which are consuming water without being billed, · A one percent loss (non-billed usage) equates to a $160,000 loss in water revenues.") Chairman Dunnavant: · There are three items, even though a couple are "shelved," they are inter-related and it is hard to deal with one without addressing the others. · The thought of retrofitting a meter under existing systems is completely out of whack. It doesn't properly serve any structure that we have currently in this County. · It would generate fire pumps and all sorts of issues, · I think, as an Industry, we can't recommend meters", especially in a retrofit. · If you're trying to capture lost water - obviously, you can capture it in the future by putting on a meter - but you are not going to capture any more on the stuff that's already there by putting a meter on which throws the whole system and design out of whack - which is not a practical application and I don't think anybody in Industry will support that · The Fire Service - and I still maintain that if we were to even consider a Fire Service charge - because the system has functioned for years without a Fire Service charge, and has adequately provided fire, water service to the community, there ought to be a corresponding reduction in rates right now to offset that. · Otherwise, we are just adding an additional charge without creating any additional capacity or cost to the system. · Last, I am pretty sure that, from what I've heard in Industry discussion, the RPZs are phenomenally efficient but exceptionally costly, and would be far and beyond ahead of most every jurisdiction in the Country. Collier County would be a leader at that point, but at a cost to the Industry, · The only thing that I would understand as not being disruptive at this point would be a Fire Service charge on a line but with a corresponding reduction that matches the charge, · It is the only thing that I think makes sense for us to take to the full DSAC Committee and to recommend up the line to the Board of County Commissioners, Otherwise, we're just adding a charge without a corresponding reduction for a system that currently serves all the Fire Districts in this County. 8 16 1 18 1 <<4 January 7, 2011 · We've always thought that at some point, Utilities would go to the Board of County Commissioners and present its findings and the Subcommittee would present ours as discussed among Industry and our group - and the Board would make its decision, Nathan Beals: · I think the meters and backflow discussion can wait until we have a response from the Fire Districts and Fire Review. We can talk to them to find out if the monitoring results come back with a high enough pressure at 65-psi, and would they change their position, · Once we have that answer, we would then be able to move forward. · The reason why we're here today is to discuss the billing that you raised at previous meetings, and we can hold off on that until we have that decision made and leave it "as is," Chairman Dunnavant: · I do think the current billing rate is inequitable for those who utilize more than 5,000 gallons _0 especially if they do it two months in a row,.. they will pay for two years worth of service in two months, unless there is something in the Statutes to state that they get a single assessment over a 12-month period or calendar year or fiscal year, · I think it is less inequitable than adding a Fire Service line charge across the board throughout this County without a corresponding reduction in the user rate, · As the Fire Sprinkler Association and Ed Riley (Fire Code Official) have stated before, it still is tough to realize that Utilities is charging more to people who put the capital cost into installing a fire protection system and who, in the event of a fire, would actually use less water than another house on the same street that uses the hydrant and pays nothing but the water bill, · I think we all are somewhat dazed or confused at this point - I'd love to get something else, but I don't see how. I understand Utilities' position and I'll entertain any further discussion, but we have to move one party or the other, or we have to say, "This is where we are," and we take it to DSAC and we'll each make our presentations there, Joey Hatfield: · A couple of thoughts to help move forward: (1) Modify the language of the existing Ordinance to state that the fee would be charged at 1I1th of the stand-by rate if someone uses water in excess of what is considered to be the "norm," Right now, it is 5,000 gallons. (2) Increase the number to 10,000 gallons, (3) Adding a clause that allows for arbitration by the property owner or manager to, at his cost, be able to dispute that charge. · In the Proposal provided by Utilities, I would suggest adding this language to the paragraph at the bottom, 9 16 j ,1 B 1 January 7,2011 · The issue with the fee is once usage hits 5,000 gallons on a line in a month, the user is charged the full fee and charged the entire full fee again in the second month. It doesn't seem to make sense. · If someone used an excessive amount of water -- 10,000 gallons in a month - for legitimate or non-legitimate reasons, that they would pay 1I1th of that entire fee and the water usage over the 10,000 gallons and, before they were charged that, to have a forum to be able to bring their case to a group of their peers, including the Water Department and Industry, to say this is why it happened and a decision made as to whether it as warranted. Chairman Dunnavant: · The only way to determine that is if there is a meter on the line, Joey Hatfield: · This is in the cases where there are meters, Chairman Dunnavant: · That's right. The discussion ofthe meter on the line is to determine the lost water - the theft of water, · I don't understand, and I know it's deferred for the moment, but I don't understand how we can talk about even an existing meter on the line or the thing Utilities is trying to pursue, i.e., the capture of the theft of water, without understanding how Utilities would do it on existing lines. · The only way I know of is to go to a meter which, as I've said, throws every design currently in place into turmoil. · It seems to me that, just as Utilities has done for the past 30 years, whatever water loss Utilities had has - whether it was due to loss or leakage or inefficient meters or low flow - it had to be made up through a user fate as opposed to pursuing a meter. · To meter, from this point forward, doesn't make sense, · Meter going backwards makes even less sense and creates turmoil. · A way to offset that, as I have said, may be instituting a reasonable monthly Fire Service charge as presented on Page 3 of the handout. · But to support that - because we know that for years - Utilities has covered the cost for the Fire Service, there has to be a reduction in the user rate to implement the Fire Service charge. · Otherwise, I think we're agreeing to add a cost to the public without a corresponding reduction, without a change in capacity or service, Tom Wides: · As we go through to do our next Rate Study - we have one that just finished -- but when we go to do the next 'One in about two years - what will happen is we will gather all the sources of revenue and will include, if implemented, the 1112th. · It will drive a different user rate. · Everything else will stay the same. It will drive a lower user rate. · What I look for is all my sources of revenue and all my costs, and that's what drives the rate, 10 16' 1 B41 kj January 7, 2011 · So, yes, what you're looking for - if nothing else changes - no inflationary costs - nothing else changes, it will drive a lower user rate, Chairman Dunnavant: · Then, what we're discussing is implementing one for two years without the adjustment in order to offset what I think is a very disturbing current procedure for Fire Service. Tom Wides: · That is correct -- until we have some experience, Chairman Dunnavant: · What I would like to hear is - to pursue that, because I don't understand and no amount of discussion is going to make me understand, I think: I'd like to believe that if we were to recommend a Fire Service line charge that Utilities acknowledges and stops the pursuit of a fire meter, · I don't know how else to do it. · Utilities is not going to capture any water in the existing system which is built out to 60% capacity currently in probably 80% of the buildings that we have now - and, as I have said, the thought of retrofitting is just unpalatable, (Melissa Ahern arrived at 2:07 PM.) · It seems to me to be nearly that clear unless someone can tell me it's not. · The RPZs is a whole other issue which is -- yes, you are achieving superior protection at a superior cost. · Do we feel that - and the BCC can tell us whether they want to lead the Country in that protection at a cost to the public or are they willing to be more like the rest of the Country in the WW A recommendations. Tom Wides: · On the discussion of the availability charge and the meter, we can take that back for discussion internally and come back with a position, · On the RPZ topic, I don't know where we are going with that. Chairman Dunnavant: · I think its incumbent that we, as Industry, need to do better, We maintain that it is cost prohibitive, · We need to be clear and make a presentation on that cost and the BCC will have to determine if the likelihood of contamination or the protection of the public is worth that cost. · I know that those of us who have happily used Collier County Utilities' water system for years now, we haven't had fear in the current protection mechanisms in place. · I don't understand the need for additional costs to be incurred to be more protected, II 161'1 B 1 January 7,2011 · Collier County has a phenomenal water system and RPZs will make it more phenomenal and may protect the public more, but I think the current risk to the public is so minimal that the cost doesn't measure up, Melissa Ahern requested a brief summary of the discussion, Chairman Dunnavant: · We came to the conclusion that - at least from my perspective and I don't think anybody on the Industry side has said "no" - to implement ", · I started with something you said at the last meeting that bothered me, which was that we were thrusting a new cost onto consumers throughout the County that they are not aware of. · I started the meeting with - maybe I'll just back away from this and live with the existing standard even though I think on a monthly basis if you use more than 5,000 gallons, it's completely unfair, · It has evolved, r think, to the point that on Page Three of the handout, it lists what the monthly 1/12th cost is currently for a Fire Service that, in order to support that because the concept, as explained in our discussions, haven't made any sense to me - that a fire meter to capture lost water really benefits the system when it will be done only on new buildings and new services and to implement it on existing services would create chaos in every design in the structures, · So r have just asked Mr, Wides to consider is for us to support a monthly service charge on a fire line and the discussion of meters goes away. · Because to do it really doesn't accommodate the task of capturing the water loss that exists in the current system, and to have it only on new stuff going forward is just an additional cost when that same amount ofloss is always going to be in place, · I remain concerned that we walk out and there may be a retrofit aspect that comes out at some other time and that would be chaos, And I think the Industry would be very disturbed about that. · r think we know Utilities' position on RPZs and we can't deny that RPZs are more effective, The question is whether there is adequate risk right now to necessitate the additional cost for RPZs. . That's where we are, David Hurst: · That is where we left off. · I have some additional questions. · Is there anyway to upsize the by-pass meter so it continues working past 3 gpm? r know that is the issue because it shuts down at 3 gpm and you cannot record the volume after that point. · rfwe could find a way to upside that meter so it doesn't affect the pressure and minimally increases the cost of the back-flow and Utilities still is able to record the volume and then, obviously, find some way to mitigate being "hit" twice in two months with a user fee - can we look at that? 12 161.1B1 January 7, 2011 Nathan Beals: · I think I brought it up at a previous meeting that the thought of - it's a good idea but nobody is currently making the back-flows with detectors larger than a %- inch or a one-inch, depending on the size of the back-flow. · To get a larger meter put on there and still have it FM rated, it has to go through the FM process to get it approved even if it is on the detector line. · Anything that touches the fire line once it becomes a dedicated fire line has to be listed. · Ed Riley stated that in a previous meeting, · There is nobody that makes one with a larger by-pass. David Hurst: · There is a %-inch that is approved and a 6-inch, an 8-inch, etc, meters that are FM approved. · You don't have anything in between there? Nathan Beals: · But retrofitting those onto - as a by-pass - on the meter itself, unless you custom make where you have the "t" ,.. is that what you're talking about? · But that would - it would still only - it would still have more restriction going through the meter and a back-flow on the by-pass.., David Hurst: . Some, but it's a by-pass.., Nathan Beals: · If it's the by-pass, it will have less - it will have more restriction on that - having both the meter - than it would have going through the full assembly - therefore, making it pointless, · Because it would go the easiest route with less restrictions - the water would, · It would end up being, basically, the same issue we have now with Detector Checks that are %-inch. David Hurst: · I'm not so sure - I think the problem is with the meter - not the flow through on the by-pass. · I think the issue is the meter shuts down at 3 gpm - not that it's flowing faster than 3 gpm through that by-pass, so if you put a larger meter on there, I'm not understanding why. , . Nathan Beals: · Once it goes - I believe that the way it works is that if it is more than 3 gpm, three gallons per minute, it has less restriction going through the larger - it doesn't there's no valve or anything that shuts off automatically - there's no mechanics - it just won't go through that because it's easier to flow through the full-size back-flow -- the pressure on the checks opens it up. 13 161 81 ~anuary 7, 2011 David Hurst: · So, essentially, what you're talking about is a routine of the checks - so the springs would have to be calibrated differently, Nathan Beals: · Which, again, would require FM review. David Hurst: · Obviously, we can't change the Industry. · But we're talking about meters that are going to be FM .~ evaluating them for FM approval, and I don't know what process can be gone through to get back- flows that work, , , Nathan Beals: · On top of that, they have to be USC approved which is a multi-year process. That's not even for fire use - that's just for it to be an approved back-flow to be used on potable water systems, · Just as a comment, I don't know if Joe or Tom can answer this, charges can be disputed - correct? .Joe Bellone: · In the Billing Ordinance, there is a Dispute Resolution Process so you can raise it -- yes. Chairman Dunnavant: · Is it any easier than your Deviation Process? Chris Mitchell: · For the record, it's a lot easier now, Chairman Dunnavant: · The one thing I will state is - from when I walked into the meeting today - I have changed, I was -- rather than recommending a fire line service charge throughout the County - I was going to say just leave the current in place and people will just have to be more astute to argue their bill when they are erroneously billed. · But, I think that there is a semi-reasonable consideration on the table and, again, all we can do is make a recommendation and see what the balance of the Committee wants to recommend, Tom Wides: · We did discuss, and I did agree, to-go back and discuss internally on the availability without a meter, · I don't know where that will go ... 14 16 JiB + January 7, 2011 Chairman Dunnavant: · I understand - I think the only thing I am concerned about saying is that I can't guarantee the full DSAC Committee is going to support that if you came back. · Somebody else may feel like I did - no, we can't put a charge throughout the County - we've got a difficult Ordinance in place right now and we'll just have to live with that. · In some ways, I'd like to just attack that Ordinance but that's really starting back from scratch. Melissa Ahern: · How many businesses will this rate affect? Nathan Beals: · The last numbers that we had - approximately 1500 - a little less than 1500 that have existing dedicated fire lines, Chris Mitchell: · That you know have a meter or a Detector Check Valve? Nathan Beals: · That's correct. Pam Libby: . That also includes some single-family. · I think it would probably be about 500 residential and about 1,000 businesses. Joey Hatfield: · Are you talking about multi-family residential? Pam Libby: . Yes, sir. David Hurst: · Do you have any idea what the, maybe, the average line size might be? More sixes than eights, more eights than ..,? Nathan Beals: · That's kind of the whole reason why we have an issue determining a final value of how much money this is going to cost the Industry because every system is different. Very rarely are there two systems that are identical. · Joey can attest to that. · It depends - if you're looking at line size service, I would say they range from two to eight-inch mostly. · Unless it's a large development that then goes to dual eight-inch meters to a 12- inch main or a 10-inch main around it. · Joey might be able to answer better. 15 1611 ijl January 7, 2011 Joey Hatfield: · Eight would probably be the ''max'' size of back-flow unless you have an industrial facility that has some kind of specialty fire sprinkler system. · Just some thoughts - if we were to look at these kinds of numbers, Tom, if you took the number of connections, system-wide, and you divided that into the total number of fire lines, system-wide, you would come up with a percentage, · If you take the value of the unaccounted for water - the dollar value of that - and you looked at what that percentage of fire lines to connections were - would then the dollar value that if you had this stand-by feed, would it cover that percentage? · If we start using some logic like that, then we all might be more understanding of where we are at with this, If we are going to look at eliminating meters from the table and RPZs, and supporting this stand-by water fee, if we had the numbers ~ real data - that we could get our arms around and wrap our minds around, it might be able to make more sense, · If the total fee, system-wide, for the fire lines covered the percentage of the missing water, it might make sense. · Is that data available? Is it possible? Does that logic make sense? Tom Wides: · Well, it's probably possible but I've had a lot of people doing a lot of number crunching and we're still in the mud. · And before I go off and put anybody else on this assignment, I need some commitments - and I'm not even sure what those mean yet. · I walked in here this afternoon as did everybody else and thought we were going in one direction, and now we seem to have reversed and I'm not sure the Committee is even - it's just that, as David said earlier, I just want to make sure I know where we're heading and I'm not sure once we solve this issue, that we aren't going to revert back to the RPZs, Chairman Dunnavant: · Let me understand - we came into today to, basically, only discuss implementation of the fire line service charge and we're actually saying we have a way where we think can support that. So I don't know that we have, actually, reversed, · I started to when I said, "Let's scrap this whole idea and leave it." · But if we're going to support the fire line meter size charge - and that's what we actually came in here to do today - we're saying we can, but we have a stipulation on how we feel that needs to go. · You need to verify whether you can support that from your side, · I don't know that it's an accurate statement that we've gone and completely reversed, We've come right back to where we walked in the room intending to do which is to recommend the implementation of a fire line service charge despite the Sprinkler Association's and Ed Riley's concerns, · I am taking it as you stated, that even though it is two years away, when the next rate service charge calculation is done, that the cost for the fire line service charge will be implemented into the new user rate for domestic water, 16 161 1 81 t4 January 7,2011 Tom Wides: · Well, David, with all due respect, that's not what I understood. I thought you were saying to leave the Ordinance alone, · And the only thing I committed to was to take back a discussion concerning availability. · So, wherever we're at, I just, . . David Dunnavant: · Hold on. I think it's important that at least the folks in Industry need to tell me if I'm mis-stating, but I want to make sure that we understand that you understand what we're proposing at this point which is - if we don't understand there's an agreement to disregard the discussion of meters on fire lines because it [installing meters] is not going to meet your stated objective of recovering - of determining any lost water in the existing system and the only way to do that would be to go to retrofit the existing system which would cause chaos on friction calculations throughout. So, if we can get that waived away, then we would, I think, recommend supporting fire line service charges despite any objections from entities That would be our recommendation, · Ifwe don't hear that on the meters - then, no, we can't commit to a fire line service charge, and our only position at that point is to just leave it where it is, · You are right, we would leave it where it is unless we understand that we can get this last commitment or discussion, and agreement on supporting a fire line service charge, · Joey would like to - and we would all like to - tie the RPZs in, but it is actually a separate issue. Tom Wides:' . Agreed. Chairman Dunnavant: · That is a separate issue, It is not predicated on fire line service charge or a meter. · The fire line service charge and meters go hand-in-hand. Tom Wides: · And, again, we'll go back and discuss the opportunity on the meter side, Chairman Dunnavant: · The probable next time to bring it up, may be, as opposed to trying to publically notice a Subcommittee meeting would be at the normally noticed DSAC meeting in February. · And I think with that in place, typically Melissa is in the audience and Joey and Chris attend at times, but David and I should be there with others - and if you've got a statement on that, I think we can present a recommendation to the full DSAC Committee that can be taken forward, 17 1611 Hil w January 7, 2011 Tom Wides: · I think we can make that commitment. · What date are we talking about? Judy Puig: · The next DSAC meeting will be February 2nd at 3:00 PM, Tom Wides: · I think we can do that. Chairman Dunnavant. · All right. I am sorry for the roller-coaster. I apologize for considering a completely counter-intuitive discussion from where we have been, but I think we're ending exactly where we walked in the room anticipating being - which is a way for us to recommend the fire line service charge even though there are some misgivings about it. · The service fate user calculation will make that fall out in the future, · There are some legitimate concerns and there were discussions about charging people for having fire service but what we don't want to do is discourage people from having a dedicated fire service. · If they perceive that as an additional charge - there have been places around the Country where that has been problematic. · We do not want to discourage people from using a more efficient system because they feel it is a punitive cost. Melissa Ahern: · You mentioned the cost falling off going into the rate, Is that up for discussion? Chairman Dunnavant: · What Tom stated was - I had said it was hard to support a fire line service charge without a corresponding rate reduction since the system currently provides fire service and we would be adding an additional charge, · He said the current user rate study had just concluded but there would be one in two years - SOt basically, for two years there may be a little bit of a double-up, but that - taken into account as a revenue source - in two years on Utilities new user rate study, it would drop out. Vll. Committee Member Comments: (None) Next Meetin!!: To be Determined 18 16 j ~~. B 1 January 7,2011 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chairman at 2:27 PM. / DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE UTILITIESIRPZ SUB CO ~j David Dunnavant, Chairm The Minutes w7'~roved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended , I//ro/;JOI( I ' 19 'RECE1VED APR 1 1 ~011 Fiala ,j- t.. '1 . Hiller ~ tlQnn/ng -:r ~ = Coy/G v Colette ~~ - v ~~ Board of Counly Commissioners MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 2,2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room #610, Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation, 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: Vice Chair: William Varian David Dunnavant Ray Allain James Boughton Clay Brooker Laura Spurgeon DeJohn Dalas Disney Marco Espinar (Excused) Blair Foley Reagan Henry George Hermanson (Excused) David Hurst Reed Jarvi Robert Mulhere Mario Valle ALSO PRESENT: Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, GMD Planning & Regulation JudyPuig, Operations Analyst- Staff Liaison James French, Director - Operations & Regulatory Management Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director- Transportation Engineering Ed Riley, Fire Code Official- Fire Code Office Nathan Beals, Project Manager - Public Utilities Claudine Auclair, Manager - Business Center Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialist - Stormwater Joe Bellone, Manager - Public Utility Billing & Custo~~: Pam Libby, Manger- Water Operations Fred Reisch!, Planner - Operations & Regulatory Mana~~nt Item': CC1!ies t.): 10 I FL~J I. Call to Order: Chairman William Varian called the meeting to order at 3 :00 PM and read the procedures to be observed during the meeting, ll. ADDroval of Aeenda: Mario Valle moved to approve the Agenda as submitted. Second by Dalas Disney. Carried unanimously, 11 - o. m. ADDroval of Minutes - January 5, 2011 Meeting: Dalas Disney moved to approve the Minutes for the January 5, 2011 meeting as submitted. Second by Clay Brooker. Carried unanimously, 11 - o. IV. Public SDeakers: (Will be heard when Item is discussed.) (David Dunnavant arrived at 3:05 PM) V. Growth Manaeement Division - Staff Announcements/UDdates: A. Public Utilities Division Update: Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Q. Is the County planning to operate the Orange Tree Utility Plant in 2012? A. The Plan is in the reviewing phase. As noted, the demand for services has declined.. B. Fire Review Update: Ed Riley - Fire Code Official, Fire Code Office . The Monthly Activity Report for December 2010 was submitted, o A total of 662 reviews were conducted. Q. Concerning fire separation walls in a proposed built-out - the Fire Department inspects the framing, insulation, and drywall, Is it a duplication of efforts for the Building side to perform the same inspections? A. The Fire Code Office and the Building Department have different points of view and may not require inspections of the same items, i.e., the Building Code may require an inspection of a wall but Fire will not, and vice versa, It depends on which Code is in effect. If there is only one inspection, something may be missed, (Reed Jarvi arrived at 3:07 PM) C. Transportation Planning Division Update: Jay Ahmad, P.E., Director, Transportation Engineering . The Davis and Collier Projects were sent to the Purchasing Department to advertise for bids on February 9th, o Davis - from Radio Road to Collier o Collier -under 1-75 (from Davis north to the Golden Gate canal) · The plans for both projects have been finalized - Permits have been obtained and Rights-of-Way have been acquired, · Bids will be opened in March and construction will begin in June/July. 2 16 I 1 ~1 February 2,2011 Q. What is the status of the White Boulevard Bridge? Is it going forward? A. The Public Information Meeting was held last week. The attendees were advised of the improvements on 23m Street. Two bridges are planned. The 23m Street Bridge will be a new bridge over the Canal and the new White Boulevard Bridge will replace the current FDOT bridge which is in need of repair, Some of the comments received were concerning the intersection of White and 23m, We have proposed 3-way Stop Signs, Comments suggested realigning the curb and installation of traffic signals, Various options will be examined to determine a solution for the intersection situation. The target date to begin construction of these projects is December, Q. Was there any discussion or plans to install a temporary traffic light at 23m and the Boulevard? A. Yes. During construction of the first project- the 23m Street Bridge- a temporary traffic light will be installed, D. Planning and Regulation Update: James French, Director, Operations and Regulatory Management and Claudine Auclair - Manager, Business Center · Re: SDP and SDP-I process in Land Development Review o The "Kaizen" Event (Study) was completed. (Definition: Japanese for "improvement" or "change for the better." When used in business and applied to the workplace, Kaizen refers to activities that continually improve all functions, and involves all employees from the CEO to assembly line workers, It also applies to processes, such as purchasing and logistics. By improving standardized activities and processes. Kaizen aims to eliminate waste.) · Claudine Auclair served as the Project Team Leader o Other participants included Tatiana Gust - Building Manager, the County Engineer, the Director of Land Development Services, and Melissa Ahern from CBIA, in addition to members from several compames, o Reports were made to Industry on a daily basis and feedback was obtained. Ms. Auclair reported the following: · The Team consisted of 14 members for the five-day Event o Each step of the current Site Development Plan Review Process was examined to determine which documents could be eliminated to improve the process. o The Implementation Phase is beginning - a new process for SDPs and Insubstantial Changes will be ready in approximately two months · 50% of current applications are classified as "Insubstantial Changes" · The current Land Development Code will be reviewed · Goal: to reduce the steps, the number of reviews, and to decrease the amount of time spent in reviewing documents · The participation of the Fire Code Office staffwas noted 3 161 18 1 . I February 2, 2011 Q. Is a summary (of the results) available? A. (Claudine Auclair) A questionnaire is being developed to determine where an application fits in the Insubstantial Change process. The applicant will save money because the correct number of copies required for submission will be known in advance, An option under consideration is to schedule a group meeting to review the application rather than circulating it. This will speed up obtaining an approval- if there are only minor changes, the applicant can log onto his laptop, make the changes to the document and submit it. The Records Room will print the document, and it will be stamped, signed, and the process will be completed, Mr. French noted Digital Plan Submittal, which has been requested by the County Manager, the Board of County Commissioners and Industry, will be available within the next six months, Q. You said applicants will be required to provide "more information" upfront - please explain. A. Some applicants are better than others concerning submittals, Nick Casalanguida stated the way questions are framed will be more concise and clear, If a project does not impact environmental sensitive land or preserve areas, then an environmental review may not be necessary, A set of questions will be developed to help Staff automatically filter the applications and route them to the correct reviewer. Ms. Auclair noted the questions will help eliminate "grey" areas ("pre-documentation"), The reviewers will determine whether or not they need to see a specific application, Q. Did anyone address the fact that, in an SDP-I or Amendment, the information to be provided by the applicant is already contained in the County's files? A. Yes. The questionnaire will be key in providing the information to help Staff determine which way to go. Q. When is the questionnaire to be completed - prior to or at the Pre-Application Meeting? A. Yes - prior to pre-app, It was noted due to reduced Staff levels, the time frames are not necessarily met all the time. Claudine Auclair stated there were 69 SDP-I applications submitted between July through December 2010 and there are 50 currently in process. By categorizing the applications into Levels, approximately ten could have been settled by a simple correction, The goal is to reduce paperwork and time. There are 31 steps in the current SDP-I Process that may be reduced to six (81 %), and Staff time should be reduced from 33 to 11 hours, or from 4 - 13 days to 5 days. Q. What qualifies as an "Insubstantial Change" in the Land Development Code? Has there been any discussion of relaxing the criteria listed in the LDC so more applications will fall on the "Insubstantial" side? 4 1611.B 1 .. February 2, 2011 A. Nick obtained comments from Industry and revising the LDC was a top priority, It was agreed the key issue is the LDC. It was noted "as built" corrections were also discussed, The Kaizen Event for Building Permit Applications was very successful and that process has improved. Implementation of the new process will take approximately six months and will be "tweaked" as appropriate. A formal presentation of the Kaizen Event will be made at a future DSAC meeting, Other Items: · Jamie French announced John Blackburn, Building Inspector, passed away recently, John worked for the County for approximately 13 years and was a knowledgeable, valued colleague and dear friend, · Nick Casalanguida noted one of the Commissioners commented on Fire Review asking why a bill was not sent to the Fire Code Office for the service provided by the Business Center. It is a value-added service. One option is to amend the Inter-Local Agreement to state that Fire Review is included in the Business Center's fees, Mr. Casalanguida asked for direction from DSAC. It was noted the functions (cashiering, final typing, etc.) do not exist in the Fire Code Office and for Fire Code to do so would be a duplication of services, which did not make economic sense. Dalas Disney moved to approve forwarding a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Inter-Local Agreement to acknowledge the service provided by the Business Center to the Fire Code Officefor collection offees and cashiering continue as a value-added service through the GMD's Fee Schedule. Second by Robert Mulhere. Carried unanimously, 13 - o. VI. Old Business: A. Update: LDC Amendments - Nick Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator, Planning & Regulation & Fred Reischl, Planner - Opr. & Regulatory Management · A meeting is scheduled for February 9th with CBIA · The requests provided by CBIA have been provided to the County Manager's Office via an "Executive Summary of Staff Analysis for CBIA," · The final version will be distributed to the DSAC members via email. · DSAC Members' comments should be sent to the Staff Liaison, Judy Puig, who will forward them to Mr. Casalanguida, · Suggestion: revive the Land Development Regulations Subcommittee to review and vet the Executive Summary (Clay Brooker is the Chair; Members included David Dunnavant, Marco Espinar, George Hermanson, Reed Jarvi, and Robert Mulhere). · LDC Amendments have been requested by the CRAs and the Immokalee Master Plan, as well as the Administrative Code, 5 16 I 1 B '1 February 2, 2011 Q. Have there been any discussions about creating a new LDC (from scratch) since the current Code is so confusing and has been amended so many times? It is very difficult to use. A. In order to do that, a group of professionals would have to devote themselves totally to developing a new Land Development Code but no one is available. Q. What did the outside consultant do? A. He developed the Administrative Code by removing portions from the LDC. It was noted that the LDC can only be amended twice a year, B. Recommendation: Fire Line Service Charge - Nathan Beals · The Administrative Stay concerning the issue of implementation of meters and bacldlow devices is still in effect. · The Fire Districts and the Fire Code Office have chosen several sites for review and monitor with a goal of increasing the design pressure from 50-psi to whatever it may be. · Monitoring began six weeks ago. The period of review is one year, · The question of changing the design criteria is currently unknown, It will be determined at a later date after the data has been collected, · A copy of the proposed fee schedule was distributed to the Members. The new billing will charge a monthly fee to all connections based on the size of the service connection and is in line with 23 - 24 other communities for Potable Water Supplies in Florida, · The new fees will place Collier County in the middle of those communities, · If the billing schedule is approved, Utilities will remove the issue ofline size meters from consideration, (Blair Foley left at 4:00 PM) Q. What are we supposed to do - where are the other pages - where is the rest of the information? A. The Agenda title is confusing and should have stated "Update" - no recommendation is requested at this time, Nothing will be done until the pressure study is completed, Q. Is this for new connections only? A. It is for all connections. Q. Will this policy become retroactive for the entire County? Joe Bellone, Manager - Utility Billing & Customer Service: · Page I outlines the potable water rates and Page 2 outlines the sewer rates, · The Fire Service section begins on Page 3. · This is the proposal that Utilities made to the Subcommittee in lieu of the current billing structure - a fixed charge will be assessed to all connections to the County's potable system. Q. Forwhat? A. To have water available. 6 16 '~,1 8..1 February 2, 2011 Q. Because we are tapped into your line? I have a six-inch line on a complex on Immokalee Road and you [public Utilities] want $60 per month for what? A. To have the water available when you need it. Q. It's already there, I don't understand - it's already there. [Member comment: ''With 40% excess capacity."] A. It's there because Pam Libby's group maintains the valves, the lines, and the pressures, There are fixed costs and this has been discussed with the Subcommittee, Q. As paid for through our property taxes, A. No - property taxes have nothing to do with Utility rates. Q. User fees? A. Yes - user fees, Only people connected to the system pay for the system, Q. You said "in lieu of the current fee structure" - what does that mean? A. This is a proposal to change the billing fee structure for Fire Service connections. Right now, Fire Service connections that are metered - if you use less than 5,000 gallons in any month, you do not pay anything, If you use more than 5,000 gallons in any month, you pay for all consumption plus a full availability charge which is 12 times what you see on this document. Q. That's a contradiction suggesting that only Fire Services pays that now, your document says this will be in addition to having a meter on your line, A. That's correct. Q. SO this is not "in lieu of' the old - but in addition to what currently exists? A. This is the proposal that's on the table, In answer to your question - "yes" - everyone that's connected to the potable water system - every Fire connection. Q. The proposal references Sections 25.- 30.465 of the Florida Administrative Code ("F AC") for Private Fire Protection Rates which says that Utilities can charge 1112th of the rate, The F AC also references three other Statutes for its authority- one of which was nullified in January 2011. Two others seem pretty vague and don't specify how you apply a rate or derive a rate, Also confusing is the statement, "." connections to Collier County's water system for the purpose of providing service on a stand-by basis for fire protection .,." I would think if you are going to propose a fee structure that's in place, we need to know what you're going to do with those fees and what's going to happen as you collect those. Will the fees go into the General Fund and you can spend them on whatever you want? A. Utilities is a separate fund. Utilities has one "cup of costs" and has to retire it because there is no profit. Q. What we're dealing with here is a system that already has enormous excess capacity and you're asking for a fee to provide a service of stand-by which we already have - so what are these fees going to be used for? A. These are to cover the fixed costs - not the variable costs that we have ifw~ are required to produce more water. It has nothing to do with consumption"- it is all to do with fixed fees, 7 16 J 1 B 1 February 2,2011 Q. There needs to be a study with regard to how much service is used by Fire. I don't think you can just apply another municipality's rate structure based on whether Collier County is lower or higher because it has to be - in its entire structure - you have to know everything that they pay and how their budgets are used and how their billing is done to say that this is appropriate, They may have this built into somewhere else which I think we also have now, as well, because the Estates don't have any fire service, They don't have any hydrants or anything. Is there something in the Ad Valorem taxes that covers this? A. This has nothing to do with Ad Valorem or the Estates. The Estates is not serviced through potable water lines - which is the only thing that the proposal is referring to, Q. This is going to roll to everyone because it is going to commercial sites and that just goes back into what it costs to do business which affects all the end-users as well. It does not make much sense if Utilities does not have a specific use for the funds, The Administrative Code cited was instituted in 1993. So why come back 18 years later and ask for these fees? Pam Libby, Manager - Water Operations: · Our rate study was just completed and discussed in the Subcommittee meeting, · If the fees go through in one year, it will be factored into the next Rate Study and there would be an off-set to the existing fees. Comment: The residential rate users will be receiving a subsidy from the commercial users having a potable water connection solely for the purpose of fire protection, Joe Bellone stated everyone who is connected to the potable system through a Fire Service connection would be paying that. Chairman Varian clarified if the proposal goes into effect, another Rate Study will be conducted and the across-the-board fees may be reduced, Pam Libby noted there are as many residential Fire lines as commercial fire lines in use. David Dunnavant, Subcommittee Chairman: . 1bis is something that I requested and thank Nathan for presenting it. · The proposal is an attempt to eliminate the "Don Quixote" pursuit of requiring fire meters on lines. · To do it on every new service from this point forward for the stated objective of trying to identify lost water revenue makes no sense, . The only way to do that is to go to existing lines - and to do that would throw every calculation on every fire system that exists in this County completely into chaos. · The proposal is not stated strongly enough that'meters will "come off the table" if approved. The issue of meters would no longer be pursued by Utilities, · The Subcommittee discussed that this would generate revenue and users should receive a corresponding credit. · Utilities stated their next Rate Study is two years away. g 16 I 1 d 1 ,~ February 2,2011 · The Fire Code Officials have expressed dismay regarding stand-by service charges as has the Fire Sprinkler Association. - . .,- ~.. _:e.Yt i{!lwre is a .<;.qrr~p-Q!!QiIlgJeJJll.l;~tiQ:t;l in.domestic water user.,rates, it makes sense - it's a net trade-out. . · The question is whether we want to consider that for the two-year period, · The current Ordinance is not well-crafted. It went through in 2008 without any oversight. It states if a facility somehow uses more than 5,000 gallons in one month, it will be charged an annual rate, Projects that are being charged 12 times any of the listed rates on a monthly basis for using approximately $20 worth of water, · It is apparent that this is a complete error, · The question is whether we allow that error to continue for two more years until there is a corresponding rate reduction. If this were a trade-off, the proposal would not be a ''hard sell," · I remain concerned about Utilities intended objective of increased pressure, Even if increased pressure is shown, I don't think Industry is going to be supportive of adding additional costs to the lines through reduced pressure backflows or through fire meters which I think is what we're heading toward, · We have to start understanding the pressures, · We're not going anywhere very fast - we can take a Subcommittee vote on whether it is a "good thing" or not but I don't think it would survive the Subcommittee as a recommendation. · The Subcommittee does not have a recommendation for DSAC, Discussion ensued and some of the points made were: · The Utilities Rate Study to be conducted in two years and may result in a rate adjustment. · The proposal may not become effective until October 1, 2011, · Is it fair to ask for meters on new connections and not ask for meters on existing connections? · 5% loss is average in the Industry as "acceptable loss" -- is it necessary to try to recapture that 5% loss, · The County's position is "no free service" - what can be done if meters are not required? · The current fees cover the costs for 95% of the water that is produced. · "User fees" should be charged only when water is used - not for the "potential" to use it, · Suggestion: a "surcharge" for fire service rather than a user fee, · It was thought the fee was to be distributed across all users - commercial as well as residential. Pam Libby stated "those who benefit pay" - the people who have a dedicated fire service line are receiving a benefit that the individuals without a fire line are not receiving, Every meter in Collier County is charged an availability fee each month whether service is used or not - it has been built into the rates, 9 161 1 B 1 February 2, 2011 Public Speaker: Melissa Ahern, CBIA: . The issue begainijfifrtietet"is-sue -- Utilities' goal was to recoup the 5% water loss which was assumed to have been caused by the fire lines . It could not be definitely established that the fire lines caused the loss and when questioned, Tom Wides stated without meters on fIre lines, he could not be sure what caused the loss . In March, 2010, Utilities stated, "A one percent loss (for non-billed usage) equates to $160,000 loss in water revenues" or approximately $800,000 in lost revenues for the 5%. . Using the rates (1,000 units for commercia1l5,000 units for residential with fire lines), a calculation of the revenue generated will be approximately $950,000 on the low side, . The Subcommittee was told Utilities would examine the issue two years down the road when the Rate Study was conducted, . CBIA is not confident that when the rates are re-evaluated in two years, something else will come up to take the place of the differential in the costs. . CBIA opposed the water meters and the monthly charge, After lengthy discussion, the consensus was that more discussion is necessary. vu. New Business: A. Update: Watershed Plan - Request to form Subcommittee - Mac Hatcher. Senior Environmental Specialist - Stormwater and Environmental Planning (A copy of a January 26, 2011 Memorandum was distributed to the Members.) . A request was made to form a Subcommittee to assist with recommendations from DSAC to affect policies and Ordinances for the Watershed Management Plan . There is no direct connection with the Floodplain Committee or the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance . PBS&J ("Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan") is the lead Consultant on the Proj ect which has been in the works since 2007 . There will be some recommendations that relate to site planning and will be of interest to DSAC . The County does not have a current Watershed Management Plan in existence . Goal: to develop the most effective mechanisms to protect the County's water resources . The County is required by the Federal government to enhance impaired water bodies (water quality) o Nutrient loading, evaluating discharge rates, improving recharge characteristics . County's website provides a great deal of background information and a Powerpoint presentation from PBS&J is also on the web site . Board directed 10 IF~!~~J3 '1 .-4 Robert Mulhere disclosed he is a sub-consultant doing some work for PBS&J and will not sit on the Subcommittee DSAC's engineers practicing in water management: Reed Jarvi, Blair Foley, David Hurst, George Hermanson, and Marco Espinar, B. Update: Fee Ordinance-Jamie French · Jamie French requested clarification :from DSAC · Chairman Varian asked if there are more than six months of Reserves, did the Ordinance require a reduction in fees, (Robert Mulhere and David Hurst left at 4:55 PM) · A mixture of funds (#113, General, #131) supports Business Center employees · It will take some time but he will return with the information on the true cost to operate business, i.e., Plan reviews and Building inspections · Mr. French will be able to bring the figures back on a quarterly basis and will recognize the Statutory guidance regarding Reserves and fees may be reduced or increased, as appropriate Chairman Varian stated his concern: that DSAC comply with its responsibilities as outlined in the Ordinance. VllI. Committee Member Comments: (None) Next Meetine: Dates: (Meetings will commence at 3:00 PM unless noted below.) March 2, 2011 April 6, 2011 May 4, 2011 June 1,2011 There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chairman at 5:00 PM. 11 , . 161JiJjtl February 2,2011 .... DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE <'" ~ William Varian, Chairman The Minutes were proved by the Board/Committee on as presented , or as amended L-J. yft(, I 12 ,2011, R,Ece~VED. APR 2 ~ 2011 Fiala. 1) / Hiller - ...~ t1Einnlng :r 1;/ Coyle _'_ Coiett@ ~~-:/ -- 16' 1a.2 Board oi CQullly c.t)ffimk~c;iooers Floodplain Management Planning Committee Ray Smith, ChalTt11an Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Meeting Minutes for 4-5-10 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m, End: 11 :02 a.m, Location: 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Mike Bosi (alternate for Carolina Valera), Dan Summers, Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, John Torre, Mac Hatcher, Stan Chrzanowski, Travis Gossard, Brooke Hollander, Ananta Nath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, Chuck Mohlke (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert Wiley. Absent: Christine Sutherland (Excused), Herb Luntz, Bob Devlin, and Christa Carrera, There were four members of the public and six additional staff in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman, Mr, Chuck Moblke was introduced by Ray Smith. Mr, Moblke has been appointed by the Mayor of Everglades City to serve as an alternate for Mr. Terry Smallwood when needed. The County Manager has accepted this appointment, OLD BUSINESS: 1. Approval of minutes for the 2-1-10 Regular Meeting - Motion to approve by Joe Gagnier, Phil Brougham asked that the next meeting date shown on the last page be changed to March, Duke asked that the CDES letterhead be omitted from the Committee"s meeting minutes, Ray Smith requested the correction of a typographical-error on page 3 of 6 last full paragraph third line from the bottom the sentence says ''His stated his problem" should be corrected to "He stated his problem"; motion passed lmanlmously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy/replacement - Robert Wiley informed the Committee that we continue to advertise monthly for the one citizen volunteer position vacancy. Ray Smith asked about which position is vacant, and Robert WIley informed. the Committee it was for the position formerly filled by Mr. Kokkinos, 3. FMPC Membership Attendance Policy - Phil Brougham provided comment for Item "a" for the last sentence of that Item. He requested the inclusion of specific information for the purpose of the statement "After the consenting vote of the Committee,". Duke Vasey offered information for an alternative to the proposed policy, He distributed an attf?ndance policy MISC. Corres: Page 1 of8 2- CCi~fSG f',o: 16 I 1 B~2 ~ document for the Committee to review and consider. He did not recommend a change of the By-laws, and simply recommended an attendance policy by this Committee. He stated it looked like the Committee was looking for attendance, a way of communicating lack of attendance, and a way to secure a policy, Phil Brougham asked Duke Vasey to again explain his objection to amending the By-laws, Duke stated that he did not have a copy of the By- laws, and thought we could do it by simply adopting an attendance policy. Dan Summers asked who would grant the excused absence, he assumed it would be the Chalrman, and Duke agreed. Phil Brougham asked if we did not amend the By-laws, where in the By-laws does it reference currently that there is an attendance policy, He is looking for something of a permanent nature here. Duke Vasey responded that he bad provided Robert Wiley with changes to the staff's draft attendance policy, but the only thing left was about nine lines. Duke included essentially all of his changes to the "Whereas" statements in the resolution which were in the short document that he thought would do the same thing. Incorporating this proposed policy into the By-laws could be done simply by renumbering the paragraphs to conforming to the numbering of the By-laws. Either way, the proposed document could be accepted for inclusion into the By-laws or accept it as an attendance policy. Ray Smith stated his desire to adopt something and move so we can get to the other agenda items, Lew Schmidt stated his understanding that the Committee would be going to quarterly meetings so paragraph B(3) of the proposed attendance policy would need to be revised, Duke Vasey replied that even by going to quarterly meetings it is still within a 12 month period, not necessarily a calendar year, so if a person misses four meetings (either excused or unexcused) they would be replaced, It could be that the time would be a full year. Ray Smith asked for a motion to adopt one of the two attendance policies that are on the table. Duke Vasey motioned for adoption of the policy he proposed. Stan Chrzanowski seconded the motion. Phil Brougham stated he had no issues with Duke~ s attendance policy as long as it is adopted into the By-laws. That was added to the motion, Ananta Nath inquired about a policy on proxy, and how long can it go on. Duke Vasey responded that as it stands right now, there is no provision for proxy, Duke then discussed some changes that he made to the staff policy document and sent to Robert Wiley. But Duke didn~t like the staff's policy document, so he drafted his simple attendance policy, If a person is not in attendance, they are simply not there, If a person shows up, they have full voting powers, If a member can't attend and their alternate attends, it is the alternate that votes. Phil Brougham stated his understanding there is no proxy, but there are alternates, so if the alternate attends, their presence is the same as if the member was in attendance, The motion to approve the attendance policy distributed by Duke Vasey passed on a 16-1 vote, NEW BUSINESS 1. Presen~tion on the 2010 dune repair and beach vegetation planting programs - Gary McAlpin was not yet in attendance, so this item was passed until Mr. McAlpin could arrive from another meeting. Mr. McAlpin was able to give his presentation following discussion on the Amendments to the Floodplain Management Plan (New Business Item 6). He stated that every year the Coastal Zone Management department appropriates $75,000 through tourist development tax funds to enhance, repair, and rebuild the dune system throughout Collier County, About 3 years ago they planted about 800,000 plants with a major beach renourishment, and they Page 2 of8 16 j '1 ~/:: have maintained that with the yearly supplements, The plantings are on the leading face of the dune systems throughout the coast, primarily with sea oats, but also with other beach vegetation that will put down beach roots to protect the dune system, With Tropical Storm Fay in 2009 they noticed between 1,5 to 2 feet of dune sand accretion, The program is working, and they intend to continue the program. When they do another major beach renourishment they will look to augment that with another major replanting. They work with private property owners as most of the plantings are on private property. 2, NPDES Best Management Practices Outreach - Steve Preston from the Stonnwater Management Section provided an introduction on what the NPDES program involves, It is a federal program and generally, NPDES was for point source pollution, but in 1992 NPDES entered into non-point source pollution permitting. Based upon the population density and total population, Collier County was issued an NPDES MS4 Phase IT stonnwater permit in May 2003. The permit requires the County to identify Best Management Practices that we intend to implement throughout the County to help prevent pollution from entering stormwater systems and then exiting into waters of the State, Of the six Best Management Practice (BMP) areas identified in the permit:, two involve public education/outreach and public involvement/participation. The public education/outreach BMP is currently fairly small in effort compared to some of the other BMP areas, The County has a web site which is an outlet to other agencies. It serves as a hub of information to all potential polluters, Lawn care and landscape is one of the bigger pollutant sources for Collier County. The major source of outreach is currently the PUD homeowner association meeting program. The County provides some funding to Rookery Bay to conduct a "green industrY' training program using the University of Florida information. There is training provided on urban pond management These efforts are combined into a Project Greenscape effort. Duke Vasey asked Steve about the use of this training as a requirement for licensing of people in the landscaping industry. The City of Naples and City of Marco Island both require this, Steve confirmed that the County does not require the training as a condition for licensing, Duke asked if there was a reason not to make the training a requirement for landscaping occupational licensing, Steve said this has been discussed for a number of years, and he thought this was going to be considered as an outcome of the Watershed Management Planning effort. Steve thought the County may institute the training requirement as soon as 2011. Duke asked for an explanation of where the County's training requirement would be included (e.g. AUIR task for budgeting, grant funding, become a task on a job description), Steve replied that he thought it would probably be in the form of an ordinance requirement. Duke then asked the Chairman to make it a formal request to find out when the development of an ordinance requirement for trailiing would be done, Duke Vasey continued his questioning by asking how the NPDES program used information from the County's and the Big Cypress Basin's pollution sampling program, where are the pollutants coming from, how far up the stream do they start, and how is that tied to Code Enforcement? He is especially interested in learning how the County connects the pollution sampling program, the stormwater drainage program, and the NPDES program. Ray Smith provided information on the County's trend monitoring sampling program with approximately 63 sampling locations that are sampled monthly, The data collected is submitted quarterly to the South Florida Water Management District and is placed into the Districes DBHYDRO database which is available to the public. Mac Hatcher then discussed how the Watershed Management Planning effort is using the data in DBHYDRO to evaluate Page 3 of8 i 6 I 1 ~2 for water quality problems. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection bas used this same data to identify water quality problems for development of impaired waters lists. No point sources have been identified as the polluter, and it appears that water quality it is a non-point source problem. Ray Smith stated that the County does have active programs that go out to specific point sources to conduct compliance inspections to eliminate potential they may have on impacting groundwater bodies in the County. Duke asked if there have been instances where Code Enforcement has taken enforcement action on either point source or non-point source discharge. Ray Smith confirmed enforcement action for point source non- compliance. Steve Preston provided additional input regarding the NPDES MS4 permitting actions when a water body is considered impaired by FDEP and Total Maximum Daily Loads have been established, If no point source is identified, the County"s non-point source permit becomes the only contributor to the cause of the pollutant loading, and the County must then re- examine its BMPs for that water body that would reduce the pollution that is apparently overloading the system, The solutions are usually fairly general in nature (e.g, limiting use of fertilizer, use of reuse water, limiting runoff, etc,), The County has not yet had to do this. The FDEP has identified some impaired waters, but the ongoing County efforts to remediate these problems were deemed sufficient to forego the development of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) which are the instrument used to get all stakeholders together and come up with a list of remedies to reduce pollution in the impaired watersheds. The FDEP is currently monitoring activities already taking place ~d presumed to be able to take care of the problem, Duke Vasey then asked how this tied into the County" s drainage plan. Steve Preston said that the drainage plan doesn't necessarily go beyond what is required through the South Florida Water Management District design criteria. There is still the use of presumptive criteria for water quality treatment. Duke asked if Steve's comments were based upon use of the 2002 South Florida Water Management District BMPs, to which Steve suggested that perhaps Stan Chrzanowski would know the date, Duke then asked for an explanation of the County" s funding to Rookery Bay staff, and whether the funding was specifically for them to conduct a class for a certain group of people, or is the County just giving them money. Steve stated the County has given $25,000 each year for the past three years towards the Project Greenscape certification for the "green industry'" worker training. "'Ibis training works along side of University of Florida Extension Office training programs for herbicide and pesticide applicator training, . Steve has not asked for specific accounting of the funding, Rookery Bay gives a report back on the number and types of training, and the number and types of workers. Duke asked for a copy of the lesson plan used by Rookery Bay for that training program, and wanted to know what they were doing for the money they receive, Steve agreed to ask for that information from Rookery Bay. 3. Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report - 2009 - Robert Wiley provided information on the purpose for the annual progress report, He stated that there were no new activities proposed for this year beyond the "Top Five'" issues identified for completion last year. The effort will focus on finishing those remaining items. Of those five, further action is being deferred indefinitely on the installation of cross drain policy and the mapping of mobile homes and mapping of flood insurance policy holder addresses. In particular a question arose on potential privacy issues for mapping flood insurance policy addresses, so that activity was stopped. Mobile home park: mapping was developed and will not need to be Page 4 of8 161,U- 82' updated for a couple of years, The Progress Report is small and designed to identify issues that the Board of County Commissioners needs to be aware 0:4 identifying the major things that were or were not accomplished for the year, Phil Brougham asked about Action Plan for 2010 proposed completion dates and if they were supported by the Action Plan Work Plan item to be reviewed next on the agenda. Robert confirmed that they are supposed to be the same, but a final check will be made to make them the same. Phil then asked if the proposed October completion date for the Flood Damage PreveQ,tion Ordinance is for the draft ordinance distributed with today's agenda package. Robert confirmed that information. Dan Summers discussed the proposed Action Plan item to discuss the All Hazards information with the local real estate community. He discussed the efforts that the Emergency Management department does to reach out to the business community, but noted that these types of information are usually not well received by the business community, The real estate industry understands these challenges, but they do not see this as a marketing advantage to them. Duke Vasey asked that the report identify who the Board is, correct sentences where the direct object doesn't fit the subject, and says the report needs a good edit He also said the progress report and the action plan have differences and need a good cross check. Ray Smith asked that an accounting be made for the sub-committee meetings that were held, since they were also publicly noticed. Ray also requested a better referencing of acr~nyms to identify all of them, 4. Floodplain Management Plan Action Plan Items (Director Commitments) - Robert Wiley explained that the Action Plan lists the items proposed for this year, with category "A" items being annual events. He then went through each of the line items to discuss what is needed to be accomplished, Phil Brougham requested that the order of columns be changed to identify the activity first followed by the status. Duke Vasey stated his desire to see the columns arranged by tas~ condition and then standard. Ray Smith asked if the pmpose of the spreadsheet was to identify what is being stated under the director commitment. Robert Wiley said the purpose is to show the different action items for 2010, the commitments received from the directors to get the job done on a schedule. Where Road Maintenance did not provide an e-mail commitment, Travis Gossard provided information that Mr. Vliet is in agreement Dan Summers provided the commi1ment at the meeting for the Storm Ready ~erti:fication program. Nick Casalanguida; CDES Interim Administrator, stated that there Will be a consolidation of staff and agendas for some of the scheduled evening public meetings on floodplain management information to align with annual property owner association meetings, Upon completion of reviewing all of the action items, Travis Gossard asked if there was a continued interest in mapping the locations of existing cross drains, because they are currently inventorying them, Robert responded to please continue mapping existing cross drains. Nick Casalanguida then explained that this Action Plan identifies what we are going to accomplish, The two documents distnouted today (Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and Floodplain Management Plan) will receive comments from the Committee over the next three months as the Committee starts meeting on a quarterly basis, Phil Brougham agreed with the quarterly meeting schedule, and asked if there could be interim e-mail status updates to keep the Committee members informed. Nick committed staff to do that on a monthly basis. Travis requested getting a yearly schedule of the proposed meeting dates so they can be scheduled on their calendars. Ray Smith asked about a lead time for delivery of items to be on the Committee~s agenda, Travis then discussed a previous request of the Committee to receive copies of all e-mails correspondence involving the Committee, and so far he hasn't seen this happen. He asked for at least a week in Page 5 of8 16j1 Q.2 advance for distribution of the agenda documents. Ifitems are ready earlier, send them out as soon as they are ready. Chuck Mohlke mentioned there may be conflicts with schedules. Phil Brougham re-emphasized the early delivery of work products was desirable, and not waiting to deliver the items in a large single package. They could be distributed once they have reached the stage of being ready for review by the Committee. Duke Vasey asked that the information distributed to the Committee be put on the web site. There is a broader audience that may want to review and provide comment. . Use of the web site could allow for review and placement of comments, John Torre said the infonnation could be posted on the web site, ifhe was just notified of what to post. Setting up an interactive site would take some work, such as a share-point site, but then the issue of complying with the Florida Sunshine Law may become an issue. Ray Smith agreed with posting on the web site for public availability, but all comments would need to be sent to the staff coordinator and not to each Committee member, 5". Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - Ray Smith stated his concern for the Division administrators to be given time to review and provide comment on the draft ordinance. Duke Vasey made a motion to table the item and to be brought back at the next regularly scheduled . meeting, Dan Summers discussed the items that Emergency Management had inserted into the draft ordinance with the concurrence of the County Attorney. Dan supported the tabling, but is willing to address the items he added to the draft ordinance if someone has questions. Duke Vasey appreciated the brevity of the draft ordinance, but felt that the glossary needed changes so he has dealt only with glossary comments. Nick Casalanguida asked for this draft ordinance to be reviewed during the three months between meetings to see if there are any glaring comments and get those back to staff. Tabling the item and not providing feedback over the next three months may create a situation where other Administrators provide comment and then the Committee has to start its review all over again, He would like to be able to compile all the comments and be able to come back with them in the July meeting, Duke Vasey stated he had provided both an electronic version and a printed version ofhis comments to Robert Wiley. Dan Summers provided additional discussion on the intent of the provisions for FEMA temporary housing and the need for Emergency Management to write a strategic post disaster housing plan for the community. The FEMA national housing strategy has gone through many changes over the past year, and is about a year late in coming out. !fthere is a huge housing loss in Collier County, it is important to be able to have an option to provide temporary housing close to neighborhoods, schools and communities so people cari. get back on their feet and not have a mass exodus of disaster victims. The wording also clearly has an exit strategy. Ray Smith asked about the schedule for adoption of the ordinance and Dan Summers~ need to have his work effort go forward. Ray asked Robert Wiley on the ordinance's schedule, and was told the goal was for adoption in October. Dan said he was agreeable with the ordinance adoption schedule, Dan put forth the option for the Board of County Commissioners to use a state of emergency proclamation if needed for the FEMA temporary housing issue. Pierre Bruno brought forth a point of order that although there was a motion for tabling the item, discussion had continued, so perhaps there should be some consideration to either withdraw the motion or vote the motion down, Perhaps the Committee could simply vacate further discussion on the issue as a Committee of the whole, so the issue would not be on the Page 6 of8 16 j 1 .ija ~ table and essentially dead. Duke Vasey agreed to withdraw the motion to allow for the discussion, He then asked when the next part of the or9ffiance would be provided for evaluation to which Ray Smith responded the next discussion would be at the July meeting. Nick Casalanguida said that as review comments are provided to staff by the administrators, DSAC, etc. these comments would be provided to the FMPC so they would have the benefit of seeing all the comments by the July meeting, A discussion ensued on when the FMPC members should complete their individual reviews and submit their comments to Robert Wiley. Phil Brougham inquired as to the order of presentation to the various review boards (FMPC, DSAC, CCPC and then BCC) and which version of the ordinance is presented as the review continues. Nick sai~ the ordinance would be taken to DSAC before the July FMPC meeting so he could get their comments early. Ray Smith proposed that staff comments be provided to Robert within 30 days, Duke Vasey addressed adding some definitions and a glossary of acronyms into the ordinance to help people better understand some terms, including a definition of the new digital flood insurance rate maps (DFIRMs), Robert Wiley discussed an e-mailed suggestion from the State to remove the word "cumulative" from the definition of "substantial improvement" to avoid the possible assumption that the ordinance was creating a "cumulative substantial improvement" term which requires additional record keeping on the County and impacts to the owner. A second point that Robert identified is the use offloodproofing for non-residential structures. The state's model ordinance include language to require floodproofing to one foot above the base flood elevation (BFE), but since that is a higher regulatory requirement than FEMA" s minimum requirement to flood proof to the BFE staff removed the additional foot requirement. Robert noted that there is an impact to the property owner of a floodproofed structure in that flood insurance rating requires rating at one foot below the level of the floodproofing, By flood proofing only to the BFE, it can increase flood insurance costs roughly five fold. Ray asked Robert to bring these points to the FMPC's attention when the comments received from staff and DSAC are distributed. Stan Chrzanowski. asked about an owner making improvements to a structure for less than the 50% value threshold, thereby increasing the value of the structure, and then two years later the owner making improvements using the increased value of the structure as the 50% threshold number. Robert confirmed that was correct and was one of the reasons that FEMA wants to have cumulative consideration, Travis asked if there was ever a cost benefit analysis done for homeowners to use in considering whether it will cost them more to raise it one foot or pay the additional insurance cost, Robert Wiley clarified that floodproofing is only allowed for a non-residential structure, so it would not be a home. 6. Amendments to the Floodplain Management Plan - Mike DeRuntz discussed his task to modify the Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) to make it less cumbersome, reorganize it to follow the CRS numbering structure and address comments on crosswalk steps 7and 8 by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) during their previous review, Mike briefly described how the materials were arranged on the CD that was distributed to all the FMPC members, his working with Sherry Harper at ISO to get her comments on the revised step 7 and 8 areas, and additional information placed in the Plan to increase our CRS point scoring in the next crosswalk review. Mike felt the County may be able to pick up an additiona1174 CRS points with these revisions. Mike discussed the Action Plan activity prioritization process Page 7 of8 16111 B2 .4 developed for inclusion in the FMP and how this affected the order of priority of the current Action Items. 7, Public Comments - Tim Nance spoke to address some of the factors in the draft flood damage prevention ordinance, He felt there were a couple of very significant needs that will make the document much clearer and reach its objectives without having unintended consequences. The definition of "accessory structure" is on page 3 of the draft but the term is not addressed anywhere at all in the ordinance document Golden Gate Estates are rural residential areas intended to be residences but people also use agricultural sorts of buildings as part of the lifestyle included in the development of Golden Gate Estates, Elsewhere in rural Collier County, there are agricultural properties which have agricultural structures which are not permitted by the County, meaning they can be constructed without permits. He then listed some types of accessory structures which were omitted, which were agricultural structures (e.g. head houses, bams, greenhouses, shade houses, kennels, stables and aviaries) that he considered well to address, The current draft ordinance document, in Section 5(B) Specific Standards, it would appear that all structures regulated under the ordinance are classified as either residential construction or non-residential construction, There is no specific mention made of accessory structures and he felt it would provide clarity to include a section on accessory structures and how they are to be handled, Golden Gate Estates currently has 30,000 residents which is approximately 10% of the Collier County pppulation, Including those people who live in agricultural lands may increase that percentage to 15% of the people who will be regulated. The people in Golden Gate Estates would not like to see all accessory structures elevated. Adding that sort of fill might exacerbate the flooding situation to the occupied residences, Next Meeting: Monday, July 12, 2010 starting at 9:00 am. in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. 'er passed unanimously at 11 :02 a,m. -/0 Page 80f8 Beard C! Gfl~!ll'Y GQfNftiS.<;ion~r~ _ ' -.-__. _ ~'_ L___~."""" - . f!1~tt!.--. 3/ Millar V ~etlflli1~ -r tP ./ Coyle v Colef\t1 v ~ - Floodplain Management Planning Committee \R.E(~E!VED. APR 2 12011 ~ 161 :B~,;. T Ray Smith, C.hairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I.) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt . Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey. Christine Sutherland Meeting Minutes for 7-12-10 Regular Meeting Start: 9:00 a,m, End: 10:25 a,m. Location: 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Mike Bosi (alternate for Carolina Valera), Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers); Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Travis Gossard, Brooke Hollander, Ananta Nath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Lew Schmidt, Phillip Brougham, Chuck Mohlke (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert.Wiley, Absent: John Torre (Excused), Stan Chrzanowski (Excused), Christine Sutherland, Herl? Luntz, Joseph Gagnier (Excused), Pierre Bl'llD:o (Excused), Bob Devlin, and Christa 9arrera, There was one member of the public and two additional staff in attendance, Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. OLD BUSINESS: 1, Approval of minutes for the 4-5-10 Regular Meeting - Motion to approve by D~e Vasey. Chuck Mohlke requested changing the term "substitute" to "alternate" and that was agreeable to the Committee, He also identified a few misspellings. Phil Brougham requested .clarification of the wording under Old Bus~ess Item 2 to read "continue to advertise' monthly for the", Ray Smith requested editing Old Business Item 3, page 2 of 8, second paragraph line 9 to read "Phil Brougham stated he had no issues", Lew Schmidt requested a corrected spelling of his name in Old Business Item 3, page 2 of 8, second paragraph line 2, Vote to approve the corrected minutes passed unanimously, 2. FMPC membership vacancy/replacement - Robert Wiley informed the Committee that we continue to advertise monthly for the one citizen volunteer position vacancy, Phil Brougham asked how long we will continue to advertise before we consider downsizing the Committee, Robert Wiley stated that decision would be made by the County Manager, There is also the need to address the County's reorganization of the Transportation and CDES divisions into a . single Growth Management Division. The issue has been put forth to go up to the County Manager's office. Phil Brougham questioned why continue to incur the advertising cost until the issue of Committee membership number is settled, Ray Smith asked if there were any specific requirements on Committee membership size. Robert Wiley explained the CRS recommendations for local government department representation and the desire to have at least an equal number of citizen participants, Ten dep~ents were selected fMic. Corrts: Date: Page 1 of 11 Item#: CC~:38 L.fl: 16. j 1 'p2 ~ representation, so ten citizen members were chosen, alonRwith one representative from each of the three municipalities. Mi', MoWke is here today as the representative for Everglades City. Duke Vasey discussed how the County's advertising is done via e-mail and it is on the web site, so technically there is no cost. Duke Vasey felt the number of committee members was not as important as the community involvement and level of competent staffing represented, Phil Brougham concurred that the County's reorganization and consolidation of departnlents shouldn't create any penalization of the Countyby having one department responsible for more than one function as long as all of the functional requirements are represented per what FEMA asks. Robert Wiley clarified the desire to keep the Committee's citizen membership at least equal to staff membership, 3. FMPC Membership Attendance Policy - Ray Smith discussed the attendance policy approved by the Committee was based 'upon the Committee meeting once a month. Now that the Committee meetings have been changed to once a quarter, it is very confusing in Section B, I through 3, Ray Smith offered an amendment to the previously approved attendance policy as follows: . B(l) remains the same - the member has two unexcused absences in a row B(2) - the member has three excused absences within a 12-month period B(3) -:- is deleted from the policy Duke Vasey asked Chuck MoWke if these proposed changes remove the confusion. Chuck Mohlke responded that the proposed changes appeared to be in order and offered to' make the proposed changes as a motion for approval. The motion was seconded and Duke Vasey asked if the attendance policy was to be brought into the Committee's By-Laws, as previously recommended by Phil Brougham. Chairman Smith had no problem to including . the attendance policy into the Committee's By-Laws, Duke Vasey asked Phil Brougham to motion for inclusion into the By-Laws, and Mr, Brougham so moved, Lew Schmidt then questioned whether the Committee should vote on the first motion that was on the floor for discussion. The motion for approval passed unanimously. Phil Brougham then made a motion to adopt the approved attendance policy into the Committee's By-Laws. The motion was seconded, no one expressed any discussion of the motion, and it passed unanimously. 4. Amendments to the Floodplain Management Plan - Robert Wiley provided comments that with the Division's reorganization, there are places where the current text of the Floodplain Management Plan (FMP) will need to be revised, Since no other comments were received from the Committee, with those few revisions, staff now proposes to go to the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) for their review and comment if the approval of the Floodplain Management Planning Committee is received today, Duke Vasey observed that in the minutes is says there were some comments made that the FMP is too difficult to read because there doesn't appear to be an outline form, the style changes from paragraph to paragraph, there appear to be' a lot of redundancies in it, and he was not able to read through the document effectively, although each sentence could be read . effectively, The entire FMP, which is too long, needs to be re-thought, and maybe in the reorganization perhaps an outline can be developed on what needs to be covered to satisfy this important area and once outlined, perhaps someone responsible could integrate all those parts that appear everywhere in the FMP into one area, Page 2 of 11 16' 1 B2 .., Chuck Mohlke offered a caution on editing to remove redundancies without having more than one person involved to make sure minor details are still kept that may be different in various areas of the document. He advised on preparing a consolidated summary of some of the extensive documentation currently within the FMP, Phil Brougham asked how tightwe are tied to a specific format in content by FEMA. Robert Wiley advised there are certain topics that must be addressed, but the format is not specifically set and FEMA's preference is for concise documents using the order of topics . presented in the review crosswalk, Phil Brougham stated he felt we should consider making the FMP smaller and more readable in the future as staff time becomes available. Robert Wiley advised the Committee that if they want to have the FMP revised into a more concise document, now is the time to be giving that direction~ Phil Brougham then said he would like to see the entire document revisited, consolidated and condensed, and not lose meaning on more of the tangibles, but was concerned about the reasonable expectation of the availability of staff to do the. work. Ray Smith agreed With previously stated concerns about the size ofthe FMP and the repetition of some information, but recommended we move forward with the FMP with the understanding it will be revisited in the future to reduce its length and making it more user friendly, Duke Vasey commented that it is the redundancy that creates a problem because the same issue is addressed differently in a number of places which means the FMP looses effectiveness, He asked who the editor is for the County, meaning, is it each individual that proposes a plan or is editing the responsibility of some group, The document needs someone, the expert with the outline of what has to be covered, and then someone has to go into the document and scavenge all the information and shrink it dqwn into paragraphs to make it declarative or definitive. There is a lot of information with relevance, but not in the way it is presented, To be effective, the document needs to be read, used and understood, Rick Zyvoloski mentioned that the Residential Construction and Mitigation Progr~ is currently open and one of the opportunities to apply for a grant is funding for planning. There is planning money available if we wanted to go .for it, and that might. take care of staff time if you can get someone else to do the work. Chuck Mohlke mentioned a concern that hazard mitigation strategie's have been amended for the three municipalities, and that's an .independent action by a separate unit of government. .What he doesn't want to have happen is for Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades City to have to go back and revisit their recently adopted hazard mitigation strategies because the FMP is referenced in those documents, and incorporated by reference into what amounts to an official action by the respective municipalities. We don't want to raise that issue prematurely and then have something happen in terms of a natural or man-made disaster of some kind and then have regulatory agencies question whether the revised FMP applies to the adopted plans of the municipalities. Things like that can happen, Ray Smith advised Mr, Mohlke that the FMP currently before the Committee has been drafted and approved by the Board historically and has now had changes made to items 7 and 8, and the majority of the FMP is not necessarily new, Robert Wiley explained that the draft FMP is mostly the same text that has been reorganized to put it within the order of the crosswalk, Sections 7 and 8 were rewritten by Mike DeRuntz to address issues that were deficient on the crosswalk, Page 3 of 11 1.611B4 II Chuck Mohlke said his comments were only a cautionary note to address items incorporated by reference into other municipal documents and then if the reference4 document is amended in some fashion, you want to be sure that amendment comes to the attention of the other jurisdictions. Ray Smith stated that the other municipalities were members of the FMPC, Chuck Mohlke acknowledged the FMPC connection'but their Councils have made independent determinations about the hazard mitigation strategy that operates under Rick Zyvoloski's jurisdiction, and he may wish to comment. Rick Zyvoloski responded that each of the jurisdictions within the multi-jurisdiction mitigation strategy incorporated their aspect there. The City of Naples isn't required to have a FMP, Marco Island has their own FMP. The only thing that might cause a concern is with Everglades City which has adopted the County's plan, but Mr, Mohlke is the Everglades City representative and can look out for their interest if they need to go back and readopt. Rick Zyvoloski didn't see a problem if the editing only made the document more readable and didn~t really change the spirit and intent of the content of the FMP, ChuckMohlke agreed with Rick Zyvoloski's comments, but just wanted to be sure the matter was covered as a matter of record, Phil Brougham asked for someone to pursue the option for grant funding mentioned by Rick Zyvoloski, Rick responded that someone wo~d have to move quickly since the deadline is . August 2,2010 and the State didn't give a lot of D,otice time, That initia~ive would also have to be a part of the mitigation strategy which has a meeting this Friday, and the item would have to be prepared by then, Phil Brougham stated that getting an application in gets our foot in the door and if it then doesn't prove to be viable for what we need, we can decline any funding award. Ray Smith requested for Rick Zyvoloski to. work with Robert Wiley to fill out the application so it can be submitted, Ray asked Rick to send the information to Robert, Ananta Nath asked if the County was on a certain timeframe for having to complete the editing of the FMP, Robert Wiley responded that there is a deadline, but it is a long way in the future for what the County has to do, We can. use the current rating in the Community Rating System (CRS) program, which is what the FMP is a part of, for about 5 more years, Ananta Nath then recommended we pursue all avenues to make the document a more concise and readable document. . Ray Smith asked about Mike DeRuntz being hired to address review comments that the County received from FEMA, Mike was going to address those comments so we would have a plan that met all of the requirements that FEMA or the CRS manual placed on Collier County, That was done in this document package in draft form, Mike DeRuntz was hired as a consultant to work for the County for a short. period of time because we didn't have the staffing to move on, and we were getting very frustrated as a committee to accomplish this goal, and we did, Ray Smith recommended the Committee approve this draft to move forward with the understanding that in later editions and amendments we will work towards reducing the size and making it more user-friendly, which it needs to be, Ifwe start taking a step back again and looking for grant monies then we're just going to end up taking a lot longer to achieve this ifwe don't move forward with this, Then with the grant monies we make amendments in the future, Phil Brougham stated he is not in favor of pending the current plan and starting revisions, Let's move forward and get this in place, but use grant money to get new help in to simplify, consolidate and re-draft the FMP, and we have 5 years to do it, Ray Smith stated he was on Page 4 of 11 16' 1 1 8.2 J:<A i, .f . board with that concept. Phil Brougham made a motion to that effect. The motion was seconded, there was no additional discussion, and the motion passed unanimously. 5, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - Ray Smith voiced a concern with the ordinance draft presented today, He had recommended that specific comments be inserted into the copy being reviewed, and they are not in the copy to help benefit the Committee's opinion and vote on whether they should remain or be removed. Ray recommended, as Chairman of the FMPC, that this be tabled or not reviewed today and be reviewed at a later meeting just because of that, Duke Vasey commented that the ordinance re-write is much more readable, but he would still like to see some information added, and he provided that to Robert in writing, He would expect to see it for consideration in any republication or effort to bring it back to the Committee for approval. Ray Smith asked if Robert incorporated all of Duke's comments, Duke Vasey responded no, but there was a great job on a lot of them, His concern was on accessory ~tructures, which is a FEMA definition, but he felt it would be appropriate to add two paragraphs to Section 5 w~ch he has recommended, Also, the consolidation of an earlier portion of Section 5, that is now a series of statements, can be simplified so it is more readable, Duke offered those as contributions, Phil Brougham stated he was not aware of the recommendation made by Ray Smith, so he doesn't know w4at they are and can't comment on whether he agrees with them or not. He had a question regarding an e-mail sent out by Robert Wiley on 5-3-10 saying there was a scheduled presentation of the ordinance to DSAC on 5-5-10, Phil asked if that happened, Robert Wiley responded in the affirmative, and described that the presentation was simply to distribute copies of the ordinance draft and request DSAC members to review it and submit their comments within 30 days, Some people provided comments, and most did not. DSAC was informed that the ordinance would be scheduled on their August meeting agend~ for discussion, Ibis is the same procedure as was conducted with the FMPC where the document was distributed and comments requested within 30 days, Phil Brougham asked if individual DSAC member comments had. been Incorporated, Robert Wiley replied that some (he thought two) DSAC comments had been placed into the ordinance draft, Ray Smith stated that, just for the record, he submitted his comments 4-28-10 within that month period, and none of his comments were incorporated into the draft. Chuck Mohlke requested that for those who have concerns about "definitional issues" that are not related to some of the important policy statements that are incorporated into the ordinance, would the Chairman permit them to ask a few questions before tabling the issue to see whether or not there is any interest on the part of other members, In relation to the definitions of the terms repetitive loss and substantial damage, there are some questions that need to be asked before subsequent review. Ray Smith asked Chuck Mohlke if this was something that he could discuss offline with Robert, or would the benefit of Robert's answer benefit the Committee, Chuck Mohlke responded that he would at least like to receive a response on the record, so Ray Smith allowed him to proceed with the questions. Chuck Mohlke asked the FMPC members to turn to pages 10 and 11 of the draft ordinance document where he began to discuss the "repetitive loss" and "substantial damage" definitions. The "repetitive loss" statement has significant language edited from it, and it caused him to. go to the definition for "substantial damage", . Having read the edited changes, and the comment for the requirement for a tracking mechanism, he thought it was an Page 5 of 11 1.6 j 1 B, 6-\~ excellent one and he wondered how that matter is going to be resolved. If it is resolved elsewhere in the ordinance, in his one reading of the document, he did not see that. He thought the logic of a tracking mechanism was important and he asked Robert Wiley to comment on it. Robert explained the differences in the "repetitive loss" definition from what was in the State's model ordinance to what is the changed definition. FEMA's concern is to get rid of houses that they keep paying damage claims from flooding, That led to the development of a program to .correct this, and is what is reflected in the model ordinance where there is the description of the 25% value for two paid claims within a 1 O-year period, Within the "substantial damage" definition, FEMA added the statement to include a "repetitive loss" structure. This brings about a situation where a property owner can have a house that has never had damage that amounts to 50% of the value of the structure, but by having two paid flood claims with an average value of25% of the structure over a 10-year period, the building would now be declared as substantially damaged. When the owner comes to the County to get a permit to repair damage from the second flooding event, the County would have to require the building to be corre~ted from non-compliance with the base flood elevation, Joy Duperault, with the Florida Department of Emergency Management, recommended to not use the "repetitive loss" definition from the model ordinance, but to use the traditional definition of two $1,000 or greater paid flood insurance claims within a 10- year period, and not making a "repetitive loss" structure automatically become a "sqbstantially damage" structure, The State's recommendation, along with direction from Bill Lorenz, Director of the County's Land Development Services Dept., was used to make the recommended changes to the two definitions within the draft ordinance. The tracking mechanism that Mr, Mohlke is referencing would become a part of the building permit application review process, An additional question asking if the application was to correct damage from flooding would need to be added to the application form, That would allow the County to start tracking within the electronic permit application software used by the County. Once the County starts the tracking, it must continue, It is not an onerous requirement, but would bring up the question if this is a flooding issue, and the permit reviewer would have to look at the flood claim history for the structure to determine if the structure would become a "repetitive loss" structure, Additionally, the value of the structure would have to be provided and entered into the permit application so the percentage value number could be calculated for tracking purposes, FEMA did confirm that their methodology for calculating the 25% value number is to simply take the two claim percentages and average them. Chuck Mohlke felt Robert's explanation was very responsive for the record, and expressed his concern for a community that has routinely significant issues related to this because of it . vulnerability to major storm events, Whatever is done, for the purposes of the record, he asked for some assUrance that what Robert has outlined so carefully will be incorporated after passage of this ordinance as a routine protocol in regard to permit applications, Mr. Mohlke expressed knowing only too well what happens, as regards to repetitive loss and substantial damage and trying to merge the two in some'sensible way so people receive the assistance they believe they are entitled to, absent from their knowledge of this now . simplified and more straightforward definition of these issues. He requested some assurance the permit protocol mentioned by Robert would be incorporated somehow in an easily and understandable way. Ray Smith asked Jim Turner to respond to Chuck Mohlke's concerns, Page 6 of 11 .- 16 j 1 ~2 4 Jim Turner said he could agree with this concept, but would like to see some exceptions, Say if a permit application comes in for a repetitive loss structure that only needs a new roof, and they can't replace the roof until they bring the whole place up to the flood elevation, The owners want to repair the leaking roof and the County has to tell them to bring the whole house up, He didn't think that was right. Robert Wiley said he agreed with Jim's concern, but FEMA has made it real clear on the position they take, and it is their program, Jim Turner asked what would happen if we had that exception within our ordinance, Robert Wiley responded that FEMA would reject the ordinanqe. Jim Turner discussed the publications from FEMA that discuss exceptions for bringing structures up to code. Robert responded that issue deals with code safety issues, and you can't use code changes to not count the cost of the corrective work, such as replacing a roof. The exceptions deal mainly with electrical, plumbing, etc, situations where there is a definite safety hazard to dwell in the house one more day. Jim said he knew of two other jurisdictions here that are using that and allowing an architect to say a building is not up to code and they can go ahead and let them . do the work. Robert advised that what someone else chooses to do he didn't want to be led down the path on the. direction he gives to the County that will get us in trouble when we are audited, Jim Turner thought that allowance was in the local jurisdiction's ordinance. Robert Wiley responded that a local jurisdiction once received a 30-day letter from FEMA for what was in their ordinance, and he didn't want the County to go that way, Chuck Mohlke thanked the Chairman for allowing him to raise that point, he felt the discussion was beneficial, and for now, he was done with questions, Ray Smith then stated he was pushing the ordinance off to the next meeting, and the Committee members should be aware of the recommendations that he and the Public Utilities Division put into this ordinance for purposes of agreement or disagreement and being able to vote on them for approval or denial as a committee. Robert Wiley then asked for clarification from Ray Smith that he, as the person responsible for preparation of the ordinance document, should put in comments with Which he could not agree to. Should he put in every comment received, and say he .doesn't agree with it. Or, should he use discretion in knowing where the program needs to go to meet certain minimwn requirements, and simply leave them out so they are open for discussion at the meeting? Ray Smith referred to a statement in the minutes that have been approved from the last meeting where Nick Casalanguida stated that as review comments are provided to staff by administrators, DSAC, etc" these comments would be provided to the FMPC so they would have the benefit of seeing all the comm~nts by the July meeting. We did not meet that. That is why Ray is pushing it off. Robert Wiley then asked when is the next meeting, to which Ray Smith said it would be in 3 months at the next quarterly meeting, Robert asked. if Ray understood the imp~cts of that, and Ray acknowledged he understood the impacts, and granted people may agree or disagree with the comments provided, but they should have the capability of providing their feedback on those comments, Phil Brougham then said that regarding comments, in general, he felt it was very inefficient to gather comments from individual DSAC members and comments from individual Committee members and they go into a filtering system, which he thinks that was what Robert was alluding to. You can have comments that contradict somebody else's comments, and then what are you supposed to do. It just seems to be a very cumbersome way of moving forward rather than having each committee airing their comments, deciding on some direction in terms of some revision or addition, and then going forward. He was at a loss in no~ having the benefit of all these comments in trying to review and approve a document. He Page 7 of 11 16 j .ti "B2 1 " . has no way of knowing who said what, whether he agrees with who said what, or not. Therein again is a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare that prevents us from moving along smartly, He didn't lmow how they were expected to approve something that reflects comments when the comments have been edited, Ray Smith said that was his same con(!ern, that the Committee couldn't do it. Duke Vasey then stated that collaboration docUments are perhaps the most complicated documents you will ever review simply because you are looking at a divergent cross section. He felt the richness of comments is important, but he also values the judgment of staff where items are clearly contradictory to the purpose of either the governing directive or they are counterproductive to the ordinance itself, He thought there should be a side vehicle to take the comments and recognize they were considered and the reason they were not appended or included in the document. He didn't want to see all the metatags in Microsoft and when you look at this docum~nt and its complexity, he can understand the frustration that Robert would have with something Duke might say that was clearly wrong, However, he did participate and would like to know why he was wrong so he could change his way of thinking, On the other hand, there is no need to waste time stuffmg something into a paragraph just to strike it out. Maybe where we are right now is that in all likelihood, some of the things we have said are fine, some of the things conflict, other things need to be discussed, But the assembler, in this instance Robert, knows enough about the system to know what should be put in and what should not be put in, Where we get into trouble is that we have a Committee that is formed by 10 representatives of the community, 3 representatives of municipal governments, and we don't want to get into a competition with Robert over what the system says, But as he has pointed out, there are differing opinions within his own organization which have to be resolved, Maybe it is the resolution of those opinions which should be set out here, and they should be able to see a document that reads carefully through the law, meets the criteria, is easy to understand, and can be impleI?-ented, Ray Smith agreed that the comments should be recognized, they should be evaluated, either inserted and discussed at the Committee; or have reason that they're not inserted in a separate document, identifying or referencing a rule or regulation that they shouldn't be there, We need to see that as a Committee, He and Robert have talked offline and one of the recommendations, and in Robert's position, and Ray disagrees, all of the recommendations are in violation of the requirements associated with the development of this document. Ray disagreed that all of them are, but he agrees there should be a document as Duke suggests, that identifies why they have not been incorporated into the document. Ray Smith then asked Robert Wiley what are the concerns if the ordinance is pushed out 3 months, Robert Wiley explained there is not sufficient time to get the ordinance passed before the DFIRMsare supposed to become effective, At that poin~ we fail the program, we go to being thrown out of the flood insurance program. Ray Smith asked what the recommendation at this time was, Robert explained that he came to the meeting prepared to talk about the comments received, includingthose.not included in the document so there could be an open discussion about why they are not in, It was not his understanding he was supposed to put together a listing of every comment when it was not going to be put within the document. If that is what the Committee wants, it can be done, and we can come back next month instead of waiting 3 months, If the DFIRMS stay on schedule, and the public vetting process is just getting ready to start, they may be ready for approval about the end of this year, Phil Brougham asked why we can't meet next month. He suggested the Committee ~eet next Page 8 of 11 16 I r1 B~2 1 month, address only this item, and get it off the table. We don't want to jeopardize the program, and unless there is very substantive disagreement, it sounds like there is just a bunch of work to get through the document. Let's do it next month, to which Ray Smith agreed. Mac Hatcher asked why we couldn't start the discussion now, Ray Smith said everybody needed to have an opportunity to sit down and read the comments. Travis Gossard said he would not be able to be in attendance next month since it is an unscheduled meeting, Discussion then ensued on selecting a date for the next meeting based upon member and room availability, It was the consensus of the Committee to continue the meeting to 1 :30 p,m, on Friday, 7-16-10. Robert Wiley asked how much lead time the Committee members needed to review the document with all of the received comments, It was agreed to send out the comments document by 9:00 a.m. Thursday moming, 7-15-10, Ray Smith ~ted we needed a quorum to have the meeting, so he emphasized the need for Committee members to attend, Robert Wiley agreed to send out a meeting request as soon as he receive4 confirmation of the room reservation. NEW BUSINESS 1, Scheduling FMP Outreach Meetirigs - Robert Wiley' explained that every year there is an outreach program where we go out to the community in the evenings to talk about the . Floodplain Management Plan and primarily to get people to give comments about where they have observed flooding over the past year so we can get those locations to Travis in Road Maintenance so they can schedule a time to check if the problem is something that maintenance can correct. Last year we scheduled the meetings in the summer, and this year we have not yet scheduled the evening meetings because we have the conflict coming up with the series of meetings on the new flood zones during the week of August 16-20,2010, Nick Casalanguida has previously said he wanted us to start taking our Floodplain . Management Program out to various Homeowner Assqciation (HOA) meetings to consolidate staff participation time and. improve efficiency of effort. Robert has not heard back from Nick on the details of what he has in mind, Robert asked the Committee if they desired to try to plan for a series of evening meetings in September 2010, The flood zone meetings are with FEMA and are single-issue meetings, so we can't also be asking for floodplain and flooding input from the public, If the Committee members are going to be . around in September to attend and assist, and if Nick gives the approval to hold the meetings, what is the Committee's desire? The new Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) is supposed to be shipped to the County today for us to use in the August meetings, Ifwe schedule the Floodplain meetings in September, it gives people a chance to come back and ask questions about the flood zones while we discuss the floodplain issues, Ray Smith asked if we receive CRS credit for holding the flood zone meetings for the Preliminary DFIRM, Robert Wiley responded1hat we do not receive separate credit for CRS scoring for the DFIRM meetings like we do for the regular floodplain outreach meetings, The DFIRM meetings are single focus and we don't have the ability to receive public input for observed flooding, which is what is desired in the CRS program, Duke Vasey asked if the County knew what the local municipalities of Everglades City, Naples, and Marco Island plan to do with regard to the new DFIRMs, Robert Wiley responded that they are participating with the County in the evening meetings, Tuesday evening (8-17-10) there is a meeting at Norris Community Center in the City of Naples , Thursday (8-19-10) we meet at Page 9 of11 161'1 8,2 ir4 noon at Everglades City, and we meet at 5 p,m, on Marco Island on that same day, Robert said he didn't know specifically what the municipalities would do with the Preliminary DFIRMs, if they would do anything different than with the current FIRMs, Duke commented we have a need to present information to unincorporated Collier County, Robert then discussed the three Preliminary DFIRM meetings in the County on Monday (8-16-10) at St. John the Evangelist church, on Wednesday (8-18-10) at the IFAS building next to the County Fairgrounds, and on Friday (8-20-10) at the Immokalee Community Park. Lew Schmidt asked the time for the Monday meeting, to which Robertresponcied from 5 p,m, to 8 p.m, Robert also briefly discussed staff's availability to meet with other groups whenever desired and available to get as much information out as possible, Duke Vasey asked about the notices for these meetings, Robert Wiley described the notices that were sent out in the July water and sewer bills from the County, it is on the County's web page, and John Torre's office will be distributing the information through their notices, Robert was not aware of any separate advertisement to be placed in the newspaper, but there has been an outreach to them to try and get a news article on the issue. Ananta Nath asked if the information would be on the Floodplain web page, Robert said there is a separate DFIRM web page being set up with this information, but they will be linked together, Duke Vasey then asked if there will be an effort to present this information to the Naples Area Board of Realtors (NABOR) and the real estate industry, as well as the superintendent of the Public Schools. Robert responded that staff gave a presentation to NABOR last week, before actually receiving the Preliminary DFIRMs, to give them the information available, and they did ask us to come back and meet again as a follo\\:, up, The County has not talked to the School Board separately, yet. Usually, staff from the School Board will come to the County instead of the County approaching them, Chuck Mohlke asked if the Floodplain outreach meetings and locations can be known and scheduled before the DFIRM meetings take place so that information can be posted at the DFIRM public meetings, He thought that may increase the interest in the floodplain meetings, Ray Smith asked what we needed regarding a timeline to accomplish that. Robert responded that he only needed to know if the Committee desired to hqld separate floodplain evening meetings' in September, and if so he would work through Nick to see if Nick . approves or if he still wants to hold off and not have separate meetings, If the Committee wants to hold September meetings, and Nick agrees, it is just a matter of scheduling the meeting times and locations and sending out notices to the Committee members. Lew Schmidt thought meeting in September or October would be good to give opportunity for more residents to be here instead of the August meetings. Duke Vasey then motioned to continue the meeting until Friday (7-16-10) beginning at 1:30 p.m. at this same location, The motion was seconded, but prior to taking the vote, the Chairman moved to the Public Comment period for the one gentleman from the public. Upon completion of the public comment, the chairman returned to the previous motion, it was repeated by Duke Vasey, seconded by the same individual, and the motion passed unanimously: 2, Public Comments - Mike Rosen of 270 Tradewinds Avenue said he agreed with the gentleman from the Committee on needing to hold meetings in the latter part of the year for better representation when more people return, . Page 10 of 11 16 'I lSi2 '.4 Next Meeting: Friday, July 16,2010 starting atl:30 p,m, in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104, this meeting will resume from its continued status. etinguntil Friday, July 16,2010 at 1:30 p,m, by Duke Vasey passed ,.. Page 11 of 11 ,. "4>. ... 0 f11~10 : ~:l · · HIII8r V HdlH,IFIg ~-r )..1.-/ Coyle; . . V- Br;ardmC~UI1\.;i~~~~ Golel1a . u_ ..~ Floodplain Management Planning Committee 82 .. ..-.- -RECE~\/ED' APR 2 1 2011 Ray Smith, Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I,) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera. Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher . Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland ~eeting Minutes for 7-16-10 Continued Meeting from 7-12-10 Start: 1 :40 p,m. End: 4:23 p.m, . Location: 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 ~eeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Todd Wright (alternate for Travis Gossard), Brooke Hollander, Christine Sutherland, Clarence Tears, Duke Vasey, Phillip Brougham, Chuck Mohlke (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert Wiley, Absent: Carolina Valera (Excused), John Torre, Stan Chrzanowski (Excused), Herb Luntz, Joseph Gagnier (Excused), Pierre Bruno (Excused), Lew Schmidt (Excused), Bob Devlin, and Christa Carrera. There were no members of the public or additional staff in attendance, Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman, OLD BUSINESS: . 1. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - Robert Wiley opened discussion on the 7-10-10 draft of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) which he also had projected onto a screen for everyone to see. The Committee members were advised they should have received a 33-page document oftext and comments which was e-mailed to them, The preferred method of discussion is to go through the drat): FDPO and address each page along with the comments provided on the right hand side of each page, Page 1 - quickly discussed with no changes by FMPC. Page 2 - quickly discussed .with no changes by FMPC, Page 3 - Begins the start of a listing of definitions. R~garding "accessory structure" definition, separate sub-sections were added near the end ofthe.FDPO to address requests to expand the defInition rather than change FEMA's definition as contained within the FDPO. Chuck Mohlke asked if Robert Wiley was referencing the comments submitted by Jim Turner on 7-13-10, which are extensive and deal with specifIc standards for accessory structures as a proposed new B(8) and D(B) shown on page 33 of the "Comments Received on the 2-24-10 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Draft". Robert said those have not been included and are to be discussed today, DtM~~ys: , Page 1 of 15 Date: Item t: CC:~:3S 4 y// 16 I 1 B~4a ~ asked about the definition of "area of special flood hazard" as compared to the definition of "special flood hazard area" and one of the abbreviations for "special flood hazard area" which are synonymous, Robert explained that later in the ~efinitions starting with the letter "s", there is definition for "special flood hazard area" and it will" say "see area of special flood hazard", Robert agreed with Duke on the desire to carry the definition as "special flood hazard area", but FEMA uses the term as "area of special flood hazard", Ray Smith concurred with that explanation, Robert Wiley then addressed changes made to the definition for "area of shallow flooding". The term was modified to say "less than three feet" instead of the standard statement of "from one to three feet" so that the definition would conform to a clarification letter received from FEMA's Region IV office where anything under three feet in depth is considered as shallow flooding. Ray Smith asked for confirmation that the ordinance is staying with minimum. requirements, as previously agreed, Robert confirmed the ordinance is staying with minimum requirements for the most part, and he will identify where we do not stay with minimum requirements when we get to them, Page 4 ...., Robert Wiley discussed the previous request of Duke Vasey to put together a list of acronyms, He still intends to create and insert that list, but doesn't plan on doing so until after the various review committees have completed their reviews, Duke Vasey asked about the definition of "agricultural buildings" which is not included, but had been requested in earlier comments, He requested a definition of "Agricultural buildings are structures designed for fanning and agricultural practices including, but not limited to: growing and harvesting of crops and raising livestock and small animals and includes barns, greenhouses, storage buildings for farm equipment, animals, supplies or feed, storage buildings for equipment used to implement fanning and/or agricultural practices, storage buildings for crops grown and raised on site ( cold storage), and horticultural nursery," Robert said he would add as much of that definition as he can once he determines how it lines up with what FEMA says. He was not sure he could include every one of those specific terms. There may be overlap with the terms in "accessory structures", so we don't want to mix the two definitions, Mac Hatcher asked how agricultural structures were addresses in the regulations, to which Ray Smith responded that he didn't see agricultural buildings listed under 44CFR. Robert Wiley responded that there is a Technical Bulletin, and as we look at the end of the FDPO on page 33 there is a sub-section J under Variances called "Certain Agricultural Structures", . This addresses the concept that Duke Vasey is discussing, so we must make sure the definition proposed by Duke doesn't conflict with what FEMA allows to be included, Robert agreed there is a need to define "agricultural structures", . The term "coastal construction control line" has been added since we do have the term within the FDPO, This is not a term from FEMA but it comes to us through the State's model ordinance, This is the definition from Florida Statutes Section 161.053, Chuck Mohlke suggested that after each statutory reference it is appropriate to include the statement "as amended or (amended)", Ray Smith suggested the phrase "as amended or superseded". Chuck agreed with Ray's suggestion, Duke Vasey asked why "Community Rating System" was not included in the list of definitions, Robert Wiley responded that the Community Rating System is a separate voluntary program and is not a part of our FDPO, .The term does not appear within the Page 2 of 15 161 1; B2 FDPO, and he was directed to not include defInitions for terms not used within the FDPO. FEMA did advise there are certain terms that they would consider as a fatal flaw ifnot included in the FDPO, so those do remain even if they are not used in the FDPO, There are several defInitions that have been removed from the document even though they were in the model ordinance but were never used, Robert Wiley explained the change in usage of the term "coast81 high hazard area" from the current FDPO to this proposed FDPO. Under the current existing ordinance, the "coastal high hazard area" include~ all lands seaward of the "coastal construction control line" includes more land and is a higher requirement than the FEMA minimum definition which only includes all flood zones starting with the letter "V", In this respect, the proposed FDPO is a step backwards and a weakening of the existing ordinance regulatory area, which follows the direction he received to remove all higher regulatory criteria, Robert Wiley asked is this is what the Committee wants? Duke Vasey said it could be added if we provided a cost basis and could show the cost benefit, Robert Wiley said he couldn't provide the cost estimate since there is no way to determine when a property owner would want to construct within that area and it is already an existing ordinance requiremen,t, so there is no additional cost to existing. Duke Vasey said that was why the higher regulatory standards were a "red herring" initially. Robert Wiley replied :that this is not higher regulatory to what is existing, but is higher regulatory to the minimum FEMA requires, Robert Wiley then discussed the addition of the definition "cosmetic repair" to address the topic of wet floodproofing later in the FDPO, There are a series of definitions that feed off of each other to help explain what wet floodproofmg entails, or making it resistant to flood damage. Robert Wiley explained that the definition of "datum" was changed to reflect comments received from several people and we are now stating that the datum is NA VD and not NGVD. Previously the definition said NGVD or NA VD, but this now puts NA VD fIrst. We do expect to get a statement from the engineering community addressing the issue of old developments that are almost totally built out, and for the remaining properties, do they have to re":survey and re-contour plans to show NA VD elevations, The County has not yet received the proposed statement to put within the FDPO the allowance for older existing developments to continue to use NGVD elevations provided there is also an additional NA VD elevation provided so it can be seen, but it would not require them to re-topo everything. The specific situation stated by the industry is for an existing parking lot that needs to have a plan submitted to resurface or restripe, Why should there be a requirement to resurvey for NA VD elevations? Staff expects to receive input from DSAC when the ordinance is presented to them. Ray Smith asked if this definition comes from communication with FEMA, Robert Wiley responded that the definition issue is internal to staff and with the local engineering community. Ray Smith asked why not just incorporate that concept into the definition, to whicJ:l Robert Wiley responded he was waiting for the specific statement from the industry. Chuck Mohlke expressed a comment that some ofus have unique regulatory standards because of location, history, and a number of other things, Hopefully there will be some kind of communication with other regulators about what was just agreed to so there is not a likelihood that something will have to be re-topographed before they will approve it, Page 3 of 15 161 1 '82' even though for transitional purposes we have made an effort here to try and accommodate people in ~ sense of a kind of a grandfather provision, for minor yet-to-be- completed features of a development. Sometimes there are regulatory conflict between regional agencies, state, several parts of the federal including the National Park Service which we tend to ignore. . Robert Wiley then discussed the addition of the definition for "development permit" . which was added like a placeholder until feedback is received from DSAC, This does not exactly match with the existing ordinanc~ defmition, but it is based upon comments expressed, He anticipates there may be some tweaking of this definition in the future, There were a lot of comments from people asking if this meant there was a separate permit for floodplain issues, This is to clarify that a development permit is' something we are already doing, Page 5 - Robert Wiley discussed the addition of the definition for FEMA since they are mentioned in the FDPO and a Conimittee member thought we should identify who they are, A definition was added for "flood damage resistant material" to address issues later in the ordinance regarqmg making buildings resistant to flood damage, This definition relates directly to the previous definition for "cosmetic repair", Page 6 - Robert Wiley discussed the deletion of the definition for "Flood Hazard Boundary Map" since there is no such map for Collier County, We have a Flood Insurance Rate Map which is a step beyond a Flood Hazard Boundary Map. We also deleted the definition for "Flood Boundary and Floodway Map" since there are no floodways in Collier County, FEMA prefers for the County to not delete the definitions, but it is no considered a fatal error if we do, The term "FHBM" was also deleted from the definition 9f "Flood Insurance Study" as a cleanup effort on unused terms, The term "Floodplain Administrator" is sripposed to be defined in a way to say the County Manager is the Floodplain Administrator and he will delegate the work to someone else, Duke Vasey stated that the County Manager delegates his responsibility Robert Wiley said definition needs to be revised to reflect that. Duke Vasey asked to go back to the definition of "floodplain" to address a comment from Stan Chrzanowski on whether a natural, meteorological, or a broken pipe can cause flooding, What do we mean by "floodplain", Robert Wiley responded to refer to the . definition of "flooding'~. Christine Sutherland pointed out that the definition is actually called "flood or flooding" so we should call it that in the "floodplain" definition, Robert Wiley discussed the addition of specific criteria to the definition of "floodproofing" to follow along with FEMA's Technical Bulletin on floodproofing. FEMA assumes a floodproofed structure will leak up to 4" of water in a 24-hour period. There is supposed to be an internal sump pUmp capable of handling that volume of water, The Technical Bulletin specifies that you can't include the volume of the throw out pump to still end up with 4" of water in the building, Staff then took that concept into the situation where an owner doesn't want to have a pump on the inside of a building, Floodproofing is not for residential structures, and is only for non-residential structures, Assuming we only want to allow for a W' water depth accumulation in a building and there is no sump pump, the calculation is determined for allowable seepage, FEMA liked Page 4 of 15 16 J ~ B 2 the concept since it is more definitive and restrictive than not stating specific criteria, which is what the Technical Bulletin does, 1bis effort is an attempt to give some up front information into the ordinance, It is additional text that is beyond the minimum requirements. It is provided for the Committee's discussion, Duke Vasey asked about Ray Smith's group's desire to strike the terms "water and sanitary facilities" earlier in the definition, right above item 1 in the definition, Ray Smith said he had looked at the definition of floodproofing in 44CFR and it is the same definition as in this POPO, Ray asked ifthere was a regulatory or policy issue if we don't match the same language in our ordinance as in 44CFR. Robert Wiley responded that we must have at least the s~e or more restrictive language as that in 44CFR or it is FEMA's ability to declare the ordinance as invalid. Robert didn't want to put the County at risk by removing language that is in 44CFR, ~d Ray agreed, Ray did want to look at other locations for recommended verbiage changes, but wanted to move forward from this point. Robert Wiley said he discussed adding the specific criteria with his supervisor and they agreed to add it and see if there was support, It would provide criteria for an architect to use in the design of a watertight building, Duke Vasey expressed his support for the additional criteria, Phil Brougham said that as a process check, it wasn't necessary for Robert to explain each modification made to the FDPO, He suggested only going to those locations where people may have some problem with the docUment. Based upon that direction ofthe Committee, Robert moved forward to page 8, Page 8 - Mac Hatcher said the scientific names of the inangroves need to be re-phrased and he could provide that information. The species names need to be lower case, and the . species name for black mangrove is outdated. Page 9 - Duke Vasey asked if there was a final resolution for what we want to defme as "mean sea level", Robert Wiley explained the definition references NA VD, Under "new construction", Ray Smith asked if there was a typographical error in identifying the 9-4- 79 and 9-14-79 dates, Robert Wiley explained the two dates are correct and reflect the difference in the adoption and recording date of the original FDPO (9-4-79) and the effective date of the first FIRM for the County (9-14-79), There is a 6-month window of time to adopt an ordinance before the FIRM becomes effective, and by coincidence the dates happen to be 10 days apart, Ray Smith said he had checked this with language in 44CFR and the language aligns. Page 10 - Robert Wiley discussed the comments around the "repetitive loss" definition, The model ordinance has a definition that uses 2 paid flood claims within a 1 O-year period, the average of which is 25% of the value of the structure at the time of each claim. That language reflects a new program by FEMA which makes claimants eligible to receive additional coverage through the Increased Cost of Compliance program without having been through the 50% substantiaJ. damage claim requirement. However, it affects a lot more structures to be declared substantially damaged without having actually received 50% value damage. A structure with a 49% flood damage claim and a 10% flood damage claim would be considered to have an average of 30% which is greater than 25% and would be declared to be substantially damaged, Then when the owner applies for a permit to repair the 40% damage, the County would have to tell him he has an average Page 5 of15 161 1 :,a 2. ""4 greater than 25% and therefore has to mitigate the entire house, While the damage has never hit the 50%, it is the second paid flood claim, FEMA could not answer how the County would know the flood claim had been paid, Staff asked FEMA how the County would know to not issue the permit to repair the structure when there is the rush to repair damage after a flood, FEMA said we would have to figure it out some way, which was not an acceptable answer to County staff, This would put the County at much more risk on issuing a permit inappropriately, so my supervisor agreed, so we changed the definition as advised by the Florida Department of Emergency Management. Their recommendation was to go with the old FEMA definition of repetitive loss as being two paid flood claims of at least $1000 within a 1 O-yearperiod and don't include the requirement for this also being considered as substantial damage, Repetitive'loss is an issue within the Community Rating System program on how the community has to address the issue and how they qualify for grant programs. But it doesn't mandate what the community has to do. Duke Vasey asked about Reed Jarvi's comment on how would the County track repetitive loss. Robert Wiley responded that with the proposed definition, there would not be any required tracking of the repetitive loss structures since we don't have any structures less than $2000 in value. Chuck Mohlke asked if the Committee could hear again the discussion between Robert Wiley and Jim Turner on how the County would track repetitive loss ~d how it would be enforced. Chuck wanted to have discussed the observations made by a couple of comments on merging a procedure on how to track it and how to enforce it, Jim Turner said he kept track of all permits coming in for substantial damage, There are forms the applicant completes and a tracking process through the permitting process, Jim said he did not currently have a tracking procedure for repetitive Joss, He suggested that perhaps Rick Zyvoloski (Em~rgency Management) may have a tracking procedure, Rick said he didn't have a procedure for tracking repetitive loss, but thought that FEMA annually provided a report on flood loss and who is now a repetitive loss, Robert Wiley confirmed that the County does get that information from FEMA but it is always a year behind, so if the County used the definition as recommended by FEMA and put in the model ordinance, the County would need to know immediately if a structure is repetitive loss because the owner is coming in for a building permit to repair the structure and there is nothing to trigger the County's attention if the damage is less than 50%, This could get the County in the position of issuing a building permit to a structure that is to be considered as substantially damaged, and we didn't know it. Rick Zyvoloski suggested disassociating the two definitions from one another and put down a caveat for repetitive loss per FEMA's annual report which allows the County to address repetitive loss in a category by itself because that triggers special flood programs, Substantial loss triggers the local County program whereas repetitive loss opens up different grants. There is also the severe repetitive loss as defined by FEMA, He suggested leaving the responsibility with FEMA for identifying repetitive loss and if they want it timelier, they need to get reports out timelier. Perhaps we should refer to the FEMA report, Phil Brougham suggested the last available FEMA report, even if it is a year old, Discussion followed between Jim Turner, Rick Zyvoloski and Robert Wiley on the paid flood claim information prOVIded by FEMA. Rick said the titles of repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss allow owners to go forward with grant program applications, He recommended leaving those in a category by themselves and let the Page 6 of 15 16 J 1 .IB a MI County deal with substantial loss, Christine Sutherland asked if the property owner would know how much was paid, to which Robert Wiley responded yes, Phil Brougham discussed the current owner may not know what was paid to the previous. owner, Robert Wiley discussed the additional flooding information that would be needed at the time of the building permit application if we kept the repetitive loss definition in the model ordinance, That information would be tracked, and while not difficult to do, it would be a higher requirement than what is currently done, Rick Zyvoloski asked if the owner was required to repair the damage with the money received from a paid flood claim, or could they just collect the money. He again said he felt there should be a disassociation between repetitive loss and substantial loss, Robert Wiley responded that the two terms have been separated with the proposed changes to the model ordinance defInitions, Jim Turner suggested tying information from the FEMA repetitive loss repo~ to the County's address database when the reports arrive, Robert Wiley said that effort was already being done in the CD+ permit tracking software, but the information is always a year behind, Upon completion of the discussion, Ray Smith asked if everyone was OK with the proposed "repetitive loss" definition, there was no opposition, so discussion moved to the next pornt. Page 11 - Ray Smith asked about the definition for "structure" which is the same as defmed . . in 44CFR, but he still had a problem with the word "principally" because it is subjective, He asked to delete the word "principally" because a structure is either above ground, or it isn't. Robert Wiley described a theoretical example, such as a large storage tank which may be 20' tall with the lower 4' below grade, Phil Brougham also suggested deleting the word "principally" since the definition of that word could be debated at length, Christine Sutherland suggested that the term "principally" may mean the major part of the structure is above ground, Phil Brougham suggested the term "principally" was referencing the gas or liquid storage tank part of the definition, and not the walled and roofed building part of the definition, Upcm conclusion of the discussion, the Committee consensus .was to remove the word "principally", Ray Smith then moved the discussion to the "substantial improvement" definition and said he was OK with including the work "sanitary" within the definition which is different than his original comments. Robert Wiley began the discussion on the definition of "substantial damage". He disc~ssed the addition of the 24-month cumulative cost provision that was added by his supervisors, and this is a higher regulatory criteria, Ray Smith reminded the Committee of the previous decision to keep the ordinance at the base level, and this will take us above that. Ray recommended staying with the base ordinance, Jim Turner said the base level was a I-year time period, and for a long time the County had used a 5-year time . period, However when that was questioned, nobody could locate where that was approved, so he went back to the I-year period, and now this proposal is to go back to 2 years. When asked by Duke Vasey who had directed to include the 2-year cumulative period, Robert Wiley explained that Nick Casalanguida had directed it when he began to better understand the implications of substantial improvements and the money that could be put into a structure without reducing its flooding risk. Phil Brougham asked what was the previous position ofthe Committee, to which Robert Wiley responded with the standard 12 month time period, Phil Brougham stated that as in prior meetings that he has observed there is a recommendation from an advisory committee and there is always Page 7 of 15 16l J. a2 a staff recommendation that can go on top of it, Phil proposed a motion to stay with the base ordinance, and if staff wishes to make another recommendation OIi top of that when they go before the Planning Commission or the BCC, then so be it. Ray Smith said that vote was already on record, Phil Brougham motioned to remove the higher regulatory cumulative statement, the motion was seconded, Jim Turner said he had the same problem with this as he did with a previous definition where a person incurs 40% damage from flooding and then next year needs to put on a new roof. With the cumulative, the entire house would have to be raised, so he sees no problem with changing back to the base level of 12 months and taking out the 24-months, The motion passed unanimously, Robert Wiley then said he assumed the Comniittee wanted the same change to the "substantial improvement" definition to remove the 24-months cumulative, The Committee's response was yes, . . . Page 12 - Discussion then moved to the term "watercourse" which Robert Wiley explained has. been changed to better reflect other FE.MA documents to define it as the channel and banks which would eliminate the previously expressed concern about the entire sheetflow area being defmed as a watercourse, That eliminated Stan Chrzanowski's concern, The definition was also edited to add other FEMA language to clarify that the watercourse did not include the adjoining floodplain areas. The term "waterway" was then added to address the issue that occurs in ordinance section 5(B)(6), Within the riverine portion of the floodplain where there are AE flood zones and there are no defined floodways, there is a special analysis required per 44CFR. This definition is to clarify that the waterway is . not the shallow AH flood zone area, Robert Wiley explained that "wet season water table" was added to assist later in the ordinance where the term is use in the "A" zones where there is no base flood elevation (BFE), The dePnition is taken from the Florida Administrative Code, Page 13 - Robert Wiley stated the flood zones applicable to Collier County have been added at the request of Duke Vasey, Ray Smith asked if these definitions align with the FIRM, Robert Wiley responded that they align with both the existing FIRM and the proposed DFIRM, Page 14 - Robert Wiley stated the changes to the identification of the Floodplain Administrator need to be confirmed with previous discussion to make sure they are consistent, Page 15 - Robert Wiley discussed the proposed wording in the ''Penalties for Violation" paragraph. The County Attorney replaced the entire paragraph from the model ordinance with this new wording to align with the current Code Enforcement master language, Page 16 - Robert Wiley discussed changes in Sub-section B "Duties and Responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator", Sub-paragraph (3) which requires copies of various other permits has been eliminated since we do not require all of this for each building permit application. Those other permits are handled by other departmental staff, Ray Smith asked ifFEMA was in agreement with this, and Robert Wiley said the item has not been discussed with them, FEMA will be given an opportunity to review the ordinance, In responding to comments, other portions of this Sub-section B have been edited to move text around to other locations, Page 8 of 15 161 ~ fa ~ Page 18 - Robert Wiley identified the two additional sub-paragraphs added by Emergency Management for temporary housing, . Robert Wiley explained that starting in Section 5: Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction we get into the main text' of the ordinance. Some re-ordering has been proposed for the sub-paragraphs to better organize the new construction discussion from the manufactured home discussion, There has also been the inclusion of reference to the Florida Building Code and FEMA Technical Bulletins to provide supportive background on how to make certain decisions,. Page 19 - Jim Turner asked about sub-paragraph (5) and expressed a concern that this would cause mobile homes to be raised an additional 1.5' to 2' by requiring the equipment and service facilities to be located above flood, Robert Wiley explained that this particular location does not require everything to be above flood level, just designed and/or located to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components. Robert acknowledged that FEMA does want communities to require duct work to be above the BFE, but we need to decide if we are going to require it or leave the current language as is which comes from 44CFR. Jim Turner recommended stating that duct work should be above the BFE. There was a lengthy discussion on what to edit in this sub-paragraph (5) and the final decision of the Committee was to revise the statement to read "Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air condition equipment and other service facilities, including duct work, shall be located above the base flood elevation or designed so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding, " Page 20 - Ray Smith discussed some proposed changes in sub-paragraph (12)(b) to address private as well as public utilities, He asked if there was a reason we are only looking at public utilities and facilities vs, all utilities and facilities, Robert Wiley explained it was his understanding that even if privately owned, the utilities and facilities are used by members of the public, Ray Smith recommended deleting the word "public". Rick Zyvoloski and Chuck Mohlke recommended substituting the word "all" for "public", Ray Smith agreed with that. Brooke Hollander questioned if Golden Gate Estates is considered as a sub-division, then would this include each individual house having its own sewer system, More discussion followed to clarify how various private utilities would be considered, Committee consensus was to replace the word "public" with "all", Robert Wiley discussed the addition of the text in sub-paragraph (16) as being previous text in another County ordinance that was deleted but is now being brought back to the Board for inclusion in the existing'FDPO, The text shown is roughly the same as 'proposed to the Board and this will be edited to match whatever the Board approves on 7- 27-10. Jim Turner asked for a correction to sub~paragraph (16)(b)(iv) to reflect NA VD instead ofNGVD, . Page 22 - Robert Wiley discussed the side note on sub-paragraph B(2) for floodproo:6.ng to the base flood elevation. Floodproofing to just this elevation, which is the minimum requirement, will have increased financial impacts to the owner's flood insurance premium, Jim Turner said he was already requiring floodproofing to l' above the BFE as a policy. Robert Wiley explained that flood insurance requires subtracting l' from the elevation of the floodproofing when rating a building and he provided cost.difference examples for floodproofing to or l' above the BFE, The decision for the Committee to Page 9 of 15 16 j 1 B~ 2 address is whether to recommend floodproofing to just the BFE or to go with the higher requirement of l' above the BFE as recommended by the model ordinance. Duke Vasey recommended sticking with the basic requirement, which was the consensus of the Committee, Robert Wiley discussed the additional wording to sub-paragraph B(3)(c) to include "partitioned into separate rooms, or temperature-controlled (air conditioned), This language comes from an official FEMA interpretation dated June 1999.. Jim Turner was happy with the wording but felt it would be a big issue to prevent the partitioning, Jim explained it is common for owners to get their CO and then go in and partition and air condition those areas, Page 25 - Robert Wiley explained the added text shown as sub-paragraph B(6)(c) which was developed to utilize the defined term "waterway" and provide specific criteria for impacts in the riverine AE zones on the coming DFIRM that would eliminate the need for expensive stUdies by the owner, Clarence Tears agreed with the 0,05' of head loss for a watercourse crossing and said the Big Cypress Basin was already using that number, Duke Vasey asked to remove the bullets and use numbers for the sub-points. Ray Smith reminded Robert Wiley to add the phrase "as amended" as previously discussed when referencing other legislated regulations, Robert Wiley explained that the sub-section C "Specific Standards for A-Zones without Base Flood Elevations and Regulatory Floodways" is new to the Collier County ordinance since we now have areas of this type flood zone, The language is standard language from the model ordinance until we get to sub-paragraph C(7). Page 26 - Robert Wiley discussed the changes proposed in sub-paragraph C(7) to increase the minimum elevation from 3' to 4' as recommended by Stan Chrzanowski who is the County Engineer, His direction was based upon typical design for a septic system, Staff also added in the consideration for using the wet season water table instead of just the ground surface for situations where construction may occur within a wetland depression (cypress head) area. The Committee agreed to the proposed wording. Page 28 - Robert Wiley briefly discussed the addition ofthe "air conditioned" text into sub- paragraph 6( c) to be consistent with the previous text addition in the AE flood zone, . Duke V as~y questioned why he was not given any consideration on the two paragraphs he recommended for addition in his comments, Ray Smith asked which information Duke Vasey was referencing and Duke informed him it would be on page 27 of the handout of all the comments that Robert Wiley provided to the Committee, . Robert Wiley explained that Duke wanted to add in sections for '''Specific Standards for Rural and Unincorporated Area Accessory Structures" and "Specific Standards for International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and Non ISO Storage Contamers", Robert Wiley stated that he took this information to the Planning and Zoning staff, and it was their . opinion that the information should not go into the ordinance as it didn't have anything to do specifically with flooding but were issues already covered under the Land Development Code (LDC). Ray Bellows, who. heads up the Planning and Zoning group, did not recommend their inclusion, . Page 10 of 15 16 I 1 ;B (: Duke Vasey appealed to the Committee to include these sections and then the individual nuances can be dealt with later, Duke said there were a lot of administrative procedures and the County doesn't even recognize, except by memorandum, the ISO steel containers or even Ted Sheds. He felt it was important to better identify what an accessory structure is and define how to handle them, Jim Turner said that most of the information was covered in the LDC, and didn't know that it belonged in the flood ordinance. Duke Vasey commented that the Committee had been given County Attorney instruction to have each ordinance stand on its own, Phil Brougham asked if the LDC was always the overriding law. Robert Wiley replied that the LDC is adopted by ordinance, The FDPO is a separate ordinance and will not go into the LDC, but will go into the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Ordinances are set up to complement each other so that 'whichever is more restrictive, the more restrictive becomes effective, Robert said that if the Committee wanted this text-added into the FDPO, he would take that recommendation back to his supervisors for further -direction, . Phil Brougham asked Duke Vasey what value he saw by including this text within the ordinance if it is already "in" the LDC, Duke Vasey expressed his concern that "accessory structure" is not well uilderstood by the County, and the problem is with Code Enforcement. If it isn't spelled out in an ordinance, which it isn't in the LDC, Code Enforcement will not understand how to actually enforce the Code of Ordinances which we have. His recommendation is that the Committee adopts paragraphs "E"and "F" like we did with the FEMA recommendation or with Dan Summers' request for FEMA housing. Phil Brougham questioned that if this language was included in the FDPO and the ordinance passed, how "Code Enforcement" would be aware to look at the FDPO when trying to rule on "accessory structures", Duke Vasey said it really wasn't Code Enforcement but it turns out to .be an insurance claim, This ordinance is really dealing with keeping stuff out ofthe flowway and our canals and out of the watershed, We're. lifting things up so they don't float into the canals and the drains, With this, we are adding in a dimension for "accessory structures" that doesn't currently exist. In addition, we are defining Ted Sheds and ISO shelters, Phil Brougham didn't think it would hurt . . anything to include'it, or we weren't stepping on the LDC. Ray Smith expressed concern that if there is a modification to the LDC, there would have to be a modification to this ordinance also, That's the intent of having it in one location, so they make one change and they don't have to worry about any like language in other ordinances, which is probably why they are recommending it remain in the LDC and not in here. Duke Vasey made a motion to add the language into the FDPO, The motion was seconded, During discussion, Jim Turner said he thought there would be issues with setbacks in the LDC. Phil Brougham asked if we knew that the proposed language conflicted with the LDC. Duke Vasey commented that if his proposed text was changed . to fit the LDC and placed in this document it would bring the "accessory structure" issue to life, He would have no objection for Robert Wiley to go through and make it the same as the LDC requirement, providing that it remain in this ordinance, Discussion followed on making the modifications to the LDC, but that is a very slow process, Ray Smith called for a vote on the motion and it failed on a: 4-8 vote, Page 29 - Robert Wiley began the discussion the "Section 6: Variance and Appeals Procedures", There have been many additions to this section to identify what the County is already doing but it has not received comments, Phil Brougham asked if the County Page 11 of15 .' 161-1 82 Attorney approved of this, to which Robert Wiley responded it has been sent to the County Attorney Office but no response has been received, Robert Wiley explained that this is the same as what was previously developed by the County Attorney Office. Page 30 - Ray Smith asked if the formatting was correct for the sub-points under 6(D)(3) where they are now numbered (a) through G) whereas they previously were (1) through (9) on another document. Robert Wiley explained tha;! the numbering format is not really that important at this time through the drafts because the County Attorney will ultimately develop the final formatting, Phil Brougham asked for clarification on the advancing versions of the ordinance, What happens to the document when 'others do 'not agree and make changes, Robert Wiley explained that he has been directed to take forWard "staff's" document. If it varies with recommendations of the 'Committee, the differences will show up on the sidebar area to identify them. The document text will be the staff document, and hopefully there won't be any differences to note. There then followed an extensive discussion on the process of document approvals up the chain through the review process, how input is received and handl~d, and even included a discussion on the Growth Management Plan's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, Page 31 - Robert Wiley discussed the sub-section 6(E) "Conditions for Variances" notation regarding the model ordinance's statement about not granting variances after the fact. . That statement was deleted from the draft FDPO because it would be considered as higher regulatory. This prohibition can affect situations where there is attempt to build exactly to minimum requirements, and then there is an error made so the structure doesn't meet the minimum requirement (e,g, the floor elevation is a few tenths below the BFE). Jim Turner expressed problems he has had with situations where owners go to the Board and get variances after the fact when they shouldn't be able to get one. He supported the model language restriction, Such approved variances are required to be documented which then hurts the CRS rating, Ray S~th asked if there were controls in place to catch the problems early, Jim Turner said the problem is not with new conStruction, but with existing construction and work done without permits, Duke Vasey stated he'had a problem with the concept because it doesn't allow for exemptions from mistakes made by government. He didn't think it should be included in the FDPO. There followed a lengthy discussion on the purpose for granting or not granting variances for improper construction, including a discussion on whether or not the inclusion of such a prohibition impacted due process rights, and impacts to the CRS program, Various efforts were put forth to develop a statement that fully addressed the issue, but finally Duke Vasey and Jim Turner came up with the recommendation that ''No variance shall be issued for unpermitted work." Page 32 - Jim Turner discussed some problems he has had with the "historic structure" issue, No changes were proposed in the draft FDPO, Robert Wiley then began the discussion on sub-section I "Certain Accessory Structures". This section was added in an attempt to address issues identified by Duke Vasey and others. It is located within the Variance section to allow the Floodplain Administrator to grant these certain variances, rather than allow staff to approve them, Robert explained that sub-point (2) is based upon the assumption that floodproofmg to l' above the BFE would have received the Committee's support, so he will now revise the text to require Page 12 of 15 a. :. ~. 1611 B2 wetfloodproofing just to the BFE. Jim Turner did not like the concept of requiring variances for the accessory structures. It was agreed to move "Certain Accessory Structures" out of the Variances section and into section 5(B)(8), Page 33 - Robert Wiley discussed sub-section 6(1) "Certain Agricultural Structures" and stated this criteria comes from a FEMA Technical Bulletin and is to be considered as a variance, Jim Turner questioned how we would handle the agricultural issue since if it is truly an agricultural building used for agricultural purposes they do not need a permit. How do we regulate FEMA if there is no permit required? Robert Wiley explained how he put that issue out to about 20 counties and received varying responses, Most handle it through a zoning review, some handle it through a floodplain permit I-page application review, Collier County and one other county don't handle it at all, FEMA is not concerned with compliance with the Florida Building Code, but is concerned with the floodplain requirements, Jim Turner said if the agricultural building has electrical and . plumbing, the County does require permits, Ray Smith asked Jim Turner what his desire was on this proposed sub-section. Rl;ly also asked Robert Wiley if this was required in the ordinance, Robert stated the language came from a FEMA Technical Bulletin and was not in the model ordinance. Ray Smith and Phil Brougham both stated the intent to stay with the model ordinance, Robert Wiley stated his concern was that the issue needs to be addressed because FEMA doesn't care that the Florida Building Code doesn't require permits for agriculture, As the new DFIRMs come into effect and place AH flood zones on the agricultural lands, the County is going to be held accountable under FEMA. Jim Turner motioned to strike the sub-section J from the draft ordinance, The motion was seconded and passed unanimously, Duke Vasey then asked that since the sub-section on "Certain Accessory Structures" was now going to be moved to section 5(B)(8), could his proposed language that was known as Section E "Specific Standards for Rural and Unincorporated Area Accessory Structure" be the lead off to get into the 6 points that are following, Ray Smith asked if that was what was previously voted down. Duke Vasey explained there was a problem With conflict with the LDC, but by removing his previous conflict areas the narrative leading into it might be suitable to open up the 6 below it. Then, if that would be an extension, he would also like to add on to the 6 points, a 7 and 8 that included the ISO structure arid the vertical tool sheds, Duke Vasey motioned to make' the inclusion, and the motion was seconded, Upon a vote, the motion failed 4-7. Page 32 - Robert Wiley then asked the Co1Iimittee to return to the relocated section on "Certain Accessory Structures" to address the value and size [small, low-cost sheds less than 200 square feet in area, using outside dimensions, and less than two percent (2%) of the value of the principal structure]. Do we want to include this, leave it out, or how do we want to bring in consistency between requirements for the AE and VE flood zones? Jim Turner didn't think there could be a value for accessory structures in the AE zone, but there could be for a VB zone, Duke Vasey then asked for accessory structures to include the steel ISO structures and vertical tool sheds without a cost limit. Jim Turner recommended to not putting a value on the accessory structures in the AE zone, the recommendation waS seconded, and call for a vote passed unanimously. Page 13 of 15 ~.. .. .1611... Be: . Duke Vasey then again motioned for inclusion of the steel ISO shelters, and the motion was seconded, Duke clarified the motion's content to add into the Accessory Structures sub-section to add the lead-in paragraph "Accessory uses and structures support and are subordinate to the use of a parcel and shall primarily serve those persons regularly and customarily involved with their use and include only those structures incidental to a permitted land use located on the same parcel. Uses identified elsewhere in this ordinance are not accessory uses," The motion also included adding two additional points to be 7 and 8 as follows: 7, Steel ISO 10'-20'40' Storage Containers may be positioned on the earth and anchored as described in SECTION FIVE A (4) above, or secured to piers. 8, Vertical tool sheds and storage buildings may be positioned on the earth and shall be anchored as described in SECTION FIVE A (4) above, or secured to piers, Jim Turner asked for clarification on what was being proposed, and Duke Vasey provided direction that he wanted to use the 6 bulletedpoints that Jim Turner had included under his comments for Accessory Structures on page 33 of the Comments handout, then add . . the two points on steel ISO structures and vertical tool sheds from Duke's comments on page 27 of the Comments handout. Robert Wiley explained this basically did away with the original 6 points in the original sub-section I "Certain Accessory Structures" text, Upon call for a vote, the motion passed unanimously, Christine Sutherland then asked for additional. clarification on some of the points described in the motioned text, and Jim Turner explained the basic concepts for consideration of all construction in the VE zone for debris considerations, Ray Smith questioned the Committee to see if there were any concerns aboutthis ordinance review and approval being rushed, as he didn't want anyone to feel this was 'being rushed through, Receivmg no response comment, Phil Brougham.then motioned that the Committee send this FDPO, as amended, and authorize staff to take the necessary steps to move it forward, The motion was seconded, and Ray Smith asked to amend the motion to include the submittal of the proposal to all of the Administrators so they have opportunity to review as we proceed, Phil accepted this amendment to the motion, Robert Wiley asked for clarification on when the ordinance is to be sent to the Administrators, and after a brief discussion it was decided to provide the Administrators with the ordinance at the time it was presented to DSAC, Christine Sutherland asked about the provision for emergency temporary housing following a disaster, she didn't think it was in the ordinance, Robert Wiley explained it was included in the text in several locations, and is not a separate area. Upon call for a vote, the motion passed unanimously, NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Comments - None, Next Meeting: Monday, October 4,2010 starting at 9:00 a,m, in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Hor.seshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. passed unanimously at 4:23 p.m, Page 14 of 15 . 4 :... ... ;;P~ ~ Robert Wiley, Staff C ' . dll1ator 1 ~ 1 1 i~1 B" ... Page 15 of 15 R, E CE\VED Fiala --1) c/. . .. Hlller~ APR 2 1 201~; \ "." ~~~I~n9 -!~ -;;;e __ Boo'" aI c,"'~ co"""""",",. CoIQIIo-;;:" Floodplain Management Plamlilig~COiiil'ltittee ~ 16J.1 B2 Ray Smith, Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I,) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Jack McKenna Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland Meeting Minutes for l-lO-llRegular Meeting Start: 9:00 a.m, End: 10:22 am, Location: 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 Meeting Attendance: Ray Smi~ Carolina Valera, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Jack McKenna, Travis Gossard, Brooke Hollander, AnantaNath (alternate for Clarence Tears), Duke Vasey, Joseph Gagnier, Phillip Brougham, Pierre Bruno, Lew Schmidt, and Robert Wiley, Absent: John Torre (Excused), Christine Sutherland (Excused), Bob Devlin, Christa Carrera, and Chuck Mohlke (Excused). There were no members of the public or additional staff in attendance. Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman. Ray Smith introduced Jack McKenna who is now the County Engineer following the retirement of Stan Chrzanowski, Jack gave a brief statement of his background. OLD BUSINESS: 1, Approval of minutes for the 7-12-10 Regular Meeting and 7-16-10 Continued Meeting-Ray Smith asked if there were any needed changes to the 7-12-10 minutes. Lew Schmidt stated he was present at the 7-12-11 meeting and asked for that to be corrected. Phil Brougham asked about Committee membership numbers under Item 2 of Old Business, and whether there was any discussion with the County Manager. Robert Wiley stated this was an item for discussion on today's agenda. Phil then asked about the discussion on page 4 of 11 regarding application for grant funding by August 2 in conjunction with Emergency Management, and was there any action, Robert Wiley responded that nothing transpired on that item, Ray Smith then asked if there were any needed changes to the 7-16-10 minutes, Carolina Valera stated she had just spoken to Robert Wiley about noting she had an excused absence. Phil Brougham then motioned for approval of both sets of minutes as amended, and the motion passed nmmimously. 2. FMPC membership vacancy/replacement (Bill Lorenz) - Bill Lorenz said he had a discussion with the Growth Management Division (GMD) Deputy Administrator, Nick C~~: At the end oflast year, the County Manager merged and reorganized the Transportation Date: Page 1 of9 Item': C:,1(C...:~,,,,, ""'~ U'''-'l.'-'..:_>:::J VJ~ 161 1 B 2 Division and the Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Division into a single division known as the Growth Management Division- (GMD), Norman Feder is the division administrator, The GMD is divided into two parts, and the former CDES is known as the Planning and Regulation (P&R) portion with Nick Casalanguida in charge. Internally within the GMD-P&R there was a reorganization of departments, The current Floodplain Management Planning Committee (FMPC) staffing has representatives from the · Building Review and Permitting Department, · Department of Zoning, · Comprehensive Planning, · Environmental Services, . Engineering Services . Stormwater Management . Transportation Division All of these staff members are now from the one division. The desire is to have one representative from the total division, There are two reasons for the proposed change in staffing: . efficiency of the staff resource and · especially within the Land Development Services department, which contains Zoning, Comprehensive Planning, Environmental Services, Engineering Services, and Stormwater Management, staff and managers cannot be in the same meeting to discuss where the County is heading on issues of floodplain management because of possible Sunshine Law violation. Bill Lorenz and Nick Casalanguida propose for Jerry Kurtz to be the one individual representing the division, That would also probably include the representative from Transportation, so Bill Lorenz thought that probably Travis Gossard would be removed as a member. If other staff from the various sections and departments is needed to address issues before the FMPC, they can be available as support staff instead of being a member of the FMPC, With the selection of one member (Jerry Kurtz) to represent the Growth Management Division, there would be one member (Dan Summers/Rick Zyvoloski) from the Emergency Management/Public Safety Division, one member (Ray Smith) from the Public Utilities Division, and one member from Public Information. Those four positions would be the voting staff members on the Committee, Whenever there is a need to get technical resources or technical expertise to the Committee, those staff can be directed to report or Jerry Kurtz can get the information and report it to the Committee, Bill was not sure if Nick had already briefed the County Manager on this re-staffing proposal, Phil Brougham stated this proposal raised concerns to him regarding the staff effectiveness and efficiency regarding Committee business. He understands the organizational issues created by staff members being on the Committee and difficulties this creates as to being able to be briefed on things, However, the Committee meets once a quarter, so if the Committee is reduced to one representative for the Division, and if the meeting discussions get into technical matters, then Jerry will have to go back to the pockets of expertise after the meeting concludes, which means 3 months go by before the next meeting, and interim, the Committee is not moving forward fast enough. Phil's concern has been that even currently meeting once a quarter has hampered efficiency, and this could potentially also hamper it. Even meeting once a quarter, this Committee is grinding down to a slow crawl or halt. While not Page 2 of9 161 1 .Bi advocating the concept, perhaps the Committee has done all the work it needs to do with respect to the new Floodplain Management plan, and perhaps it should be disbanded. Duke Vasey expressed no concern about reducing staff to four members, and thought it would also result in changing the number of civilian members, He wondered that in thinking about reorganizing the Committee if there could also be thought given to the way tasks are processed from the Chairman intemally to the staff, In times past there have been periods of time when department heads didn't agree with the Committee tasks and nothing was done, In this reorganization it is essential to have a very smooth system for processing either Committee requests or for information. Ray Smith commented that the County Manager is going to have to approve this plan, and requested Robert Wiley to launch out communication out to the Committee bye-mail informing them of when it is to be implemented. Ray also asked if after the reorganization, would it be appropriate to move to monthly meetings so if there are issues that arise that Jerry Kurtz cannot answer, it would not result in a 3-month wait to get an answer. Phil Brougham proposed that this discussion and proposal be taken back to the County Manager who chartered this Committee to ask about 1, County staff membership 2. FEMA requirements for equal number of citizens, so does the citizen membership be reconstituted as well, and 3, The issue needs to be fleshed out as to frequency of meetings as well as the process of when the Committee asks a question of a technical nature, how is that process going to move through the County with respect for someone to authorize the appropriate amount of time on the appropriate staff member, a deadline for feedback, etc. so we have a smooth and efficient process to raise questions and get answers to we can move on. Bill Lorenz agreed to follow up on these issues in further discussions, Phil Brougham then made his 3-point statement into a motion. After the motion was seconded, Ananta Nath asked a question regarding the ability for key members of staff (e.g. Mac Hatcher and Travis Gossard) to be non-voting members but still be available and avert the situation of having to wait for 3 months to get an answer, Bill Lorenz could only speak for his staff, but felt that if issues of concern were identified ahead of time for discussion, the appropriate staff could provide the information in a timely manner or perhaps be on a stand-by situation to arrange their schedules to be available for the meeting, Bill felt there would be a way to accomplish the needs of the Committee without all of the current staff being voting members. Phil Brougham then asked if as soon as the concept is endorsed by the County Manager, then could Robert Wiley report back to the Committee via e-mail, Bill Lorenz agreed to have the e-mail sent as soon as we get a full deliberation response from the County Manager, Ray Smith agreed that sending out an e-mail along with the notification of the next scheduled Committee meeting would be sufficient. Phil then asked if the County Manager's determination also then speak to the citizen member makeup, and would he be nominating who stays and who goes, Bill Lorenz did not have a specific answer to that question, but agreed to look into it. The Committee was formed by a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, so Bill thought that this would have to go back to the Commissioners with a new resolution to establish the number of Committee members, Robert Wiley informed the Committee that CRS scoring was based upon having at least an equal number of citizen and Page 3 of9 161 1 B2 , J {. 1 staff members on the Committee, but there could be more citizen members. Upon call for the question, the motion was approved unanimously. 3, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Status Update - Robert Wiley informed the Committee that since they voted to forward the Ordinance, it has been seen by DSAC and by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) three times, The CCPC sent the Ordinance back to DSAC to obtain a financial impact for requiring floodproofing to 1 foot above the base flood elevation (BFE) compared to just floodproofing to the BFE, DSAC did provide a number for a typical situation, but this was not something they really wanted to do. Staff took that cost information to the CCPC along with the cost implications for flood insurance. Basically the ordinance still looks like what the Committee approved, but there have been some recommended changes, and these are identified in the side margin comments for the CCPC to review and consider, One issue that the CCPC did change was to reverse the Committee's direction to say "all" utilities instead of "public" utilities, and go back to the ''Model Ordinance" statement of "public" utilities. There will be a table of acronyms added, which was also the desire of the Committee, The ordinance is not headed back to the CCPC on January 20th. There is an added statement that deftnitions within the ordinance are only for the ordinance. The Penalties section has been revised to simply state enforcement will be in compliance with the Code Enforcement ordinance. There have been changes in the section on Variances, and many of the variance process details have been removed as directed by the County Attorney, Pierre Bruno Pierre Bruno asked if there could be a guidance document available for the public on how to obtain a variance, Robert Wiley responded that this may already be getting done because staff is in the process of developing an Administrative Code to address processes and procedures, whereas the Land Development Code and Code of Laws and Ordinances address technical issues and regulations, Carolina Valera confirmed that the Administrative Code will address processes and procedures, She felt that variances will be spelled out in the Administrative Code, Duke Vasey asked whatever happened to an ordinance having to stand alone. Robert Wiley could not provide that answer, but is simply following the direction provided by the County Attorney, He did favor using an Administrative Code to provide process information to avoid getting different answers from different staff. Robert Wiley also informed the Committee that the Committee's desire to have the Variances section include a statement that a variance could not be given for unpermitted work was removed by the CCPC. The CCPC didn't feel this statement was necessary, since the work would already be unpermitted and subject to Code Enforcement. Bill Lorenz informed the Committee that the ordinance is scheduled to be taken back to the CCPC with the recommendations they have made and placed on their consent agenda, meaning it is not planned to have another extensive discussion. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is scheduled for February 8th, Robert Wiley will be putting together some bulleted points on issues the BCC will want to consider, One of the issues will be the substantial damage/substantial improvement and the timeframe considerations, Robert explained that while staff thought there was a "default" 12-month time frame for substantial damage/improvement calculations, as it turns out, there is no "default" period. Unless the ordinance specifies a timeframe for calculation, the substantial damage/improvement calculation is for each permit for an applicable structure, The discussions with the Committee had always relied upon the "default" period. Staff then recommended the inclusion of a stated 12-month cumulative time period to the CCPC, but they did not agree to Page 4 of9 16' 1 Ie include it The CCPC preferred the permit to permit evaluation and not having any cumulative time period. lIDs is a step backward from how the building permitting program is currently being operated, Ray Smith asked about reviewing the proposed definitions to make sure the terms still exist within the body of the ordinance. With changes to the body of the ordinance, it may be that some terms have been eliminated, Robert Wiley asked Ray to send him an e-mail with the specific terms he thinks may no longer be used. Duke Vasey asked if there was going to be a discussion of the $75,000 spent on the remodeling effort for making proposed changes to the Preliminary DFIRM, Robert identified that as part of the discussion under New Business Item 1, Phil Brougham asked if there was any change to the CRS rating. Robert informed him we were still a Class 6 community, which is an improvement from where we were a year ago. Once the new FEMA floodplain mapping effort is finalized, staffhopes to submit the effort to FEMA to see if that will be sufficient to give us another class improvement. NEW BUSINESS 1. Status Report on New Floodplain Mapping (prel1minary DFIRM) - Robert Wiley said this topic would address the previous question from Duke Vasey. The Preliminary DFIRM is currently out for public comment, and that comment period will end February 2nd. Upon receipt of all received comments/appeals, staff must evaluate the submittals and forward a recommendation to FEMA along with the submitted documentation, There are a couple of firms who have said the County can anticipate receiving at least two appeals/protests to address the development of newer communities that did not exist when the 2003 LiDAR topography was flown, The consultants are providing documentation of elevated ground as a part of the developments that is higher than the proposed BFE, The County is submitting an appeal of the Preliminary DFIRM based upon new LiDAR topography that was flown in 2008. This LiDAR was flown for the Watershed Management Plan development. lIDs information has been previously discussed with the Committee, When staff presented FEMA with the option to bring the new LiDAR into the floodplain mapping study, FEMA rejected the idea saying it was too late in the process to being in new topography since that is one of the basic items provided at the start of the study. When the floodplain mapping project was started in 2004, the 2003 LiDAR was considered as very current, However, when staff received the new LiDAR in 2010, we began making comparisons between the two LiDAR products and noticed that in areas that had not been developed, there was a difference in ground elevations, The 2010 LiDAR is generally about 1 foot higher than the 2003 LiDAR, Staff then discussed what we thought would happen to the BFE by having a base ground elevation roughly 1 foot higher, knowing that in about 5 years we would be using the 2010 LiDAR to update the DFIRMs. Different ideas were developed by various staff engineers, Raising the ground by 1 foot would tend to raise the BFE by 1 foot, but we also know that the modeling is calibrated based upon measured water elevations in the canal, which are not based upon the LiDAR. So we hired Tomasello Consulting Engineers, Inc, (TCE) to make the necessary evaluation to show the results. That re~study is the roughly $75,000 number that Duke asked about. (The cost is really $74,500,) The re-study was conducted for only two basins, the Golden Gate Main West and the Golden Gate, but these two are directly connected by the Main Golden Gate Canal at CR-951 and Page 5 of9 161 1 B 2 ~ provide an analysis for development impacts in coastal, older urban, urban along the eastern side ofCR-951 which has seen a lot of development, and rural estates settings while addressing changing ground elevations from both development activities and the change in LiDAR TCE is currently finalizing this work product with a scheduled delivery date of January 21st, When staff submits the TCE results to FEMA as an appeal, we don't know how they will react. They may be supportive by accepting the appeal and place the Preliminary DFIRM finalization on hold while we update all of the basins with the new LiDAR, Staff doesn't think this delay will happen, but it is possible. FEMA may accept the appeal, changing the Preliminary DIRM, and work with the County to develop a schedule to update the remaining basins through the physical map revision process, This is the more likely reaction, Generally speaking, when staff has met with various homeowner groups, the Preliminary DFIRM has been met with silence as the reality begins to sink in, Most people seem to understand that including rainfall- induced flooding along with the coastal surge flooding (note the current FEMA FIRM only considers coastal surge flooding) will cause such a large change in the flood zone locations. The coastal surge flooding as proposed on the Preliminary DFIRM tends to show somewhat of a decrease in impact from the central area of the coastline to the northern half of the coastline. However, in the southern half of the coastline, there are some increased impacts due to having to include the recent year storm events (e.g, Hurricane Wilma), Everglades City did see some increased effects. Several communities indicated they were going to wait to see the results of the County's appeal before then using the LOMA process to remove structures that meet the requirements from the Special Flood Hazard Area. Once FEMA has reviewed all of the appeals/protests, and has resolved them to their standards, if there are any changes made to the Preliminary DFIRM, FEMA will issue a Revised Preliminary DFIRM. The County will have 30 days to review this Revised Preliminary DFIRM and submit comments, Ultimately we think this effort will delay finalization of the Preliminary DFIRM by about 4 months to roughly August. That is just an estimate based upon the assumption that FEMA will accept the information submitted in the protests/appeal, Rick Zyvoloski asked ifthis analysis would give the answer on why there was a I-foot variance in the two LiDARs. Robert Wiley responded that the reason for the LiDAR difference is not what is at issue with the appeal, The 2003 LiDAR went through a certification process for a 2' contour interval, which means 95% accuracy for a +/- l' elevation, or half of the contour interval, The LiDAR flown in 2008 and received in 2010 was flown at a more intense level of ground verification points, But it also is certified to a 2' contour interval, meaning 95% accuracy for half of the contour interval (+/- 1 '), Between the two certifications, each of them meets the requirements, However, when comparing the 2010 LiDAR to the ground truthing locations there is better matching, The newer LiDAR is much better at meeting specifications. It appears that the roughly l' difference comes from the older LiDAR tending to be identifying lower elevations, but within specification range, whereas the new LiDAR comes in very close to measured elevations, but not tending to be low, With the +/- l' specification, we see the l' difference. Rick asked ifperhaps the explanation was the result of using different reference points between the old and new LiDARs, Robert explained that it basically is a result of the amount of reference points for ground truthing and where those points are located. Rick commented that it may have come out better for the citizens within the appeal basins, but we lost a lot when using the new Page 6 of9 16' 1 8~ LiDAR for the storm surge modeling (He was referring to the SLOSH modeling by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council.) Duke Vasey asked if the known appeals will be affected by the restudy of the sub-basins, Robert Wiley replied that one of the appeals supposed to be submitted by a consultant is within the area of the County's appeal, That development is submitting their information anyway, because they understand that the County's appeal may not be successful and their Master Association wanted to go ahead and hire a surveyor to get the elevation information and submit it to FEMA, Duke asked if that association was following the Letter of Map Amendment process separately from the TCE effort, Robert responded they are following the appeals process, not the Letter of Map Amendment process. The other anticipated submittal is located outside of the two basins being restudied by TCE, and that information will be evaluated against the Preliminary DFIRM projected BFE. So far, everyone appears to be appealing the ground elevations and not the water surface elevations, Pierre Bruno asked if the proposed canal closings in the Picayune Strand Restoration project were included in the modeling for the Preliminary DFIRM, Robert Wiley explained that for FEMA floodplain mapping, we use curreilt conditions, not projected changes, In the future this may become an issue, but not now. Future modeling would include the location of pump stations, but the basic design of the Picayune Strand Restoration project is to provide for equivalent capacity (June 2000) of the current canals for the 100-year, 5-day design storm event. There are capacity problems with the canals now, and there were in 2000, but the current operation is to maintain them as weed free as we can. The Picayune Strand Restoration Project was never designed to be a flood control project. It is a restoration project for the southern blocks of Golden Gate Estates, Whatever conditions existed in June 2000 were the conditions imitated by the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to design the pump stations, The design was for a 100-year, 5-day storm analysis, and the pumping capacity was designed to match with the modeled hydrologic curve, Different sizes of pumps are included to match the hydrologic model capacity curve. During the public comment period, the issue was resolved to also provide for an extra pump to provide redundancy and reliability, The largest capacity pump at each pump station was duplicated as the redundant pump to ensure pump station capacity, but it is not designed to be used as increased pump station capacity, As we go forward, the pumping curves which duplicate existing canal capacity will be included in future modeling. The model capacities won't change, but it will be identified as a pump station and not a free-flowing canal, Ananta Nath added to this information to clarify the actual date is December 7, 2000. The flood protection element of the project is addressed under the Federal Savings Clause laws, This requires the project to not make conditions worse for areas upstream of the south blocks. The existing level of flood protection must remain the same. The total capacity of the 3 proposed pump stations is 4650 cfs, The Faka Union pump station has a 2650 cfs capacity, Miller Canal has 1200 cfs, and Merritt Canal is 800 cfs, This is a much larger capacity than the existing canals. Robert thought the largest Faka Union pump station pumps were 8' in diameter, to which Ananta agreed, Duke Vasey interjected that the pump stations are only designed to mimic gravity flow in the existing canals. Duke also mentioned the existing water reservation requirements so we cannot take away water that would affect the Picayune Strand Restoration project. 2, Preparation of the Annual Floodplain Management Plan Progress Report - Robert Wiley explained that each year we put together a progress report. This will be brought to the Page 7 of9 161 1 B a Committee at the next meeting, We will be reporting on progress made on the Action Plan Items which are listed on a colored spreadsheet. Many of the items are already completed or on schedule for completion, After review by the Committee, the report will go to the BCC, and then in September it is submitted to the Insurance Services Office as a part of the annual CRS recertification requirement. lbis is something done several times before, so you will receive a copy of the document ahead of the meeting for your review, We want to make the Committee aware of this issue so you are prepared, Staff hopes to also put together a listing for the next year's Action Plan Items by the next Committee meeting, Ray Smith asked how many sub-committees are currently working on Action Plan items. Robert said there was only one active sub-committee, the 6( e) sub-committee, Ray asked if there were any sub- committees that should be working on action plan items. Robert responded he was not aware of any, and the 6( e) sub-committee had the most need for active participation as it deals with developing a single point of contact and also providing for technical assistance offered to the community as a result of making contact. Phil Brougham asked for the current status of the actual Floodplain Management Plan (FMP), The Committee was moving along with modifications to the FMP, Mike DeRuntz was brought back in temporary employment to address areas where the FMP was deemed insufficient, so where are we now? The Committee reviewed the product developed by Mike DeRuntz, and there were a lot of comments about it still being very large in size, but the direction was to go forward anyway. Staffhas not moved the FMP forward due to the simultaneous workload of the Preliminary DFIRM and the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, To avoid confusing the issues, the FMP has been put aside until we work through the Flood Ordinance adoption and the work on the Preliminary DFIRM settles down, Then staffwill reactivate efforts to complete the FMP and take the Committee recommendations forward. We have a 5-year window of time to make the revisions, so we are not hurting ourselves by waiting to separate the issues and avoid confusion. Phil Brougham asked when the 5-year window will expire, Robert said 2013. Duke Vasey addressed a comment to Bill Lorenz that the FMP had a lot of tasks directed out to specific staff, so would the proposed staff Committee membership realignment affect this? Bill Lorenz responded that staff would still be available to work on it, but just would not be Committee members, Phil Brougham asked Bill if the work tasks would be appropriated down to the staff level, and be signed offby their supervisors. He was trusting those are still the guidelines under which we all are operating. At one point, task responsibilities would be assigned at the Committee level, but other responsibilities kept staff from ever getting to the work. Bill Lorenz responded that last year he signed off on all tasks under his control, and he assumes this will be done again this year, Robert Wiley then discussed when the next Committee meeting would be held in July. However, the first Monday in July is the 4th, which is a holiday. When the first Monday occurs on a holiday, we have been simply meeting on the 2nd Monday of the month. However, Christine Sutherland cannot meet on the 2nd Monday morning, so she requests that the meeting be moved to later in the first week. Phil Brougham suggested to simply set a date and see who can attend. Lew Schmidt asked if the next meeting would be in April, not July, Robert responded that the next meeting would be in April, so previous discussion about the July meeting for the Progress Report should have been referring to April. Christine Sutherland was wanting to know about the July meeting now if possible. Page 8 of9 .4 . . 16 1 1 B 2 Ray Smith then asked the Committee if they had any topics they wanted to have for discussion at the ne:x.1; meeting. If so say them now or e-mail Robert. Phil Brougham asked for a follow-up on the Committee membership restructuring between Bill Lorenz and the County Manager. Phil then asked where the Committee currently stands on membership vacancies and advertising, Robert responded that 1 staff position is not filled, and 2 citizen positions are not filled. That application was received in August 2010, and staffhas still not been given direction on whether or not to proceed to fill the position, There is one application on hold for review to fill the position vacated by Mr. Kokkinos, The second vacancy was created by the passing of Mr. Luntz, There is currently no advertising to fill the vacant positions. Lew Schmidt stated he would like to report back to the people in his community, He asked if the classification has been improved, Robert responded that there was a class improvement last year from 7 to 6, Lew then asked if that means there should be a decrease in flood insurance policy costs. Robert responded that it depends upon the particular flood zone, but while there was a 5% increase in discount, the fact that the base premium rates were increased for some flood zones means that there was simply less of an increase than would have occurred if the class improvement had not occurred, 3. Public Comments - None. Next Meeting: Monday, April 4, 2011, starting at 9:00 a.m. in Room 610 of the GMD-P&R building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. sed unanimously at 10:22 a.m, Y'-/ :-/y Page 9 of9 :aY~ ...~~~~~...~..a.>>........~ 16 I fill Hiller HeMing :-.:T~. ~, Coyle ~_, , Gcleita <c~.=~ . :f . m~f~~~~l~J -= = 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ~)Jlarctlli 8, L:t]"t ~~ AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - February 8, 2011 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado B. CVS Shopping Center ROW Update IX. Old Business A. Naples Electric Motor Works Pump Evaluation B. Master Plan Revisions C. CR 951 Roadway Modifications X. New Business XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ~ 1 CG~~38 -~o: 16 I 1 B~ 3 .f 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 ~u~~ ~il AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - March 8, 2011 V. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget B. Review & Approval of FY 2012 MSTU Budget C. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado B. CVS Shopping Center ROW Update IX. Old Business A. Update on Naples Electric Motor Works Pump Performance Testing X. New Business XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment " 'J 1 BY: ......................... 16 1 1 <Bt 3 .~ ~ I ~~~~~~~ 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES I. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Richard Sims, Chairman. A quorum was established, II. Attendance Members: Richard Sims, Pat Spencer, Barbara Segura, Michael McElroy, Peggy Harris (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Pamela Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager Others: Michael McGee - McGee & Associates, Damon Himmel - Hannula, Richard Tindell- JRL Design, Sue Flynn - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda V. A. Draft Budget FY 2012 to be discussed at the April meeting. Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - February 8, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the February 8, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 4-0. v. Transportation Operations Report A. Budget Darryl Richard distributed the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Fund 153 Report dated March 8, 2011 and reviewed the following: (See attached) · Ad Valorem Tax Collected - $225,413,07 1 . Operating Expense Available - $134,322.51 Total Budget - $562,710.52 Improvements General Available - $412,234.98 Purchase Orders Paid - $62,396.01 161 1 83 . . . Road and Bridge has verbally committed to do an asphalt overlay after Hunter & Coronado Project is fInished. Staff directed Contractors to be careful not to damage the existing culverts, Discussion was made on the condition of the existing metal culverts and how to be proactive. It was decided that the condition would be unknown until the project is started, B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard provided the Golden Gate MSTU Project Status Report and reviewed the following: (See attached) o (G-35) CR 951 Roadwav ModifIcations (In Planning Stage) Application for SFWMD Permit is being processed for the Project. Construction is anticipated to begin in either 2013 or 2014. SFWMD would like to widen canal and the County would like to narrow the canal. After the permit is issued, an Ad Hawk Committee will be formed to monitor the CR 951 Roadway Modifications Project. Interested citizens living in Golden Gate can be on the committee. o (G-34) - FDOT Grant Application for Safe Route to Schools Proiect FDOT Application has been submitted to Collier County Pathways, o (G-31) - Hunter & Coronado Design~ Curbing. Landscape and Irrigation A ''Notice to Proceed" for the Project has been issued to Bonness and Hannula, Construction scheduled to commence on March 14, 2011. o (G-25) - Golden Gate Master Plan Revision The Master Plan is almost ready to be submitted to the BCC. Staff provided a proposal received from McGee & Associates to update the maintenance costs for an additional amount of $580. Darryl Richard recommended the Committee approve the proposal and asked Advisory Committee for direction to proceed forward. Richard Sims ~sked "For the Record" if there would be any additional engineering costs related to the Master Plan Revisions. Mike McGee and Darryl Richard responded there should not be additional engineering costs, 2 161 i. l~d 3 ~ Richard Sims moved to authorized Staff to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $580 to McGee and Associates. Second by Michael McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Richard Sims asked Staff to go over 2-pump system issues located on Tropicana and Sunshine, Sunshine Boulevard - The pump system rusted out and dropped down into the well. Staff stated the $650 cost to repair was minimal and Staff issued a Purchase Order to cover repair to Naples Electric Motor Works. Tropicana Boulevard - Florida Irrigation Service Outdoor (FIS) provided a quote utilizing an existing pump in the amount of $15,200. Darryl Richard received an email which answered all the Committees questions. (See attached) Testing existing pump is not within FIS Outdoor's scope of work. Richard Sims questioned the purnp issue and noted it was fIrst reported as a "Water Hammer" issue with the pump system and currently being reported as "High Pressure" issue, Hannula will provide a quote to install air pressure release values at both ends. Mike McGee recommended getting an analysis of the system to find out what is happening with the system, Discussion was made on the pump brands and technicians to maintain the pumps, hiring a service technician to do performance testing and make repairs and Staff recommended opening a Purchase Order to Naples Electric Motor Works to allocate for funds to have a Service Technician to evaluate the system, Barbara Segura moved to authorize peiformance testing and peiformance testing of tlte system and make repairs to Naples Electric Motor Works not to exceed $1,000. Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Mike McGee agreed with performance testing and recommended holding a field meeting to include Contractors, Staff and Committee, Staff will request a fIeld meeting as a component of the testing with Ray Leonard so that all parties understand what the issues are with the operation of the pump system. The fIeld meeting will include the Mike McGee (project Designer), Richard Tindell (Landscape Maintenance Consultant), Damon Himmel (Landscape Contractor), Rick Sims (Committee Chairman) and Staff. Darryl Richard explained the Committee previously made a motion to "approve the JRL Proposal as presented;" the total at the bottom of JRL's 3 16 j 1 B3 proposal was for $5,242 for monthly service. The proposal was for an interim time frame, He distributed the Proposal for Golden Gate Beautification MSTU - Monthly Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services. (See attached) Richard Tindell noted funds were left but the time limit has expired. Barbara Segura expressed concern the MSTU was taking advantage of Mike McGee's valuable time. He volunteers a lot of his time answering questions and making suggestions when his opinion is requested on many issues other than landscape maintenance on the Hunter and Coronado Project. Discussion was made on the Committee choosing a Landscape Architect and what procedure to take and it was decided the Committee will prolong any decisions until October. Richard Sims moved to accept the proposal from JRL for the maintenance. Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried 3-1. Barbara Segura opposed. VI. Transportation Maintenance Report - Hannula Damon Himmel reported: · Plants are being trimmed. · Fertilizing plants is scheduled over the next 2 weeks · Mulching on Tropicana medians is scheduled over the next 30 days. · Proposal for plant replacements and fill-ins will be provided within the next 10-days. VII. Landscape Architects Report - JRL Darryl Richard Richard Tindell reported doing a drive-by with the following observations: · Dry spots due to broken irrigation heads. Road and Bridge will incur cost of repairs. · Some bug and fungus issues, · There is a tree down on Golden Gate, · Site lines on over hanging branches still need to be addressed, Due to the freeze, the County put a band on pruning until after March 15th. · Bougainvillea need to be trimmed. · Planting issues on Collier south of Golden Gate with grasses, plants and sunflowers, VIII. Landscape Architects Report - McGee & Associates A. Hunter & Coronado Mike McGee gave a slide presentation on drought tolerant "Alternate Plant Choices." ~ Dwarf Crown-of- Thoms - small leaf bred; cold tolerant 4 .1.011 1.83 i ~ Sunshine Mimosa -low ground cover; fast growing and extremely cold tolerant, little fertilization required ~ Bulbine (Cat Lily) - orange flower; overwatering may cause problems ~ Society Garlic - high life expectancy; self seeds ~ Lantana - purple and white flowers that can be trimmed ~ Needlepoint - viable plant for narrow medians ~ Perennial Peanut - yellow bloom ~ Asiatic Jasmine - good for shady locations; mostly green; minor weed pulling Discussion was ensued on the alternate plants performance and color scheme, The Committee formed a consensus to direct McGee & Associates to utilize Sunshine Mimosa, a SO/50 mixture purple and white Lantana and White Society Garlic, Mike McGee will choose median site locations where the selected plants will do well. B. CVS Shopping Center ROW Update Darryl Richard reported CVS proposed landscape design is on private property and was approved through Planning Services. They do have a ROW permit. Staffwill email plans to the Committee. Mike McGee suggested the GG MSTU has an opportunity approach the private developer for CVS regarding ROW landscaping and to negotiate with them to work with the MSTU by changing landscape plan to include palm trees to enhance entrance to Golden Gate, Darryl Richard stated he was willing to assist with the negotiations. Pat Spencer stated she would like to be included in future landscape meetings with CVS. Richard Sims expressed a past policy of the MSTU was not to incur costs for planting outside the MSTU's boundaries. The Community is happy they are taking down an eyesore. He indicated being in favor if CVS will maintain the buffer trees, IX. Old Business A. Naples Electric Motor Works Pump Evaluation - Discussed previously. B. Master Plan Revisions - Discussed previously. C. CR 951 Roadway Modifications CR 951 Roadway Modifications addressed during VB. Richard Sims read a "Thank you" letter he composed aloud addressed to the Water Symposium of Florida to express the GG MSTU's appreciation. (See attached) x. New Business -None. XI. Public Comments - None. 5 1611 i3 ~ There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 P.M. Golden Gate MSTU Advisory Committee ~~ Richard Sims, airman These minutes approved by the CommitteelBoard on '1/1 2.(/1 as presented yo<. or amended The next meeting is scheduled for April 12, 2011 4:00 PM at Golden Gate Community Center - Naples, FL 6 -.. 16 J 1 B 13 f 2885 Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 SUMMARY OF MINUTES AND MOTIONS ill. Approval of Agenda V. A. Draft Budget FY 2012 to be discussed at the April meeting. Richard Sims moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Barbara Segura. Motion carried 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - February 8, 2011 Richard Sims moved to approve the February 8, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Pat Spencer. Motion carried 4-0. v. Transportation Operations Report B. Project Manager Report (G-25) - Golden Gate Master Plan Revision Staff provided a proposal received from McGee and Associates to update the maintenance costs for an additional amount of$580. Richard Sims moved to authorized Staff to issue a Purchase Order to McGee and Associates in the amount of $580. Second by Michael McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard recommended opening a Purchase Order to have a service technician evaluate the system. Barbara Segura moved to authorized system peiformance testing and repair by Naples Electric Motor Works not to exceed $1,000. Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. 1 .. 161 1 jjj Darryl Richard explained the Committee made a motion to "approve the JRL Proposal as presented;" the total at the bottom of JRL's proposal was for $5,242 as a monthly service proposal. The proposal was for an interim time frame. Richard Tindell noted funds were left but the time limit has expired. Richard Sims moved to accept the proposal from JRL for maintenance. (proposal dated February 11,2011) Second by Mike McElroy. Motion carried 3-1. Barbara Segura opposed. 2 161:Jm4 v March 7, WIl MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER RECE~VED ADVISORY BOARD APR 1 ~ ~m1 ~1.l uii Cilunty C@mmis$itln.,rs Naples, Florida, March 7, 2011 Fiafa \../ Hiller K Henning ~..;J ~ Coyle CoJsite v' LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Jim Klug Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks Peggy Harris (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Vickie Wilson, Community Center~I(Wn:ti6or Date: oS lD ( ~ l l L It~ t: 4 1 CIJp::J 'en: 16 J 1 81~ March 7, 2011 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM by Chairman, James Klug III, II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum A quorum was established. III. Approval of Agenda Bill Artllur moved to approve the Marcil 7, 2010 Agenda as submitted. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of February 7, 2011 Minutes James Klug moved to approve tile February 7,2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Bill Art/lUr. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Public Comments - None. VI. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights Vickie Wilson reported: . Cool Cruisers event held at the end of January was well attended, 250 cars were featured, . Wi Fi now installed in the Center. · The GGCC co-sponsored a Community Cafe Event with the Hunger Coalition and Harry Chapin Food Bank held on February 24th, 180 free meals were served between 5-7 pm, . Harry Chapin Food Bank distributed 300 packages of food at the Community Cafe Event and plan to distribute food on a monthly basis. . Senior Luncheons have been averaging 60-65 people. . Farmers Market added more vendors. · During summer season the Farmers Market will be held inside the auditorium on Saturdays from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm, . Tropical Fest proceeds of $2,500 will be used for the Summer Scholarships Program, . Frontier Days is scheduled for this coming weekend. B. 6' Fence from Tax Collector to Lucerne Vickie Wilson reported the fence may not be approved due to aesthetics plus being a storm drainage area. VII. New Business - None. VIII. Member Comments 2 161. 1 March 7,2011 4 Bill Arthur researched costs on security camera systems. He located a system with 8-cameras, a monitor and recorder with an option to add up to 4 more cameras for $1500, Discussion was made on New Budget Items for FY 2011-12, The Committee would like following items considered: ~ Security Camera System ~ Playground ~ Tarps for Wheels Track (IS-years old) ~ Portable Audio Sound System ~ New Tile Flooring The Advisory Board requested the marquee sign be updated every Monday to reflect up coming events. Darrin Brooks expressed concern part of the Community was not receiving information on the Center events, He noted if a household does not have children in school bringing event flyers home, they would not know what current programs or events are happening. He asked for suggestions, Kaydee Tuff suggested requesting e-mail addresses from those interested in receiving a monthly e-newsletter, Jim Klug suggested having someone update the Naples Daily News - Calendar of Events. Vickie Wilson announced a new Customer Service person is scheduled to start on Monday; who may be capable to take on the e-newsletter task. Staff will research if GGCC is allowed to have site on Facebook. Jim Klug stated he planned to work on holding a 3-day Blue Grass Event next February. He suggested holding weekly bandstand events during the winter months. He stated the vacant lots on 44th Street and Golden Gate are an eyesore and suggested the MSTU purchase and make a park. The lots were purchased by the City to install a well. Kaydee Tuff suggested the Committee do some research to fmd someone the City may want to name park after and approach the City with that idea. Staff noted the possibility of the new park being vandalized. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:40 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD 3 " 161 1 8 4 March 7,2011 -;/ These Minute~ approved by the CommitteeIBoard on~ ~;2 0/1 as presented or as amended . 4 I ", , v February 16, 2011 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY :ijQMD v ~E(CEiVED Hiller. ,/' ~ ~ . Henning J ~ L~H~ g ~ 2m1 Naples, Florida, February 16,2011 Coyle" , Coletta t'")~~--J "n ~ ,. F> , &t-.;'-L!~:~~.J/(~:{)Gm~y v6mm~2sf?ner.5 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2: 00 P ,M, at Immokalee Community Park, 321 First Street South, Immokalee Florida, with the following members. present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: John P. Ribes Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phil Brougham Gary Davis David Saletko (Excused) ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Sidney Kittila, Operations Coordinator Tony Ruberto, Sr. Project Manager Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager II , , Rick Garby, Maintenance Supervisor MIIC, Corres, Christina Cain, Special Populations CoordillllettorVS La ttem t. t (Q -r:ll 1 CI:~!.~; to: 16 I 18 51 February 16,2011 I. Call to Order John Ribes, Chairman called the meeting to order at 2:05 PM. A quorum was established. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was held. ID. Approval of Agenda Move: VII Turf/Irrigation Highlights before V. VIII Capital Highlight after Turf/Irrigation Highlights Add: V. f Discussion on Boat Ramp Phil Brougham moved to approve tlte February 16,2011 Agenda as amended. Second by Gary Davis. Motion carried 5-0. IV. Approval of February 2, 2010 Minutes Barry Williams noted he wrote the verbiage on the caveats based on what he heard at the meeting on the Advisory Board intentions. He poled the Board Members and received 4 responses out of 6. All 4 responses approved the verbiage. - He asked the Board Members if they agreed with submitting the following caveat verbiage with the Master Plan Revisions to the BCC: Below is the exact verbiage used when Parks and Recreation Master Plan is submitted to the Bce: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requested that in approving the recommendations that the recommendations are not prioritized according to importance; future capital expenditures should be first directed towards completion of planned amenities within existing park inventory before investing in new park construction and; consideration of the recommendations being consistent and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Edward "Ski" Olesky expressed dissatisfaction with the wording "existing park inventory before investing in new park construction." Phil Brougham moved to approve the February 2, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Gary Davis. Discussion was made on the interpretation of the caveats the Advisory Board will submit with the Master Plan for approval of the BCC. The Advisory Board was in agreement with the Consultants and Staff recommendations. Motion carried 4-1. Edward "Ski" Olesky opposed. Phil Brougham asked the Board to consider finishing the Master Plan Revisions before moving to the next agenda item. 2 16 I lull?ou Edward "Ski" Olesky moved to openjloor for reconsideration of the Master Plan and the caveats applied to it. Second by John Ribes. Edward "Ski" Olesky objected to the message and verbiage "future capital expenditures should be fIrst directed towards completion of planned amenities within existing park inventory before investing in new park construction." Barry Williams agreed with Edward "Ski" Olesky and stated the caveat was limited as written. Discussion was ensued on the caveat interpretation and the wording to be used. Edward "Ski" Olesky suggested eliminating the entire caveat. Phil Brougham was not in agreement of eliminating the 2nd caveat. Barbara Buehler suggested using the original bullet caveat (Give consideration in utilizing existing lands when moving forward and strategically manage funding) as reflected in the minutes. Edward "Ski"Olesky preferred the original bulleted caveat verbiage. Motion carried 5-0. Phil Brougham moved to eliminate the 2nd caveat as noted in the approved minutes under "Below is" which reads "future capital expenditures should be first directed towards completion of planned amenities within existing park inventory before investing in new park construction" and in turn substitute the caveat above which reads; "Give consideration in utilizing existing lands when moving forward and strategically manage funding." Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 5-0. VII. Turfllrrigation Highlight - Discussed after VIII VIII. Capital Highlights Tony Ruberto gave a presentation on additions to be made to the Max Hasse Community Center and reported as follows: )> Estimated construction costs are $300,000 plus approximately $100,000 for design. )> A 30' x 50' new addition on to the existing Fitness room. )> Wall will be open on new addition to provide room for the After School Program and Summer Program. )> Existing Fitness Room equipment will be moved to the second addition, approximately 50' x 30' on the west side of the Center. )> A contract has been awarded to Victor Latavish Architect. )> Project will be submitted for permit in 3 months. )> Project will go out to bid by end of summer. )> Completion is estimated in 2012. It was noted a Grant was received from Golden Gate Estates' Land Trust in the amount of $300,000 and the balance of funding would come from Capital Project Fund 306. 3 16 I 1 lj/, February 16,2011 VII. Turfllrrigation Highlight Rick Garby - Maintenance Supervisor gave a slide presentation on the "Turf and Irrigation from December through the Present" on frost and other damage, treatments used and the clean-up process. He reported issues and treatments at the following Parks: · Veterans Memorial Park · Corkscrew Fields · Vineyards Park · Osceola · North Collier Regional Park · Max Hasse Community Park · Pelican Bay Park v. New Business a. Employee of the Month - January Barry Williams announced the January 2011 "Employee of the Month" award will be presented to Gina Sancho at the next P ARAB meeting. b. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Barbara Buehler moved to keep both the Chair (John Ribes) and Vice-Chair (Edward "Ski" Olesky) on PARAB. Second by Gary Davis. Motion carried 5-0. It was noted the Chairman and Vice-Chair accepted the nominations. c. Goodland Civic Association Agreement Barry Williams gave an overview on a non-exclusive license agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and Goodland Civic Association. Since March of2005 the Goodland Civic Association has held three (3) annual special exclusive community events where the Goodland Boating Park is "not - Open to the public." (See attached) He recommended the P ARAB endorse a non-exclusive license agreement between the BCC and the Goodland Civic Association Inc. to approve the use of county-owned property, the Goodland Boat Park, for conducting three annual events to be held on the fIrst weekend of December, February and March during the 5-year term of the license. It was noted the Parks and Recreation will issue a press release, utilize roadside mobile informational signage on SR 92, and post notice on the Parks and Recreational web site when the boat ramp is scheduled to close. Phil Brougham moved to approve the Goodland Agreement. Second by Edward "Ski" Olesky. Motion carried 5-0. d. Key Island Ordinance (Keewaydin) 4 161 1.~-;r13 5 .&.pebruary 16,2011 Barry Williams stated Parks and Recreation was approached by the Collier County Sheriff's Office to approve the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 89-11 removing "Keewaydin Island" for the list of barrier islands to provide uniform ordinances and consistent enforcement of various activities on the beach. He provided a copy of the Executive Summary for their review. (See attached) He explained that residents are subject to 2-separate and contradictory laws simultaneously. The result is that a certain activity may be prohibited or authorized depending on what agency responds to a call. He asked the Advisory Board for their support to remove Keewaydin Island off of the Ordinance so the Sheriff can enforce laws. Edward "Ski" Olesky moved to accept the Executive Summary (Key Island Ordinance.) Second by Barbara Buehler. Motion carried 5-0. e. New Regulations Related to ADA Christina Cain - Special Populations Coordinator gave a slide presentation on Changes to ADA Standards effective March 15, 2012. She reported evaluating the existing facilities and changes required to make Collier County Parks be in compliance by effective date. (See attached) She reviewed the following and stated Parks & Recreation is working on a Transition Plan: · Key changes covered in the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. · Accessible Routes · Service Dogs · Playgrounds and Parks · Sports Fields · Fitness Centers · Fishing and Boating · Aquatics Edward "Ski" Olesky asked what the compliance changes will cost. Staff responded the project is in the early development stages and costs are not known. Facilities Management has hired a Consultant to evaluate the County Parks and has funds to assist in some of transition plans. Discussion was made on liability concerns and it was noted the Parks and Recreation stance was to assist everyone who express the desire to use the facilities. Christina Cain suggested the Advisory Board visit the following web site for additional information. http://wvvw.ada.gov/2010ADAstandardsindex.htm f. Discussion of Boat Ramp Stickers Phil Brougham asked for an update on a request made by Susan Cone, owner of Up a Creek Kayak Tours. Ms. Cone was concerned the new fee structure for commercial launch stickers. 5 1611BS February 16,2011 Barry Williams responded this is a commercial operational issue. The letter suggested the commercial fee structure require one sticker for several water vehicles and trailers. Board Members were not in favor of that suggestion. Staff will review and consider the issue and report fIndings at next meeting. VI. Old Business - None. VII. Turfllrrigation Highlights - Discussed before V. VIII. Capital Project Highlights - Discussed before V. IX. Adopt A Park Edward "Ski" Olesky reported on Immokalee Community Park, Immokalee Sports Complex and Ann Olesky Park/Boat Ramp. The Community Park issue with some Fitness Room equipment repair is being addressed. He further reported the parks were well kept and looked good. He recommended the Park/Boat Ramp area have trash picked up more frequently due to more people are fIshing. He will continue his park visits and will make recommendations accordingly. John Ribes reported on North Collier Regional Park, Barefoot Beach Park and Vanderbilt Beach & Parking. (See attached) He said in general, all parks were in good condition. North Collier Regional Park . Park is in excellent condition. . Entrance and entrance signage is deplorable and not representative of the beautiful park. . Recommended adding more education and points of interest along the preserve. . Begin the process for expanding and adding elements other than sports, to attract more teenagers. Phil Brougham left 3:35 pm Barefoot Beach Park . Commended Parks and Recreation for a great job. . Concerned the 5' x 5' Guard House needs to be expanded to include a restroom. . Suggested more work be done on the Nature TraiL . Suggests crushed shells be considered for all roads and parking lot. Vanderbilt Beach & Parking John Ribes asked the status of the restroom facilities. Staff responded the BCC directed Parks and Recreation to investigate an inquiry from FEMA and its effects. Staff has not received feedback. Staffwill invite Gary McAlpin to give an update on capital projects at a future meeting. 6 161 1 B 5 . Phil Brougham returned 3:38 pm X. Director's Highlights Barry Williams reported the County and City will be holding a meeting to review County and City programs offered to" public ~o identify recreation programs and overlapping progranlS. City has requested more funding from County. No other commitment has been made. David Likes, Shari Ferguso.n and the Parks and Recreation Di1:ector fi.-om the City of Marco have also been invited to attend. He will research with the County Attorney's Office prior to inviting an Advisory Board Member due to the Sunshine Law. He will keep the Advisory Board updated on ". progress. Barry Williams asked the Advisory "Board for direction on a policy for allowing more than one baseball organization play. He reported Parks & Recreation agreed to allow Cal Ripken Baseball a trial. The trial is not working out for Cal Ripken Baseball and they requested the County find them a place to play closer to home. Staff report not having room for growth. He invited a Cal Ripken representative to address concerns with the P ARAB. He reported a similar problem with two soccer leagues. Staffhas kept both leagues at different Park locations. The leagues are very competitive and try to recruit each others players. He suggested the latest soccer and baseball leagues try to work with schools and utilize their fIelds. Staffwill give an update at"the next meeting. He rep0l1ed Parks and Recreation working closely with the Sheriffs' Office to curtail illegal activity at Sugden Park. Surveillance signage has been installed to deter the nuisance activity. Cameras and Sheriffs' surveillance has been increased. Barry Williams announced on February 22nd the Board of County Commissioners will recognize John Ribes for serving on Committees and Boards for 10 years. XI. Informational Items - Read only XII. Public Comments/Board Member Comments - None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:50 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD These Millu~es were approved by the CommitteelBoard on presented or as amended 'I.. . ~ ~. .. 8 r eoruary 10, LV 11 16 J 1 B 5 ~.tl~'ll 1Jf=' . ,as .' '1. 1611tjS - ----_.---,,-- -- ..' - - -. -. . .....RI.IIDLY ,r T.:c'"",:",:~J:ft:":=.::;:!='~":JIIPI.ISf"1;",,,, '-'~-'," . , River Reach Apts . 2000 River Reach Dr ..........................239.643.2992 Saba! Key 1600 Wellesley Circle .........................239.353.1211 San Marino Apartments 9300 Marino Cide _........__.........~.....239.793.4603 . Summer Wind Apartments .5301 Summerwind Dr......................... 239.597.6605 Turtle Creek Apartments 1130 Turtle Creek Blvd .......................239.514.4449 Tuscan Isle Apartments 8650 'Neir Dr.......................................239.304.3668 Waverly Place ~v, 5300 HeminQWaYLane........:,.............239.353:4300 : Whistlers Green Apartments DIIIIIIII I ~- ..:.,.:..,. :<'MAPIJSS ::c~;~,. c' Arbor V'1eN Apts 15985 ArborV'1eN Blvd.......................239.594.7577 College Park Apartmen1s 6450 College Park Circle....................239.732.7707 .. Coral Pakns Apartments 4539 Coral Palms L.ane......................239.455.4188 '. Enclave ApertmenIs 1295 Wildwood Lakes Blvd................239.354.3200 Heritage Apartments 4250 Jefferson Lane...........................239.354.1155 La Costa Apartments 3105 La Costa Circle..........................239.435.4555 Laurel Ridge Apartments 5460 L.aureI Ridge Lane Ospreys Landing ~ 100 Ospreys LandillQ .........................239.261.5454 -_.--- -_.--- Sunburst Cafe. 2340 PineRici;'Z';~\~~~:{~":;;t;: . Sweet CaroIine's. 11121 Health Park Blvd T~~~ ~~~. 13(X):3rd Street South c,O~::~:~,:::::"j~;JAlH.IEtJKllilDf..5':?o;:;::,,';.~:::''I Over Easy Cafe.----. . . ~.' You'D love Our Pet-Friendly Outdoor patio! www.OverEasyCafeSanibel.com 630 Tarpon Bay Rd ....................... 239.472.2625 See our Ad on PaJ!e 6 The Great White Grill, 2440 Palm Ridge Rd. Suite 1 fl-q ce ~4t.-0Ucf.(Ue~ /5ILL 5dfuf r z- .. t~Wftb~... .,;'. . . . ..... . en~~Frencl1iio;ne Coo~pres- 75Suili' ..W1*~~e ~~,qpn Fnday at A.~. S., Naples. The event features a ~c:ourse lUncheon,' a gIass of wine or =:everage"Jax and tip.and recipes for d . .~.,,~e-~~thy foo,ds ~or that breed of I '?&.W~-b~ed ~vaiIese';are invited = !hell' ~ers. $25. ~~tions: 643- '. , "'~'.a11;JI~&ia~;,~i,~in :op~ts?~:"'."" . ..~~~;~~f~'~~i\;;~~~.f..$- \~!:~'t;~;~ii~1m ~ocwnoniati';'r<,<iu;r.d,j,}.'l' . Fla.';~~dii1g';:l1lowg~ef~py<~a~im~Q'J~;;~QJ:ldpj:l:i~t ,,,l~w:;to thecoristltiitigIlgba,rd, and~twill'betaken UIldet;, doe~ not an()'v\r:n)im~ls Vi"aswrnt$=ftom-Ute viewpoirit ;co'ri.$ideration. '.,::. ,.' .' . a~iitt:J:~r+"~ '"~;;:L~I~:;YoDrcOn~.:::=: cle~y state.!'nopets,'allowed,~,tMt rul,e ' " iever had a closere~ationsbip with~animalduringyotir ~e.g~;~'~~~%~~J~~~~.~~~:~~J~,:,,:.: ';~:~~~l:r~tln~~::~~':io::~~~)~E~: ~coU1panion animaI,",WhiCJl,We-heap: dij::-' ..,:" ~pailion lInimllls'~e family members and. as'such, have' . ~a.tes.and;a..$ei'Vice>orsuPPQrtanimall'" L ",. ,j:ii$ts quite diffe.rent~9m the rightsofalleison needing , whi&isdenned\bythe~ed~anSw.th ; ,Dr. .an.animalpeca11Seofa.Qisability. '. " :oisabilities1\.ct.~A:.I)~):(jtl~.90;:Fl!>~p.a ;' . ""-PoJt,:,-:':"W'Democratic~co;I!.dQ,' ~sdciations:: are ,gener~y"opelr:' Statute 413.08 t:l.~es "Servl(!e~" " . -i,cy; ';:Tn!!lded QP: JhiS'i$!ljle.;S~1:ting strict regulations to ensure as "an ~thaf~ttam:ed~o~p~i1()iillJ';-',- ',' ">":; ,; tliabtes~dentfllJ!1tlyanrmalSdo not distuIb other people , task$ f9r al}. w.diVidQ.alw.ith.~,~~bilitY.~,An~<ij.vidu' :In the b11ildihg(:om'plex~d grounds. Those who are ZC>O-' 'witlra disability{isa'personitliQ~ deWhliIdQfc't't", .. 'phobic (afraid of~) aretobeeonsjdered,buthave rio blind/visuallyirp.p~~orothe~ep'hys~c!ill.y~able. ,.nghttopersecuteresiderits for havingammalcompanions f{asemCe aiiimalis tiec~ssarY. thelawmari.da$-q~tailepriot-to:some""D;o'pe,~ rWe being es~lished. documentati~n.-" '.i,~' , " . , ;c .::"~. ' '11te,estimate .savirlgs in health-caretosts !elated -to ve1~:tth~i:i>~~1~~~~~et'i,{fu~jrk~m<!~~;;:~ecb:nfoa::~~~fi~~C~>r(ling to European'studies" because.theyare depressea-3Jid '1i(}ed them".Rhaseaused' gre~l constematipn amoIl'gt)).ciseowners .who 'live here'; , ' ,=,<:'. . becausethey.wantedailon-pet-development. ' ,',', ,,' 'DnFaX:'s'wabsn:a'js-i\1W'fMtwob1tdOg.ro.mIDi-Fox:Contad Dr., . ,Ifpeople want companion anim~, letth~m' live in :~.MiChael FoxfuCf!IepfUnited Feature Syndicate, 200 Madisori' a place that allows pets. If they .iIeed"a;'s~ce ,anUria!; .:Ave., New York, NY 1001,6 . " " . ;: \;:" Pet ownership in America 161 185 "~ Total adult responders hqusehold income all $50.000+ 10,646 24,754 Do you own a pet Yes NO 62% 38% 59% 40% WHICH TYPE OF PET BIRD CAT 8,5% 48.4% 8.2% 49.3 DOG 72.1 % 70.5% 6 OUT OF 10 HOUSEHOLD HAVE A PET 7 OUT OF 10 PET OWNERS HAVE A DOG NATIONALLY SYNDICATED SURVEY TAKEN TWICE Last time December 2010 18 years of age+ Margin of error + 1.8% -,e ~ R~ EMt M.S.T.U. AJ.v~ ~ zl/l/s), H~ ~t ~tEC\2~J~fE\o) N~, FL 3lf10lf L~r~ '~ ~ ~m~ 161186> Fi~'GJ v' Hiller ,/'" ~~~I~ng ~ .Jf;~ Coletta i7 * = ;"~S3'261 aU C\Jullill C!'ll"cITllsaiMGfS . ,- AprIl 6, 2011 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - February 23, 2011 Meeting V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Gloria Herrera B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard C. Review & Approval ofFY-2012 MSTU Budget VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Dayna Fendrick, Urban Green Studio B. Public Meeting Comments C. Well Drilling Timeline/ Purchase of Equipment VII. New Business A. Grant Update - Pam Lulich VIII. Old Business A. Liaison Report - RR MSTU IX. Public Comments X. Adjournment Tile next meeting is sclleduled/or May 4, 2011 at 10:0~.~. 2885 Horseslloe Drive Soutlt ISC. "C"" Naples, FL 34104 Date: Ov, L 0 l it'.mt: 1 CC~:23 'LfJ: y 16J 18"6' /. ~ R.~ &,a k,S.T.U. AJ.v~ ~ 2~~S S. H~ ~t N'f/M, fL 3lf10lf Min utes February 23,2011 I. Call Meeting to Order The Meeting was called to order by Chairman Dale Johnson at 10:00 AM. II. Attendance Members: Sue Chapin, Thomas Depouw, Dale Johnson, Paige Simpson, Renato Fernandez County: Michelle Edwards Arnold - ATM Director, Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operation Manager, Gloria Herrera - Management Budget Analyst Others: Dayna Fendrick - Urban Green Studio, Katie Binkowski- Urban Green Studio, Sue Flynn - Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Renato Fernandez moved to accept the Agenda/or February 23,2011 as submitted. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - February 2, 2011 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approved February 2,2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Dale Johnson. Motion carried 4-0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Project Manager Report Gloria Herrera distributed and reviewed the Radio Road East MSTU Fund 166 Budget Report dated February 23, 2011. (See attached) She reported as follows: · Ad Valorem Tax Received $125,087.72 · Purchase Orders - Commitments $37,664.07 · Reserves/Future Construction - Available $56,300.00 · Operating Expense - Available $8,994.00 · Total Actual Expenditures $12,063.69. Darryl Richard reported conversing with Pam Lulich regarding installation of well and pump equipment. She recommended not 1 161 1 B 6 installing the equipment at this time because it could sit without use for 4-5 years, the warranty will expire and the equipment tends to lose prime, plus better equipment may be available when the MSTU is ready for the installation. He also recommended the MSTU proceed with obtaining the permit from SFWM and confirm the time frame it will cover. i Sue Chapin expressed concern the cost may rise if equipment is purchased at a later date. Dayna Fendrick stated the cost will depend on the rates when purchased. Darryl Richard noted if the equipment is not purchased and the cost goes up and the Committee factor in the equipment has to be used or re-primed along with the expiration of the warranty, it makes sense. He will provide a copy of the permit to the Committee upon receipt. Sue Cllapin moved to continue witll tile permitting and put a Ilold on tile purcllase and installation of tile well and pump and delay transfer of $56,300 from tile Reserve Account to Capital Outlay Account until confirmation of tire permit expiration time frame at the April meeting. Second by Renato Fernandez. Tom Depouw arrived at 10: lOam. Tom Depouw was given an update on the current motion. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio (UGS) Dayna Fendrick reported having the permit application ready to be submitted to SFWM upon receiving additional documentation from Staff. She presented a total project design layout by combining the Urban Canopy and Palm Grove Design. The Concept Design has been reviewed by Staff and approved by Engineering. She reported the following: ~ Urban Canopy was applied to the whole project with some Palm Grove features. ~ 100' at each turn point would be low ground cover. ~ Plants at site lines would not be higher than 18 inches. ~ Royal Palms will be at most Community entries. ~ Gumbo Limbo trees and Buccaneer palms are two other trees decided upon. ~ Bougainvilleas, Jasmine and low Bromeliads will be some of the plants discussed later for color. Renato Fernandez suggested landscaping the medians to make parking on them a problem, especially by the Collier County Sheriff's 2 16 j '1 B6 " Dept. He also suggested giving careful interest to making all the Community Entrance medians the same. Michelle Arnold noted no other MSTU communities have had complaints with entrances being different and the Sheriff s Dept. issue seems to be resolved. Dayna Fendrick stated mulch will be used for the maintenance paths through the trees on a diagonal away from the traffic site and along the edges. The pavers will not be used as in the previous plan. Staff also confirmed no rock or shells are allowed in the medians and plant material will be decided upon after the initial Public Meeting, Pam Lulich stated the Concept Design has been approved by Engineering and all the plants will not create any site lines issues. Another follow-up Public Meeting will be held closer to the installation of plants. Sue Chapin recommended the Landscape Architect use the displays that suggest choices for shrubs and ground covering with the entire Project Concept Design plus showing a differential between ground cover and mulch. She also suggested displaying a board pertaining to the Mileage Rate to the residents along with the timeframe of the proj ect, Dale Johnson remarked Berkshire was the only community entrance not having Royal Palms on both median sides. Dayna Fendrick responded the medians at that location are not wide enough to plant Royal Palms. Sue Chapin moved the Committee accept the Gumbo Limbo, Royal Palms and Buccaneer Palms be tile main accent trees used for tile Project. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Discussion was made on road construction scheduled to begin March of2011 to widen CR 951 that will end at Radio Road and take 4-5 years to complete. The construction could affect the east end of Radio Road and the Design can be altered prior to installation, if necessary. Dayna Fendrick will provide and display a cost estimate for the proj ect. The Committee formed a consensus to hold the public informational meeting at the Golden Gate Community Center on Tuesday, March 29th from 6:30 - 8:00 pm. A formal presentation will be held at 7:00 pm. Suggestions made for the meeting were: · Questions will be held until the end of the presentation. 3 16 I; 1 B 0 , · Display the Concept Design on a back wall to keep traffic movmg. · A representative is present at each display to answer questions. · Reflect the well location on the Concept Design. · Enlarge the Community names. Dayna Fendrick stated the display boards will be available for the Committee to review on March 22nd if so desired.. Tom Depouw suggested the Committee research funding through Municipal Bonds in order to expedite the project, He further suggested if the Radio Road East Proj ect funds were a large enough sum; they could perhaps be combined with other Community projects. (With the Bond amount) The Committee was in agreement with having Tom Depouw represent the Committee on the Municipal Bond issue with staff. Staff will invite Mark Isaccson to discuss the use of Municipal Bonds or other financing at their April 6th meeting. It was noted there would be costs involved with Municipal Bonds and the entire MSTU will need to vote on the issue VII. New Business A. Grant Update Pam Lulich did not have an update to report. Darryl Richard reported reviewing an MPO chart and found that Radio Road East is still close to the bottom of the list and not on the 5 year list. It seems Pathways are taking precedence. Staff stated they will continue to pursue Grant funds. Staff recommended using a variable message board to notify Communities of the Public meeting. There may be a small cost involved but the Committee felt it was an appropriate expense.. VIII. Public Comments - None. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 AM. Radio Road East Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee 4 16 I 1 "6 6 'I These minutes approved by the Advisory Committee on as presented or amended A Public Meeting is scheduled/or March 29, 2011 at 6:30 p.rn. at the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, FL. The next regular meeting is scheduled/or April 6, 2011 at 10:00 a.rn. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, FL 34104 5 161 1 B6 '.8 ~ R~ EMt M.S.T.U. AJ.v~ ~ zggS S. H~ ~t N~, FL 34104 Summary of Minutes and Motions February 23, 2011 III. Approval of Agenda Renato Fernandez moved to accept the Agenda for February 23,2011 as submitted. Second by Sue Chapin. Motion carried 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - February 2, 2011 Meeting Sue Chapin moved to approved February 2, 2011 Minutes as submitted. Second by Dale Johnson. Motion carried 4-0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard reported conversing with Pam Lulich regarding the installation of well and pump equipment. She recommended not installing the equipment at this time because it could sit without use for 4-5 years, the warranty will expire and the equipment tends to lose prime, plus better equipment may be available when the MSTU is ready for the installation. He also recommended the MSTU proceed with obtaining the permit from SFWM and confirm the time frame it will cover. Sue Chapin moved to continue with the permitting and put a hold on the purchase and installation of the well and pump and delay transfer of $56,300 from the Reserve Account to Capital Outlay Account until confirmation of the permit expiration time frame at the April meeting. Second by Renato Fernandez. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VI. Landscape Architect Consultant Report A. Landscape Design - Urban Green Studio (UGS) Dayna Fendrick presented a total project design layout by combining the Urban Canopy and Palm Grove Design. Sue Chapin moved the Committee accept the Gumbo Limbo, Royal Palms and Buccaneer Palms be the main accent trees usedfor the Project. Second by Tom Depouw. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. research i NNNII)NNNNN--~-- CI)""cncnolloWN-oCDco""encn H;UAl-lOJOJ-I-Ios:oooor 19' m mAle C AI AI >- "'0 "'0 st 3 -I g' I;e:M.'. : (JJ (JJ >- 0 0 >- >- "'0 AI m CD 0 I ::J i immZ(j)(j)ZZ-lo~"oCDmen I 1 AI AI (JJ m m (JJ (JJ >- "" (JJ AI CD -~--~ oIloWN-OCDCI)"" ,-1 m l-fl. -I zm 0 0 -I -l Z 0 i AI >- >- AI AI (j) :~ i >0 (j) AI AI >0 >0 I>Z 01 AI AI Z Z ~r(JJ~-<-<(JJ(JJ . ..1 oJ 1 86 .~ - f' cncn tDi< - m m ~ c;::lm AI -I -I AI 0 0 s: Z ., '0 (JJ 0 0 AI AI m -I m AI el(JJ "TI AI AI C (j) Q) (JJ ::J -I AI AI (JJ );! Z r (JJ ~ m ~ CD' 0 a. Olml(JJ 0 r G)I 0 0 >- >- ~ -I Z m::J AI ~ ~ "TI "TI -I -I 0 0 !!II AI 0 Z Z ~ ~ en m "'0 -I'Z'!20 AI AI AI X 0 AI ! Z (JJ (JJ C -I XCO r CD ~Ic:lo m 0 0 C Z - m AI I "TI (JJ 'U(JJ ~ ., < AI AI (') Z m I (JJ -< 3 Allmio $: s: 0 -I s: ! e -I >- Z (j) me 0 0 0 m s: .- -I -I i e 0 "'0 Z z'O Z ;::;: I IZ );! >- r AI Z ~ m (JJ'Q. en 0 (j) C ~ I ro 0 "'0 0 Z m l=ti "'0 r m -I AI m'< 0 "TI m X "'0 AI m m 0 0 0 Z m 0 (JJ X C IOJ m 0 AI -I AI 0 r AI (JJ Z >- -I m ::J I 0 , en 0 r (JJ (JJ .- -I C r m , " ~ l'T'I r--- 4IlIi ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ oM ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ :,'1'<.1 ~ ~ > ,~ - - - OJ 3 ' ..a. ~ ~ c ~ 01 01 N N 01 ~ ;; 01 01 c.. tI) (J) 0) (J) w w 0) 0) 0) ~ ~ """ """ .""" w w (C ::J c.. :1 w w (Xl (Xl 0 01 01 0 ~ ~ 01 0 m """ ~ w w tI) tI) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 r+ c.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lfi I I .~ I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::0 - '-" '-" 1';:': "TI D) .. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ,- ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ CD C. :1 0 C'" <5" 0 ~ "TI ;"'.'i 3 c c: ::0 S>> '~' 3 ~ Z C. W W ;:;: c m ~ "" ~ 01 3 en ~ 00 a, N - D) .~ tI) W tn .. en 0 00 ~ m " oIioo 0 ~ 01 ::::l -- I I I I I I I I I b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I lit N m :s: C) 0 0 0 0 .~ "" 0 ~ 0 - en - --I .. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ .,. ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ c: m >< "C > , """""" - - CD .... ~ ~ ::::l C'l ",,;. N '" N c.. .... N N '" CD ~ (Xl en 01 01 ;:;: C .. W r.., :.. !!!.. ~ ~ """ ~ ~ -- 0 C N '" oIlo ~ w t ~ ~~ (Xl CiJ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ w ~ ~ :--l I I I I I I I I I I = I I I I I I I I en . ~ ~ CD (0 0 . 01 0 (Xl ~ 0) 0) W W 0 W ~ 0 N ......,. '-" '-" '-" '-" ,. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ .. ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ I )> I ! -f < 0 e!. ........... - - .... Dr J (J'1 01 N N N N N !!. c- O) 0) ~ ~ w 0) 0) 00 ~ ~ w 0' """ """ 00 00 (j) -- ~. ~' w w 0 0 0 01 01 (0 ~ ~ ~ 01 0 """ """ ~ N 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 (J'1 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 I I ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 (J) ~ ~ '" ~. N N !; I I I I ~ I (X) I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 """ ~ 0 00 '-" - '-" '-" AlZZ"TIOO m-l<"TImc <mm-lrAl mAl(JJI>->o zm-l-lo c __________-=--~.__ ms: ~= CD III ::J(C !!!. CD o ::J 1S: -II> ~ 00 'II>- W "" CO 'i,.. CO 0 ~ CO CO 'TI =2 'TI 'TI -< :5' 5' .... .... ...... !\1.. a 0 ;j: .... 0 en 'TI 'TI 'TI w :s.. -< 0 -I ~ -< -< -.... "" .... ~ III ~ ~ 0 X <0 0 .... 0 III <0 0- 0- -l i iil 1Il III D1= ...., ~ ~ 0 0- i:: 0 !if CD <0 (Jl l <: g;: .... @ !\1.. a 'TI a ai lfi a 8' .... -< Q a a .... .... .... (p a 0 .... - a .... g;: a :c- III ~ Di (C CD 0 III "C II en 0 0 0 16118,6 -.--~---""':"~I t '" ., :;0 III ~ q' :;0 o III c. m III !!l. c (J) c.... < ..... - c CD C' ~ ~. :s Dl en Q, ::J CD Qi CD G> en =I: ~ CD Z Dl CD 3 ::J CD m 0 (') 6 =I: CD c'i' ~. ." CD 0 CD (J) ~ CD en ! (J) CD < CD c'i' en CD en ;::; CD 3 ~ ~ ~ 01 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 ." ...... ...... ...... 0 N N N ~ Ul N ;a: ~ ...... 01 01 Ul N 0 ...... en ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::c CD Ul 3 01 ...... !!!. '"en ...... (Xl ~ 0 (Xl :s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ !=' ~ ::J 0 0 0 (C 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ." (Xl ...... III N ...... c: Ul ...... ...... !=' I I I 0 I CD 0 Ul ." o uj "T1 -< .... .... ~ Co) ..., m en oIloo (:) ..., ~ CD W oIloo .... to Co) 10 .dl-;"'l' '__~_-"~Sl'~~'~~I____ '...L-- ; : """""" - ! I -! -I i ",\1 \ II .'\ i'l '\' ';1 \ i\ I is . 1 ~ a 1\ \ .' I ~ '. \ \ \ 1\ ; i \ 1 II ; \ \ t ~ I \ ~ I (1\1 l~ \~ II ~\ :".1. \ \~ ~ b 1\ ,1 I ili II ! \ I ',r., I, II : i ! \ J.., \ i,' (\ \. ' \ I \ \1\' , ), 111~\ ( \l \ i I i,\1 IJ\ ~'I i I lli \ \,..,.1\ \, \\ \ \ ., I ~I \ \ I i \.i 0 \ II I " i II ~ \', ~ s ,\.\ \ 1'\ tIll \ ~ I, \ \ \ \ ~ '~,.' \, : 'I \ 'I ~ \ I \ \ !i) ,;, I \ ~\II'II\, ~ ' \ 1\ \ i i I -L · n ~j , (~J \\: /~ o 6 ffil ~ ~ ~ lil....! ~ i ~~a w! ~ ~ Q j ~ a.' ~I /-) 'I, r n ~I l + ~~* ',~ 0 "LJ' j Lj ...J: ~ V": _,'IL! I i ~ ~2O <>:5 !:;a. ow ~5 o!jg 020 "-5 Ii: . i::i c ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~/ ~'.' ~ . " ~~ 1m" a" 1-; fil ! !:..~! ! 'I ','~! I '~i , . I \'" :"" ~I'.. l~iU ~illi ! 1111 \. 'i I: J 1,11'1 i: I]U' j i. ~ ~ ~ 6S ~ 'Z ~ lS:) I- ~cs cD! <(0 olt ~vi' o~ .....< OZ ~ ..~ i~ " ~~ 2.' ~=$ e ~~ ~~~ ~ tB ~~" 11 ~~ ..'~ ~f ~~ i:1 ~:c _0 ~~M 1= lie ~~~ .. /:; s"" ~ ~ i~l s ~ .' ~~ ~i! " 'ill ..-- : ~",-.',.," ! " .... 161~1 Bp ~ l , . \ [!'1~'h~:E5 ' 111 G........\ \'1 q 'cl'\,\ \ II 1'1 ill I 1\ \ , I i I ,; i \, \1; \, \\1 \ \ \ I! \ ~ \ \;~ \1 \ \ II '\ I_I \ i - I \' \ i i i ! il z: o ~ ~ \ \ \ :\~\. ~ \\ \ \',..1 1\ \ \ 1 - \ i\ ~'\ \ I \ \ \ '\ : \I, \ \ ,I I' 'Iii ! 1, ~\.!,\ b\\ \ 1 \ \ I,ll 1\ \ 1 t. \ \ II II ' \\ m i. \ 1,'1 \ I, \ \ II ,I \ \ \1 I h ! q\~ \ 1\'. i \ \ 1\. ,I lal 1:\1 ' \ ~ i 111 I : ~ l III! ~' , \ ~ ql ,1,1 I I ; I i illl, \ ill i I ! \I! I ~ 1:'1 i I II \ \ \ :,1,,: II \ \ \,,! I , I) ! J I II- ~ 1\ III' I' / II, I \ \ n. 11.1 ____JiLL..._ , ~"N tiiS I ilia.. 01 - ~ ~ I' ...J ifi I ~ H I - 1nj' ~ l ~~g" , -' ~ ~~i~~\' l ~i ., 2 ~ ., i'j ~ 1 is, /---" . ! IS, ( + ) ",\YI~ . '. f.'1 fl ! ~I \,.:_/7.1^f- ~ V u \ _ ! 5~ ow ~6 ~IS 1I-~ t: ~ o ~ r- 1 i ['~ ~- <;~ ~II '\;"~I,,"~I, I, ~i~'l' \ ; ,10 I i i :~! !~I'"I't:!1 !~1~~ -'--'1\;Tjl.- II; , III ! 1 ,I~ I', I I~ , III i" : l ! ,,~ <~,~~.JJ ~ !Ii il1~ 0<2 <l:'3 0'" 0:::'" o~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~E .1 iihn , ~ h ~I~ n ~i ~ g~ :.L- ~ ~ ~~I ~ ~ ~.~ c :i ;~~ 8';" s ~~ . 10 : -H" i-~-~"",.,~.,rr',-.<;r'."",,I~----~.t~' 11 \ \il \\'i');l l\ \ \ \ ~'l i.., i ,I t~ 1~1\ i.. \ . I \! ,It I \ \ 1 \ \ I '\' '" I \ II,' il \ \ 11 \ \ 1 \ I \ \ I 1! 1 I \ \ I '1'1 I! \ " I 1'1 ~l \ q \., j-,\,.,.i,~,1.'" ...,'...."..."...",.. r \ \ I i ~ ,\\:'~.I'X 'Ill'l'.. 'i\, 1~ I' {I\ "t..," ',',~.'....' ,I '" II ~ ..It :' II \ 1, \ '1 i Ii i, II 1 I \11 \ '" i , -j\ ! ~l\ 1 \\\ z o !i ~ 11\ : \\.-\. \ \ ~ i!: I \ I Il, . . ; I I Ii I I I I; - J ,\1 !j I ~- l\\ Ii Ii \ 1 i I _ I \I I ! ., .:, f \ 1\: i ~' ~/i fl ~wr ~~ :22l I I g \2 I I ~ . II ' \1\ il ~ 1 ,,' \ I \\ 'I' "" ~' pI I '\I I , 1'1 _ _ __111L_ _ JL_:3~",_ _ _ __ ,_ JlllLL_ 161 8,6 i;1 1 i c~i~ ~ X~2 ...J ~ ~ ~gllij~ ~ ~. i t ~ i ~ ~ !. ! ~; /~G ,.~. ~ ~ ~ I ! ~i ( -'- 5~~ * 0 tJ ; i I _.--: .JI. V'\ '"'-' '-' a:; s: Wz 1>::5 !3a. OW ~6 gj~ "'s t " ~ o ~ ~ ...) ~ S ['~ ~- ~~ I~I"L... i ~i~! : . I IIi I i i I,,' !lLi...HI JI~!3 ~.'~:~i Iii" 1111i~ 1'1 ;t .1,1.!. " ~ i ~ (/J t;; U)~ 0'" ct9 0.... o:~ 0"- ......< 0'" ~ .> ~~ ,- ~~ ~., ~" i I~ !~~ <'< ~ ~~ ~j~ ~ ~~ - ~i u~ ~g ~ ~ !~! :';:: ~ f';:~ ~;} ..!! ~~ ll~ ji Ii .i! _.: ;.~,:~J i ' I .\ 16l 1 B 6A ~ .. o::t Ii:iO I w....... ilia. 01 .fij( ...J z - ~ ~ ~, ~ ;i~~1 ~ ~, ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ . ! ~I ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ is, (: I ~ lI:ll \ -J'i}/, <&, 0 ""l ,.,..,,\ ' i ~ \~f;;~~'Zl -.: J:J I ~ I - ~s ~o. ~~ 55 gj~ u.,Z t5 ~ o ~:2 , " ~~ le"o I Zl'~ ' " , ~ I i I~ I \ ! i;, ~i"!,,,; !~I~I~I lllli ill'! IiI \ Ii . i I ~ JJ1~ ~~ 02 ~~ ~'" O~ C;z ~ I ~ &; ~ ~ I \~ ~ '" {J c .... ~ ~ I!!! I~ I'" 9 i [Ql ~ I \ cf l. t I , \ ~ ~ it: i1i ~ l:l It :5 "' '" :;: i l( on w '" 0 ill w i!: !I .. i~ ~ ~~ !,!l UUII ~i ~" ej .. ~ ~ s , ' 1; ! ~~1 ~ ~ i~~ ~ ~ i!~ 5~ It ")11 l ! ~~ ,Ii "l~ _c:~.il , , I I , :.i):.):W"S;:~ 11 . -- -r.! m "1n,m1r,r I 11\ ,~, \'\ ',Ill I ! I 1"", I > ! i" I' II !! '" \ 11'1 ii ra>\...~ 1\ \ I '\! ! I \ [~ ' \ I ! \ 111'1' ~ 1\ \ \ \ '\1. I!! III 1'~:~ !II ! I.i I .;1 III i I, 'II f. . I. I :, i i I \11 \ \ I t "\1 \! i III' I,;f\ i I! I ~ d~ l jl[1 I I I ill ~~I Iii ! II ii.....,'i3f,.' I 'I! I I II ,i I 1,111 I,~..."l Ii! i'l I~t I\!I ", I, :.:..- I i I ! ! .;';> , i ~ II i ' ! I 1 I \, , I II I. ii' II i i I ill' II 111.1',11 i! 1,\1.,.'.1.. i 1;1 ' 'I' I' ! III~I ! III i i I:li Ii II ;111'\ 'j: I ! ! I i !II ii, 1\'1 I, J' t,~ !.,}".",:.~.:i,.,." . J'l:' _ _llJU__~!I.'V_" ' , :ill2.~ ___ l_J 161 1 8 6 . I '~i~ ~! ~ ~ ~ ..J w,g .a:~...- I ffi' ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ J -" II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~' a :i i! ~ ;oJ fi J ~I ~~\ ~ii:L .L' 0 u' : r'l ~ z: .. <:::,....~"::0>:. I - 5: ('~~ ~ i ~ I ~z ....5 ::>0. o~ ~l5 ~Vl 12~ t5 . ~ o [:~ -I" l:? ~~ II~i.~fT ~r~' j I I~' I , ~ I . I,'z .. , .. ',.; G, ~!~!i~ ~ z g i5 '" '" ~ ] ~ :2 (f) I- ~~ 001 <(9 ou. o::~ 0"- ....<< 0'" ~ s ~ :s i ~~ !~ ~ ~~ !E~ ~ ~~ fs~ ~ ~i ~~~ ~ !~ t~ ..~ H. Uin ~ lJ ! s; ~I -~ a' J~, i,.. '. 'Il -,~.. -.~ :~~ , 161186 10 -----i'~,il.r--~ : II. I I! III ( . I +H' \, , II 1\11 .11\ III i i I I! I i! i I II ~ " ! 11 \xi II i :11 1\,1.\ ill I \~ m I \I' i i I! ; i I I Ii [I ~ II ~ iii' I i I I: : : ~ I i 1\ , I i il Ii, i! . i , 1-'. -. f I \ -----rqT--- . id I I i I I ;. I i I I y!1 I lili ~ J 1111 el'\ i I \,1, ': i III! Iii I 1II1 II! i IIII '\1' i II , II I: ! \. '\ I I ~ II I ~ . . ~ Iii 0 II ~ , I i I'll !II! i i ~! I i i , i i i i , I I! II III 1111 1~ II II: : 'II! Iq I II! I I! I! ,I J II III \ 1,1 ,i \ I r!! I ~i I ,L III It il I' i ; i i @I III , <~~S ilia.. 01 ~ ~ 11 I ...J IIi: \1 ;t 5 I; ~ - [il'1 !j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -J ~ .~~g" , w Ci alQti!d~ = ~ i U ~ - ~. ( + )~'!~~~J 0 lJ rl ~ ::J: \"J ~v~~ '. U u i ~ I - ~S !;"- OlU 55 ~<n 12~ 1i::5 "' ~ o ~.~ ~ , IA" \]pi wrrl' . 'I' ..ll!!~j ~iB; 'I~i'if I' II,.,~ , .., 11111: ~ ill ~ t ~ ~ ~ W~ 02 <(9 0"- C!::3 O~ ....< OZ ~ ". ~~ ~ il ~~~ ih !t!~ - ~ ~~ ~!~ ~ i~ ,! ~i ~~ e~ :: ~ J - ~ ~ ~~! ~ ~ iS~ ~ ~ Ii, ~ i C ..ii :~~ .~3 ;.U _.11 z ~ :z: g ... " ~ f3 II '" '" i: II" I o ,'.,1 ,,~,,~,aJ;!!,jI>', ------\ I --- - - ; I i r /1=== l (f! ! If I j Ii , \ ! I i I' , , I 1 I I I i II I! , I I ! I I I I'~ ! I , I I II II / I I II c1 I ! I Iii I I II Ii .0 t ~ I l!i I 1< I g I I ~rn:ID \ \ ~ o B ~ I I I I I I y; Ih i II ; I i I I I ! T I :I I P 1111 )l I, I ! i I i ill Ii I) I ~ I ! g : I: ; I I :E : J ; I I A j I " ! 161 1 B 6 .~ , ~" I ~ i ~ 5 ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ;f z (il B ~ 01 ffii ~! ~ ~! ~ 0.' 5!/,-. ~ ~;I (. + \~~~ ~ I:.) il :5 ) t'V:r- .... u ,~ I ~ ~ ....). ~ ~ ~ if .. r--. Ii; 0 w ....-I :x: a.. 1Il ....J - . ! ~ ! i - ;: w - ~z "'s Sa. oW S~ a:11l 00 LLZ 1;::5 Cii a - ~'1 .. " ~i i~!21 t hl~1 !"Iii I . ! i~i i Q!~Jsl ~Ii'j:~i ii I! ill I ~: <l< , ~~ 001 ~~ cx:~ g~ 0 ~ - - ~I 'I"" .. a" i~1 f!j ~~ i ~~~ -. j~ ~~i ~ ,j ~~ i~ si - .. ~ H" i ~ iiI ~ ~ ~~. ~1i1 q - !! gj 1:~ ~ ;; 'i . J~ ; I~ ~- t 'i -~----~\~=:>i_---~:".,\Ii~',:,,! --- "I I :"", 1,:;1 I WI 'I !' 'I . it 1\ i i I il ;{! i'; ) ; I [UJ '" fni ; \ 'V; I ' ~ n~ li( ~,: rcB-l""frf j--- . ; i \ '~\1J\ + I \ I ~-;41 ~, I \ I \ .' '\ \ II \ I:. 1 ' \ \ I \ ! II Ii \ I \ I II i\ a!' , ~ ~ .' I n III i 1,'1' i I \ II i I I' ~ ~ ~ :0: I , i !I i I I 161 1 B 6 .~' ~~ I ilia.. ~! ~ E ~ ,I ....J &11 ~ ~ ~~~! -~ :.JI, ~ ~ ~ :;t ~ ~,'" '" ~ w! ~ ~ ~ ~. .... ~ i.1 51 ~.O~ I ~'l r:\:l~i~ % 0 11 r,J ~ ::5 \ ) ()V's"'- - ;' LJ :> ! ',-__/' ~ ii:i ~5 50.. ow ~5 o:::g f2~ I:i:- ~ o 1 ~'I ~ - . ~i !~i"i ! I':;SI I i !~I..\ 1~1'",Jijl I~,~I~I "II' qll; \ I \ ll~ '!IL Jll~: ~g oS! <(g o~ ~.,; w o<r -"" 0>: ~ 2 ~ -.J -~ ~J. -=!~ .. 2 ~:i :;:~ i;~ i;~ ue ',~~ , ll:" ..' ~ ~~ ::'1 S, as S ~ ~~ Ui~l ~ ~ ~ij ~~ - i , ~~ 11 'j! i!; " .'," " , -" ~- ,;~ I ! 'J 16 J 1 B 6 <~.~S Gi~ ~! ~ ~ ~ --1 ~! i ..~~~ - UJ! ~ ~ ~ l;i ~ ~ " u:i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ I 0..: .a> a:; '! 51 ---. ! ::gzl (-'- \ ~~ ~1;, (.J n 'U: I I ,1A~\~ l."i~ "- t>-l j S, / - V'\ u. :s: '---/ I , ~z "S ~Q. ow :55 :s::g u.Z l:i:s - ~ " ~ ~ ~ ::i ~ 1) ~.~ '" k ~i 1~I~i I I'" iil I ! ~ I' . , iX i. -. ~' ~, ~I~,".!',~i, ~'<il!:! ~- IftTL ! I' i li~ i l "I ~ , r I ., : 1.1" <h.dM. ~ 1L ~ < ~ ct- l- . ~~ oO! <(g 0":. O:ig 8~ o ~ ~ ,-~ h UII!~ ~ ,. "~, ~ u g t ri ,! !l ~i!i i ~ ~.I ~ .. ~iiA ~ ~ i~~ Sj iI Iii ~ ~' ~~ ., ;~! i, i ~~ ;~l I' 161.1 86 '~~3 ijio.. ~ ,,~~ --J WwlJl ~ ~ ~ m i ~ ----;: ...J ~ ~~;.;~ ~ ~ S ~~~iJs' i :g G/~ ,t<k ". 0 r,! D I z + '.c:;~~" '",,;,";,1 '. ~ 'i l':,; S J "11'-1'" -. LJ L:! ::: w ~ - ~~ ~O- ow ~5 o::lIl 2~ is c \ \ <:;y ~ ~ \~\ l\ ~z ,1". ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~"~ . . ~~ ~. l~l~ I. Hi I ! x i : ~ i 'I: ~i , ~,' i!i~.'! "w- ,; I, i~ . !~ il~ :j IIi ,..I;U~ ~ " w i3 02 <(g 0": ~l!l 8~ OZ ~ ~! ..;S ~ ~~ ;~~ ~ ~~ i~G ffi U ~ii lU ~ c ~i '" "'~ a. .. ~ ~ ,;1 - " ~"~ ~ ~ ~~B ~ :it ;I~ ~~-- ;q ]i i "; ;' oJ, . HI ,m; ,.',li I. OllI'fJI.10a SLWO i g I i I I I I I I \ 16' 1 B 6 I <~~E I ~a.. 01 ~ I I ....J 11 ~~i~- ~ ~ ~~~&; ~ ~:/! i ~~~il ~ lIl' C0 ".. r-' -- . · oi ...l.. '~V~f. ~~ 0 i!; ~ :. ~I ' ~~,. "".: . U ~! ~ w ~s I-c.. ::Jw ~c.. 55 ~gj "'z t5 . ;2 o [:~ ~- ~i i~~iH i r ''''' I ~ ~I~i I i i~ll -1!lt lTicl II! 1[11,1 , I ,- I, i i ,i~ _'\t~~.J~. :; ~C3 00! <(9 0.... c::ul' w g~ o ~ !~ ~~~ M ~ ~~ !;~ it: ~s :g~ t;3 g'f g~ ai '" ~'"i ~ ~~a: 'RECEIYED AP~ ] 1 ~011 1611.~., iI'~ ' '1 , h 4-'.2011 V- .\,(' --- "- ~:~:ng? J/ := ~ol..tte _ l/ Boord of Gmmty ~rriffi~l!t.~ MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE Naples, Florida, March 4,2011 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Se~t~tary . ~:::~i10. L It<1" .:L~:r~l C}G:J~=~; 1.6 J'l'l C 1 Marc. h 4,2011 , NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WIllCH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WIllCH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SHALL BE RESPONSffiLE FOR PROVIDING TIDS RECORD. I. CALL TO ORDER - Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson presiding. The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing; Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officers for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESSED: 9:18am RECONVENED: 9:40am n. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Baker, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes to the Agenda: (a) Under Item V.(A), "Public Hearings," Stipulations were reached in the following cases (listed below as Agenda items): · 13. CASE NO: CEV20100021990 - MARC C. MONTANO AND NATALIE POLLY (b) Under Item V.(B), "Hearings," the following cases were withdrawn by the County, (listed below as Agenda items): · 3. CASE NO: . 4. CASE NO: . 5. CASE NO: . 6. CASE NO: . 7. CASE NO: . 8. CASE NO: . 9. CASE NO: . 10.CASE NO: . 14.CASE NO: . 15.CASE NO: . 16.CASE NO: . 18.CASE NO: . 21.CASE NO: SOI57392-CEEX20110001344 - JAMES KA VNEY SOI62668-CEEX20100022325 -HARRY B. UPPERCUE SOI57393-CEEX20110001536 - UBALDO PERRONE PR041505-CEEX20100021540 - JAY LIEBMAN PR045677-CEEX20110001509 - DAVID HOOVER DASI2098-CEEX20110001257 - BARRY ANDERSON CEAU20100009648 - FRANCISCO LOPEZ CEPM20100019147 - CESAR O. HIDALGO REYES CESD20100021865 - NKGW 1 LLC CESD20100002817 - JUDY L. CASELEY CEAU20100018853 - SMITH AND GUETTIE FRANCOIS CESD20100021808 - FOOD LAND SUPERMARKETS LLC CEEX20110002076 - MICHAEL MURPHY Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 4, 2011 2 161 1 C 1 i March 4,2011 February 7, 2011 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on February 4, 2011 and February 7, 2011 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Extension of Time None B. Motion for Continuance None C. Motion for Reduction! Abatement of Fines 1. CASE NO: CEPM20100009607 OWNER: DAVID AND PAULINE K. HEALY TR, HEALY FAMILY TRUST UTD 9/1/03 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR REGGIE SMITH VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(15). POOL WATER UNMAINTAINED, DARK IN COLOR, AND STAGNATE/ALGAED. 31055004800 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6650 HARWICH CT, NAPLES Tim Casey, Manager of the Trust noted the subject property had been abandoned for 2 - 3 years and was purchased by the Trust at a foreclosure auction on February 1, 2011. At the time of purchase, he was unaware of the violation as he had not visited the subject property prior to purchase. Upon becoming aware of the violation it was corrected by February 4,2011. All operational costs associated with the violation have been paid to the County. He requested the Magistrate abate the fines associated with the case. Michelle Crowley, Code Enforcement Officer noted the original violation was posted on December 11, 2010. On February 4,2011 she met with the respondent on site and the violation had been abated. The County has no objection to the motion for abatement of the fme associated with the violation. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondents motion for abatement of the fine associated with the case. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations 13. CASE NO: CEV20100021990 OWNER: MARC C. MONTANO AND NATALIE POLLY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 130- 95 AND 130-96. INOPERABLE AND UNTAGGED VEIDCLE ON SITE AND A BOAT PARKED IN THE FRONT YARD. FOLIO NO: 36236080004 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5400 19th AVE SW, NAPLES 3 16j~1 Cl March 4,2011 The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renauld Paul who was present. The Respondent was represented by Marc C. Montano. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent's representative Marc C. Montano. Investigator Paul outlined the terms of the Stipulation agreed to by the parties and the Respondent shall: 1. Pay operational costs in the amount of $112.38 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. 2. Abate all violations by: a) Obtaiing and affIXing a current license plate and make all necessary repairs to the vehicle making it operable, or storing in a completely enclosed structure, or remove offending vehicles from residentially zoned property within 7 days of this hearing, or a fine of $50. 00 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains llnabated. b) Store in the backyard or garage (in an enclosed structure) any and all recreational vehicles, or remove from the residentially zoned property witthin three days of this hearing or pay a fine in the amount of $100.00 per day that this violation remains unabated. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hOllrs of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 4. If the Respondentfails to abate the vioilation, the County may abate the violation and may llse the assistance of the Collier County SherifFs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. B. Hearings 1. CASE NO: SOI73917-CEEX20110001731 OWNER: TANYA HAY OFFICER: DEPUTY SIEGEL VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130-66 UNLAWFUL AREA VIOLATION ADDRESS: FRESH MARKET, NAPLES Respondent's Exhibit Entered: Exhibit A - 2 photos Tanya Hay appeared before the Special Magistrate presenting photos of the parking space in question. They show the area is not posted as a "no parking area" and it appears to be a parking space. The Manager of the store indicated he was not aware the area is "no parking." The area in question is not painted "striped" indicating it is a "no parking area." 4 161 1 ~ March 4,2011 . Deputy Thomas Siegel, Parking Enforcement Specialist noted the area is encompassed by yellow painted curbing and County Ordinance prohibits parking adjacent to curbing marked in yellow. The Special Magistrate noted the Ordinance does prohibit parking in the area in question, however it would be beneficial ifthe area was more adequately marked to notify the public of a "no parking area." The Special Magistratefound the Respondent was in violation of the Ordinance and ordered her to pay the operational costs of $55. 00 by April 4, 2011. 2. CASE NO: SOl71635-CEEX20110001708 OWNER: GARY ROOT OFFICER: DEPUTY KELLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEe. 130-66 UNLAWFUL AREAlCROSSW ALK VIOLATION ADDRESS: SAM'S, 2550 IMMOKALEE RD, NAPLES Respondent's Exhibits Entered: Exhibit A - Officer Siegal's work record for February 5, 2011 Exhibit B - Hours of operation - Sam's Club Deputy Thomas Siegel, Parking Enforcement Specialist acknowledged: · "Exhibit A" is an accurate depiction of his work record for February 5, 2011. · "Exhibit B" is an accurate reflection ofthe hours of operation for Sam's Club at the location the citation was issued. · Sam's Club is not open for business at 11:12 pm. · His last contact with dispatch was at 2:36 pm and he did not work the evening of February 11,2011. Mr. Root contended the citation issued for "unlawful parking" is not valid as the time of day of the citation is 11:12 pm. Mr. Root noted he was not at Sam's Club at 11:12 pm on February 5, 2011. Deputy Thomas Siegal testified: · Mr. Root exited the store as he was writing the citation and told him he was returning a heavy table. · He notified Mr. Root there is ample area to park to return heavy objects, or you may park in a regular parking space and request store assistance. · As he was writing out the citation, Mr. Root fled the scene. · In his haste to write out the citation, he circled "p.m." instead of "a.m." on the citation. · Due to the respondent being deemed a "runner," Deputy Kincaid was dispatched to the scene. Deputy Kincaid testified: 5 161 1 ..,. March 4,2011 · He responded to the scene in an attempt to detain the vehicle. · He could not locate the vehicle; however Deputy Siegal had ascertained the vehicle license tag number from which he determined the address of the respondent. · He proceeded to the address to hand deliver the ticket. · No one answered the door, so he left a copy of the citation in the Respondents door. Under Special Magistrate questioning Mr. Root testified: · He came into possession of the ticket on February 5th or 6th. · He ran errands the day in question and was at Sam's Club, however he was unsure of the time of day. · He contends on "face value" of the ticket, it is invalid and cannot be modified. Special Magistrate Garretson noted clerical errors in charging documents may be altered if the evidence supports its alteration. Based on the evidence, the error on the ticket is a clerical error which may be corrected. Mr. Root entered "Exhibit C" as evidence - Copy of the receipt issued to him at Sam's Club on February 5, 2011. Mr. Root acknowleged he was parked in the area in question, however, as indicated by the time on the receipt (11 :09), he exited scene before 11: 12 a.m. Therefore, he was not at the place in question as of 11: 12 a.m. as indicated on the citation. Based on tlte evidence presented, tlte Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of a parking violation and ordered Itim to pay $85.00 by April 4, 2011. RECESSED:10:42am RECONVENED: 11:07am 19. CASE NO: CEPM20100018515 OWNER: ELEANOR BUCHANAN OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JAMES SEABASTY VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SEe. 22-236 (2)(5) DANGEROUS BUILDING. ROOF CAVING AND IN A VERY POOR STATE WITH NUMEROUS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS, STRUCTURE IS OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS. 1134801501 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 238 OLD TRAIN LANE, NAPLES Evidence Entered by County Officers: Composit Exhibit A - 5 photos dated 9/16/10 Composite Exhibit B - 8 photos dated 12/6/1 0 Composite Exhibit C - 5 photos dated 3/3/11 6 1 1 C'l March 4, 2011 i4 Composite Exhibit D - 6 photos Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/18/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 2/22/11 Investigator Seabasty testified: · The structure in question is in total disrepair. · On December 6, 2010, County Officials conducted a structural inspection on the structure. · On December 8, 2010, the structure was declared "unsafe" by Gary Harrison, Collier County Building OfficiaL · The respondents have failed to communicate with Code Enforcement. Collier County Sheriff Lieutenant Mark Milligan testified; · The building was declared abandoned on October 10,2009. · The structure is unsecured, layden with refuse and been the site of supsicious activity. · The structure is structurally unsafe, a public safety concern and needs to be demolished. Chief Alan McGlaughlin, Okeechobee Fire District testified: · The building is in dilapitated condition and is a fire hazard to itself and adjacent buildings. The Special Magistrate found the building should be declared a "Dangerous Building. " Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTYofthe alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain the necessary demolition permits, demolish the unsafe structure and legally dispose of the debris on or before March 11, 2011. If the demolition and associated debris disposal is not completed by March 11, 2011, afine of $250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains ther~after until the violation is abated unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator peiform a site inspection to confirm compliance and obtain a Certificate of Completion. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office and/or the Fire Chief of the OkeecllObee Fire District to enforce the provisions of the Order. 3. Pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case of $112.47 on or before April 4, 2011. 7 161.1 ~ J. March 4, 2011 Total Amount Due $112.47 20. CASE NO: CEEX20110001028 OWNER: TRISH AND TOM LECOMTE OFFICER: OFFICER DARCY ANDRADE VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 14-35. DANGEROUS DOG. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1190 RESERVE WAY #308, NAPLES Exhibits entered by County Staff: Composite Exhibit A - 2 photos taken 1/3/11 Composite Exhibit B-2 photos (taken by the victim) Darcy Andrade, Animal Control Officer and Bonnie Kubiscek, Domestic Animal Services testified: · On January 3,2011, Rolando Cosman contacted to Domestic Animal Services regarding a dog bite he received on January 2, 2011. · Mr. Cosman is not able to be present, however he did provide an affadavit which indicated he was bit by the Respondent's dog while he was walking his dog. He sustained a bite on his hand and a bruised knee during the event. Tricia Lecomte testified: · "Cooper" is a 4 year old, 80lb Rotweiller. · He has not had an issue with "agressiveness." · The children took the dog out for a brief walk (the dog was on a leash), she did not witness the incident. · She submitted letters indicating Cooper is a well behaved dog. Erica Lecomte (age 1 0) testified: · When the children got to the bottom of the stairs, Mr. Cosman was present with an equal size dog. · Mr. Cosman's dog growled at Cooper. · The dogs became entagled in a fight and both parties lost control of their dogs. · In an attempt to separate the dogs, Mr. Cosman sustained the injuries. · She is uncertain which dog bit Mr. Cosman. The Special Magistate found the dogs were "defending their territory" and Cooper should not be deemed a "Dangerous Dog." The case will remain on file with Domestic Animal Services. The County's determination "Cooper" is a "Dangerous Dog" was overturned. 22. CASE NO: OWNER: OFFICER: CEEX20110002159 JULIE KOVACS OFnCER DARCY ANDRADE 8 C ,1 ~ March 4,2011 VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 14, SECTION 14-35. DANGEROUS DOG. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1385 MARlPOSA CIRCLE, NAPLES Exhibits entered by County Staff: Composite Exhibit A - 2 photos Composite Exhibit B-2 photos Darcy Andrade, Animal Control Officer testified she was contacted regarding an incident which occurred on January 11, 2011. She later testified a previous complaint was filed on the same dog on February 10,2010 where it had bitten another neighbor. Carmen Nieves, victim, with the assitance of a translator (Jimmie Maestre) testified: · She approached the neighbors house to discuss an incident earlier in the day and offer her the use of an extension cord if she needed electrical power for lighting. · When she arrived at the door, and the door was opened by Ms. Kovacs, the dog came out the door and attacked her. · She sustained bites to her leg and arm. · She received medical treatment for the bites. Ms. Kovacs testified: · The perpetrator is a Basset Hound. · The night in question, she had no electricity and the house was dark. · It was 10:00 pm the victim came to the door of the house. · When she opened the door, the dog escaped the house through the door and attacked the victim. · In her opinion, the dog reacted in this manner because the house and yard were dark, and the dog was protecting its territory. · She could have provided supporting affadavits on the dog's good behavior, however, Animal Control Staff informed her it was unnecessary. · In regard to the February 10,2010 incident, the new neighbor startled the dog and he was defending the territory. Darcy Andrade testified she canvassed the neighborhood and found there were no negative reports on the dog's behavior. The Special Magistrate found the incidents happened on the Respondents property and the dog was defending its territory. The case will remain on file with Domestic Animal Services. She recommended the Respondent communicate with Domestic Animal Services and adopt any and all recommendations to assist in preventing further incidents. The County's determination Ms. Kovacs's dog is a "Dangerous Dog" was overturned. VI. NEW BUSINESS 9 ! 0 I tl March 4,2011 .. A: Motion for Imposition of Fines 4. CASE NO: CEPM20100004757 OWNER: PAUL-MICHAEL CONROY OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-23112(c). OCCUPIED STRUCTURE WITH INCOMPLETE RE-ROOF. 35775120002 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 4449 19TH PL SW, NAPLES Investigator Mucha presented the case. The violation has been abated as of 2/23/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4621/4647 - Page 2409/3258 (Extension) Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 2/16/11 - 2/23/11 (8 days) Total Fine Amount: $800.00 Previously Paid Operational Costs: $112.12 Total Due: $800.00 Paul Michael Conroy testified noted the delay was a result of poor weather. Investigator Mucha noted Mr. Conroy maintained proper communications with the County supports Mr. Conroy request to abate the fines. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Counties motion for imposition of fines. RECESSED: 1:00pm RECONVENED.' 1:10pm v. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued B. Hearings 11. CASE NO: CESD20100018348 OWNER: PALMIRA MUNOZ OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD OF THE PROPERTY. FOLIO NO: 35774720005 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2051 44TH TER SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 2/18/11 Date of Original Service: 9/15/1 0 The respondents were not present. Investigator Mucha presented the case. Evidence Entered: Exhibit A-I photographs The violation remains. 10 16lc~40l~1 tt4 , , Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Hire a licensed General Contractor to obtain a Collier County Building permit and the necessary inspections to permit the structure, or to obtain the necessary demolition permits and remove the structure on or before April 4, 2011. If the repairs are not made by April 4,2011, afine of $250. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the property owner. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. 3. Pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.29 on or before April 4, 2011. Total Amount Due $112.29 12. CASE NO: CESD20100004761 OWNER: WILNER FRANCOIS AND SANDY ST. FLEUR OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1 COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04- 41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(I)(a). PVC FENCE AROUND POOL, NEVER CO-ED. 36560840004 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2700 44TH ST SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 2/15/11 Date of Original Service: 4/14/1 0 The respondents were not present. Investigator Gomez presented the case noting the Respondents obtained a permit, however the inspection failed as it did not meet requirements for pool enclosures. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 3 photographs The violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTYofthe alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain a Collier County Building permit to demolish the fence and obtain a permit to install a fence meeting requirements of Collier County Codes on or before April 4,2011. If the repairs are not made by April 4,2011, a 11 March125l1 lC f11 fine of $1 00.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the property owner. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. . 3. Pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case for $112.47 on or before April 4, 2011. Total Amount Due $112.47 17. CASE NO: CESD20100004916 OWNER: SERGIO G. AND PATRICIA SALINAS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, 2007 EDITION, CHAPTER 1 PERMITS, SECTION 105.1. EXPIRED PERMIT #2001100506-NEVER CO-ED. 35993680007 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2756 47TH ST SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 2/15/11 Date of Original Service: 11/30/10 The respondents were not present. Investigator Gomez presented the case. Evidence Entered: Composite Exhibit A - 3 photographs The violation remains. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTYofthe alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Obtain a Collier County Building permit and the necessary inspections to permit the fence, or obtain the necessary demolition permits and remove the fence on or before April 4, 2011. If the repairs are not made by April 4, 2011, afine of $100. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 2. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid out and assess the costs to the property 12 16 I lC 1 .. March 4,2011 owner. lfnecessary, assistance may he requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. 3. Pay the Operational Costs incurred hy CodeEnforcement during the prosecution of the casefor $112.38 on or hefore April 4, 2011. Total Amount Due $112.38 C. Emergency Cases None VI. NEW BUSINESS - Continued A. Motion for Imposition of Fines 1. CASE NO: CEPM20100009607 OWNER: DAVID AND PAULINE K. HEALY TR, HEALY FAMILY TRUST UTD 9/1/03 OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR REGGIE SMITH VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(15). POOL WATER UNMAINTAINED, DARK IN COLOR, AND STAGNATE/ALGAED. FOLIO NO: 31055004800 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 6650 HARWICH CT, NAPLES Heard under item IV. C 2. CASE NO: CESD20100003073 OWNER: EDUARDO GONZALES OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(l)(a). UNPERMITTED SHED. UNPERMITTED GARAGE PARTITION WALLS. 36113960001 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2140 48TH ST SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 2/16/11 The respondents were not present. Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 3/4/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4647 - Page 3141 Fine Amount: $100.00 day Duration: 2/15/11 - 3/4/11 (18 days) Total Fine Amount: $1,800.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.47 Total to Date: $1,912.47 13 1 Qari41011 C 1 ~4 , Fines continue to accrue. Tlze Special Magistrate GRANTED tlze County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $1,912.47 with fines continuing to accrue. 3. CASE NO: CEPM20100005355 OWNER: OLGA NIKOLAKOPOULOS OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR CARMELO GOMEZ VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, BUILDING AND BUILDING REGULATIONS, ARTICLE VI PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 22-231(15). POOL WATER BLACK. 23971640000 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1412 MONARCH CIRCLE, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 2/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has been abated as of December 28,2010. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4621 - Page 2536 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 10/23/10 -12/28/10 (67 days) Total Fine Amount: $16,750.00 Unpaid Abatement Costs: $799.80 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $17,662.00 Fines continue to accrue. Tlze Special Magistrate GRANTED tlze County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of$17,662.00 witlzfines continuing to accrue. 5. CASE NO: CEPM20100017929 OWNER: ALLAN PERDOMO OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR RENALD PAUL VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22-231 (12)(1). SCREEN IN THE LANAI IS TORN, NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. 36123040005 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 1990 50TH ST SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 2/16/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of3/4/11. 14 6/d C 1 March 4, 2011 Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4647 - Page 3147 Fine Amount: $250.00 day Duration: 1/22/11 - 3/4/11 (41 days) Total Fine Amount: $10,250.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.56 Total to Date: $10,362.56 Fines continue to accrue. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $10,362. 56 with fines continuing to accrue. 6. CASE NO: CESD20100020024 OWNER: TATIANA TANNEIllLL OFFICER: INVESTIGATOR JOSEPH MUCHA VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 04-41, AS AMENDED, SECTION 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). UNPERMITTED WOOD CANOPY WITH CONCRETE BLOCK SHRINE IN THE REAR YARD. 35740720000 FOLIO NO: VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2121 41ST TER SW, NAPLES Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 2/17/11 Date of Hearing Notice Property/Courthouse Posting: 2/17/11 The respondents were not present. Supervisor Letourneau presented the case. The violation has not been abated as of 3/4/11. Special Magistrate Order No.: OR4647 - Page 3139 Fine Amount: $200.00 day Duration: 2/15/11 - 3/4/11 (18 days) Total Fine Amount: $3,600.00 Unpaid Operational Costs: $112.20 Total to Date: $3,712.20 Fines continue to accrue. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion/or Imposition of Fines for a total amount due of $3, 712.20 with fines continuing to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS A. Motion to Amend Previously Issued Order: None B. Motion to Rescind Previously Issued Order: None VIll. CONSENT AGENDA A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. None 15 161 1 C 1 March 4, 2011 .. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases Referenced in Submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS None X. NEXT MEETING DATE: April 1, 2011 at 9:00 A.M. located at the Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3rd Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1:37 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING The Minutes ~pproved by the Special Magistrate on ~ ~ as presented or, as amended _. ao\\ \ 16