Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/05/2006 S January 5, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 5, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:30 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Paul Midney Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Russell Tuff ALSO PRESENT: Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director Page 1 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's now 2:50. We have a fresh court reporter. We wore the other one out. And we're going to get started anew. And we're going to open this new meeting up. This is a special meeting of the Annual Update Inventory Report of public facilities, also known as the AUIR 2005. Before we go into the issues at hand, we have two housekeeping chores to take care of. The first one being, what time today does the panel wish to quit? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have to leave at 5:00 in order to get to an Immokalee Civic Association meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney has to leave at 5:00. MR. SCHMITT: We have to be out of here by 7:00. That's the mark in itself, so anything before that is up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Mr. Midney, first of all, we're going to continue this to another date we've got to talk about next. But I think if Mr. Midney is leaving at 5 :00, it's not going to do us much good to continue past that, so why don't we set 5:00 for today, and try to finish this up on the day next week that's selected. And I think if I am not mistaken, it's a really interesting day. It ought to do well for staffs presentation. Friday the 13th of next week. Friday the 13th of next week; is that correct, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. The room is available. We will have to continue with, if you so desire, we'll announce that, and make it publicly known that we'll continue this meeting to Friday the 13th at 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:30. That sounds fine. Is that okay with everybody? (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we will be here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we already got it blocked in here. Possible CCPC meeting. Page 2 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you really? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I do. What time? 8:30 though, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Okay. So we're on until 5:00 today . We'll continue to next week once we get through today. With that, I guess we'll go directly into the AUIR, and staffs got an opening comment or presentation to make. MR. COHEN: Good afternoon. For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department Director. The first thing that I'd like to do is give a brief overview of the AUIR itself and the enabling legislation which is found in Section 6.02.02 of the Land Development Code. To give you a broad overview of what the AUIR process is. The intent of that particular section is to establish a management and monitoring program for public facilities. And as well as a level of service standard concurrency for category A facilities and an identification of also additional facilities. When we talk about category A facilities, which are set forth in the AUIR book, we're talking about roads, solid waste, drainage canals and intersections, parks and recreation, water, sewer collection and treatment. In addition to that, the AUIR also provides analysis and recommendations on category B facilities that are also found in the AUIR book. And AUIR category B facilities are ones that have an adopted level of service where we also collect impact fees. This year's AUIR is a little different. If you recall, last year we added government buildings to the category B facilities. This year we're also adding a law enforcement component as well too, so you can see that addition. In terms of what is the CCPC's role in the AUIR, obviously, the official land planning agency for this particular county charged with the responsibility of reviewing the A UIR, making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners pertaining, obviously, to Page 3 January 5, 2006 substantive aspects of the AUIR, as well as providing some policy direction with respect to A UIR components that you feel are warranted as well. This year's AUIR is a lot different than the AUIRs in the past. Those of you involved in AUIRs in the past have probably not seen as detailed an AUIR that you see this particular year. The reason for that, Senate Bill 360 was passed in the past legislative session by the State of Florida and went into effect in July. And what Senate Bill 360 does is, it requires capital improvement elements to be financially feasible in the future. As a result of that, obviously, AUIRs, which this particular county uses to provide it's input to the Board of County Commissioner's and also to this body, must also be financially feasible as well. Subsequent AUIR's which we'll be doing in the future will also have to be financially feasible. All subsequent capital improvement elements will have to be financially feasible. When there is a change to an A UIR component or a change to a CIE in an upcoming fiscal year, there will have to be a substantive reason for that. And when I say substantive reason, an example would be with respect to roads, for example, that road right of way couldn't have been acquired, or something along those lines. Financial reasons usually would not be considered to be a substantive rationale. Especially in a county where we have not exhausted our ad valorem tax revenue. I just want to be clear upon that. This year's AUIR is a little different. It's a byproduct of I think some of the things that have happened in the past. In the past A UIRs you saw dates for certain projects and specific components and the question was, well, are those dates starting dates or are they completion dates, what actually are they? In this particular AUIR, every date that you see, where you see a specific project, in every area, except for transportation, is a project completion date. That issue came up with the libraries with Golden Gate, and that's why that direction Page 4 January 5, 2006 had been provided by the county manager. In addition, this AUIR, the direction from county manager with respect to all components was to be using weighted population. I want to be very clear with that, because in the past AUIRs in recreation and also EMS -- well, EMS starting in 2002 -- switched from weight of the permanent and recreation has been based on permanent population in the past. All the other components have been based on the weight of population. I want to do a little brief summary of Senate Bill 360 to kind of give you an idea of why we have to be financially feasible. One, if we're not, the State of Florida can impose sanctions on Collier County, and those sanctions are financial with respect to a lot of revenue sources that this county can get if we deviate from our capital improvements element once we have adopted it and it is allegedly financially feasible. The other thing is, in the future with respect to AUIRs because of the adoption dates that are required for capital improvement elements in the future years, you're going to start seeing the A UIR a lot sooner. We're going to start our population projections immediately in April, and the date it becomes available. And more than likely, you'll probably see the AUIR process start in June or July, because we have to have the CIA adopted by September 1st at every fiscal year. Every calendar year, that's forthcoming. So, you're going to be seeing an AUIR upcoming in this fiscal year, this calendar year a lot sooner. So you're going to get another bite of the apple. The other thing is, with respect to AUIR, you do see it twice. You see it from the standpoint of this particular process, but you're also going to see it as part of the capital improvement element when we modify the growth management plan, which is going to be -- it may be part of the AUIR base amendments, or it can possibly go by separate amendment. We probably seek some policy direction from this Board Page 5 January 5, 2006 With respect to how you would like to see it. I know DCA and my conversations with them; they would actually prefer to see them run in tandem with one another. So I just wanted to clarify that as well, too. MR. MURRAY: In tandem, or parallel? MR. COHEN: Together. MR. MURRAY: Okay. MR. CO HEN: I wanted to talk a little bit about our impact fee population methodology. I'm going to talk just a bit about this briefly, because I have Amy Patterson, who is our impact fee coordinator here to talk about impact fees in general because of some of the methodologies and some of the financing that exist today with respect to the CIE. If you notice from the overhead right there, when we talked about impact fee methodologies, everyone of our impact fees has a conversion factor where we use weight of population. I think that's key in looking at this capital improvement element and how we've gotten to where we've gotten with respect to impact fees. How we calculate them. I also think it's very important from the standpoint of when we look at population, how does the Department of Community Affairs look at population. I've had numerous conversations with -- the Department of Community Affairs, legal counsel has as well too -- with respect to various provisions in Rule 9J5. One of the keys, starting on off is under rule 9J5.5106, paragraph two, subparagraph F, you'll see a statement in there that we're supposed to do an assessment of local government's ability to finance the capital improvements based on anticipated population of revenues. And this specifically applies to capital improvement elements. You notice I've underlined the words anticipated population. Because I asked that question directly at DCA because it's not defined in Rule 9J5, what is anticipated population. The response back is anticipated population, more or less depends on Page 6 January 5, 2006 your county or your governmental entity, and how it more or less functions with respect to population. Collier County's anticipated population obviously includes its permanent population. And if you look in our population calculations, a weighted factor that takes into consideration, four months off our peek population, and which takes into account seasonal influx of residents in the area. And David Weeks will talk more about the methodology that is used and explain that to this particular body and the rationale for that which has been used in the past. I also want to clarify for the record that in the past, I think five A UIRs, and also with respect to our capital improvement elements that have gone into DCA and have been reviewed. Our population methodology has been accepted as being sound and rational with respect to Rule 9J5, so it's an accepted population methodology. The next slide, please. I also think it's important just in general to look at 9J5 with respect to the overall requirement for population in general because it kind of sets the parameters in terms of how comprehensive planning department needs to do the population projections. And if we do deviate, you know, why we deviate and what we have to do in terms of providing the rationale for those deviations. As you can see on the screen right there, the comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates and proj ections. What you have before you is just that. The estimates can be provided by various entities. Ours do start off from the economic and business research at the University of Florida. If you go to the second bullet point it says, if the local government chooses the basis plan of figures provided by the University of Florida, or the executive office of the governor, you know, medium range population should be utilized. Okay. However, there is a qualifier, which is that their bullet point right there, which is if the local government chooses to base his plan on either low or high Page 7 January 5,2006 range projections, you know, a detailed description of the rationale for such a choice shall be included with the projections. Over the years we found that the medium proj ections that have been provided by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, which is a phenomenon that is actually statewide in high growth counties, they're historically low across the board with respect to any entity that experiences high growth. So, our population projections are modified based on that fact. Next slide, please. MR. MURRAY: When you say modified, say modified, but are you -- that means you're using the third bullet? MR. COHEN: What we're doing is, we're using the third bullet. David will explain, because it varies from water and sewer, and with also with respect to some of the other things. It changes due to a more definitive breakdown of our population. MR. MURRAY: DCA has been comfortable over the year with that format? MR. CO HEN: That is correct. And the language like, for example, for water and sewer is actually in a CIE element itself. I popped in the next slide right there because what it does, it says, the department will evaluate the application of the methodology utilized by the local government, which is DCA actually looking at our methodology. And determining whether or not when we're preparing our population estimates, you know, whether or not our methodology is professionally accepted. Over the last five years they've accepted our methodology as being sound. Going all the way back to the initial growth management plan in 19 -- I think it's '90 or '91, when we did our population projections, they were considered to be sound. And in every update since then, they've been determined to be sound. There's been no objection from DCA. We've actually modified projections, I believe, for water and sewer to accommodate the problem that came about with respect to the sewer plant -- the sewer plant in 2003, Page 8 January 5, 2006 problems that we had with -- MR. SCHMITT: It was 2001, the sewer plant. MR. COHEN: Because we underestimated our ability to provide services in that regard. So we modify those, those particular proj ections to accommodate those future needs, so we didn't run into that type of problem in the future. And that language is reflected in the comprehensive plan, in the capital improvements element, and it was accepted as sound methodology by DCA. MR. MURRAY: Is there any evidence to indicate that there will be additional scrutiny as a result of the introduction of Senate Bill 360 as law? MR. COHEN: I would anticipate with the introduction of Senate Bill 360 that that will definitely happen. What's happened in the past with capital improvement elements, every jurisdiction adopted their growth management plan at various intervals in the state. They were scrutinized thoroughly at that point in time starting in 1988 with the early submission counties and cities, which was Broward County, and then subsequent counties and cities. Everything was scrutinized with a great amount of detail. Since that point in time, I would say that the review has just been cursory. And when I say that, even though governmental entities are supposed to update their capital improvement elements annually, which we do, DCA will tell you that there's only I think been seven governmental entities that historically are done on an annual basis, and we're one of them. In the future that's going to change. It's very apparent that there's been an emphasis on there being capital improvement elements that are financially feasible. And they're going to be taking a good look at them and they're also going to be making sure that they're based on sound methodologies as well. At this point in time -- actually what I'd like to do, rather than get into the Collier County impact fees is to actually have David Weeks Page 9 January 5, 2006 come up and give an overview of the population methodologies that we use, not only in the weight of population as well as the peak population, but as well as how the calculations pertain to water and sewer as well. MR. SCHMITT: Do you have anything for the overhead? MR. WEEKS: No. MR. SCHMITT: I wanted to make sure. You had your hands full. MR. WEEKS: F or the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. As Randy has indicated, since our plan was adopted in 1989, we have deviated from the prescribed formula, I'll call it, in Chapter 9J5. From the beginning, we used the high range growth rate from BEBR, University of Florida. Because our past experience had shown that we had such a tremendous growth rate. And we stuck with that high range growth rate up until the year 2003, at which time a comprehensive plan amendment was approved to change the methodology. That newer methodology is to use the high range growth rate for the first five years, and then for all subsequent years, 95 percent of the high range growth rate. It's not a significant change, but it is a change. And the rationale for doing that was, we believe that the high range figures were showing too high of a population increase, yet the medium range was showing far too low of an increase. For example, the medium range growth rate would show a population increase of perhaps 10 or 11,000 persons per year, whereas right now we're experiencing -- say over the last five years, our average has been about an annual increase of in the neighborhood of 13 or 14,000 per year. So, again, we know from experience that the medium was too low. And that was Comprehensive Plan Amendment. So as Randy said, the Department of Community Affairs has had the opportunity to Page 10 January 5, 2006 -- opportunity to review that methodology, and had no issue with that. Public utilities for waste water and potable water is treated a little bit different. A little bit more conservatively, and that is that we use the high range growth rate for the first ten years, and then all subsequent years are at a lower rate. And the reason is, as was already stated, it links back to that 2001 issue with the North Naples waste water treatment plant, which the County got itself into a real pickle, and, as I recall, even ended up under a consent order from DEP. Even that I would say, even having that more conservative methodology of high rate per 10 years, still is not significantly different than the methodology used for all other category of public facilities. MR. MURRAY: David, just a question. The baby boomers are about to boom down south. These numbers are included or anticipated in that, or are we rolling along based on prior numbers only? MR. WEEKS: I would say they are included in that. And the reason I say that is because we obtained this data from the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic & Business Research. Now, I want to make that clear the numbers that we create are a manipulation of those figures from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. We in Collier County don't go out and identify what the future of population growth is going to be on our own. That is our foundation as those BEBR growth rates, and then we just manipulate them, as I explained with that 95 percent. And based upon the literature that we received from BEBR, annually in their introduction to their population projections, I believe they're well aware of the changes nationally as the baby boomers are aging and as we continually experience more growth here from the retirees and others that move to this county. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: I feel very comfortable they're aware. There are three different types of population projections that we Page 11 January 5, 2006 prepare. The first is the permanent population. That is the year-round population. And we do that both for the April year, April 1 st, which is the census year, census date as produced as of April 1 of each ten years 2000, 2010, et cetera. And the University of Florida's data is also put out on the April 1, or census year. But for fiscal purposes, since our fiscal year begins October 1, we convert those April 1 population figures to the October 1. October 1 is simply six months from April 1, so we first create the April 1 proj ections, and then go halfway between to get the October 1 figure. That's the permanent population. But, again, for fiscal purposes we use October 1. We produce peak season population, and that is looking at all areas of the county, except for the Immokalee Planning Community, the Immokalee urban area. We use a figure of 33 percent increase over that April 1 -- excuse me -- October 1 permanent population. So if the October 1 permanent population was X, we would take X plus 33 percent of that to get the peak season population for all of the county except for Immokalee. For the Immokalee area the formula is to add 15,000 persons. Just a flat number. And that is based upon past studies of showing the -- the seasonal influx into the Immokalee community, primarily, of course, related to the farm trade -- agriculture business. Migrant farm workers, et cetera. So we put those two together, and we get a county wide peak season population first. Of course the peak season is the very highest. That's the so-called worse case scenario. And then the in between projections are the weighted average. And I think Randy mentioned that a while ago it's two-thirds of the permanent population of October 1, and then one-third of the peak season population added together. So that's, of course, more conservative than the permanent population, but less conservative than the peak season population. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, could you explain functional population? MR. WEEKS: I'm not familiar with that term. Page 12 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's in the packet. MR. COHEN: Actually, that's a term that's in our impact fee ordinance, and Amy Patterson can actually provide light with respect to the functional population terminology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dave, do you know how Everglades City, Marco Island, and other municipalities that you have to gather data from compile their population statistics? Do they do it the same way you do, use BEBR as a base? MR. WEEKS: In most cases they do. Clarification BEBR only produces population estimates for all jurisdictions. All counties and all municipalities. Everglades City, Naples, Marco Island and Collier County. But their projections are only made county wide. So what we do is, we solicit the population projection data from those three cities, we take the county wide projection from BEBR, manipulate them, as I mentioned, that 95 percent after the first five years, subtract the projections from the cities, and that leaves us with the unincorporated population. I hope that answers -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, it dos. Thank you. Any other questions of David? Okay. MR. SCHMITT: You wanted an answer on functional? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On functional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm assuming you're going to have an impact fee presentation? MR. COHEN: Exactly. And at this point, I'd like to have Amy Patterson come on up and give you an overview of Collier County impact fee methodology, and as well, she'll get into the aspects of how functional population equates into the weighted population calculations that are an impact fee ordinances. MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. My name is Amy Patterson. I'm the Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager for Collier County. I'm here to give you a brief overview of our impact Page 13 January 5, 2006 fee program and then I can answer your questions on functional population. In 2001 our impact fee ordinances were officially consolidated into one consolidated impact fee ordinance, which then set forth the provision that every three years each one of the impact fees be reviewed and updated. And around the same time we adopted the provisions that provide for the mid year indexing of these fees, meaning that in the years that we're not doing a formal update, we go forward with an indexing that's performed by staff based on a specific calculation that is specific to the impact fee. And so far we have adopted an indexing methodology for roads, parks, correctional facilities, water and sewer, government buildings, law enforcement and library. And we are working on the others that don't have one yet. As we go forward with those formal updates, we're also preparing indexing methodologies for those. And in doing that, this is a somewhat progressive idea that the Board of County Commissioners had, and we're one of the only counties that is doing this. And more and more are finding that this is a good idea, because you're not going to have -- when done right -- you avoid the problems we've had in the past where you go three or five years, then you have 150 percent increase in your impact fees. The hope of indexing is to step in the increases if you're seeing large increases in land cost or construction cost that the indexing at least should take the edge off of some of those Increases. For example, our road impact fees are the reason I bring this up, is that the indexing methodology adopted in 2002, one half of the calculation has done real well with keeping up with the cost, and one half of the calculation has done poorly. So in this update, we're looking at that indexing methodology, and we'll make adjustments to that to be able to keep pace better with what we're seeing as far as construction cost, right of way and other factors. Page 14 January 5, 2006 In order for index methodology to be legally defensible, it's recommended by our outside legal counsel and our consultants that we use a combination of national data sets such as the engineering news record, the Star CPI in combination with local data, which would be our property appraiser's land values. There's been some questions on why we don't use a more aggressive indexing strategy, and it's been because the advice of our outside counsel has been to stick with these national data sets. But based on the rapidly escalating costs in Collier County, we've found that it may be necessary to undertake formal studies more frequently than every three years. We found with our library impact fee that we updated less than a year-and-a-half ago that the costs are already grossly out of date, and we've had to go back and review the construction costs, because when you're going forward and trying to build a library and you don't have any money, or enough money to cover the cost of that library, there's a problem with your calculation. And that's what we found from our consultant that he explained -- which made a lot of sense to us -- that if you double your population and you double your inventory, if your impact fee is calculated correctly, you should have money to cover the needs. And when we were falling short, we realized that if it's costing us $300 a square foot to build the library, and we have an impact fee based on $180 a square foot, clearly you have a shortfall of revenue. In some instances in the past, the county has adopted their impact fees at less than 100 percent. And it requires that a portion of the infrastructure cost related to growth has to be funded by another revenue source. This is the last example of road impact fees in the nineties, that the road impact fees didn't keep pace at all with the growth in Collier County and, therefore, you had a critical shortfall in revenue. Same thing with our government building impact fee, it was adopted at 75 percent, stepped in the next year to 80 percent, and finally this year we'll go to 100 percent. Clearly the money missing Page 15 January 5, 2006 there is going to have to be made up by some other source. And as far as -- do you want me to address functional population now, or if you would like me to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whenever it fits into your-- MS. PATTERSON: Okay. That was just my overview, so I don't know if you have specific questions related to the impact fees you want me to address first, or to go into the functional population. It's up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if this particular chart is in MS. PATTERSON: This is not related. I just pushed the down arrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. It's in our transportation, or one of them. MS. PATTERSON: This isn't my chart. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What about functional? Can you explain -- first of all; I've read the definition of functional. I've read how it's addressed in all the impact ordinances. I've read how it's used. I understand it. What I want to know is, why we're not using that in the calculations that we're going to be discussing in the AUIR? I don't know if the rest of the Board is familiar with the whole idea of function, so maybe you need to explain that. MR. MURRAY: I certainly was not. MS. PATTERSON: I brought a couple studies actually up here with me. I think it would be helpful to read what the consultants had written in these studies. And I'll just read it for you and then I can explain a little bit more, because this is something, obviously, we've struggled with in trying to explain. It's kind of abstract concept. But this is the law -- the recently adopted law enforcement impact fee prepared by our consultants in Bill Oliver & Associates out of Tampa, and they've done several of our impact fee studies. And when they're Page 16 January 5, 2006 describing functional population, they said the following: Functional population is the equivalent number of people occupying space within a community on a 24-hour a day, seven days a week basis. So what they're trying to do, when you take functional population, basically there's three factors. It's the overall inventory, and these are getting into the principals of developing of -- developing an impact fee. There's the overall inventory of whatever impact fee it may be that we're speaking about. In this case it would be law enforcement or government buildings is another one. You have all of your government buildings, then you have your weighted population, which is the second factor of your functional population. And the third thing is the employment information, the trip characteristics, and there's a whole long list of different factors that they then calculate into the functional population calculation that tells them where people spend their time. If you're at home -- you live in this county and you're at home eight hours a day, and you are someplace else the rest of the time. Or if you drive to work and you work in Collier County, you're still creating a demand, but you're not here all the time. So what this attempts to do is say where people are and how many hours a day they're in these places. It's not that functional population couldn't be used, but it's rather impractical. And this is the way our consultants -- we called to ask that exact question, why would you or why wouldn't you use functional population when developing the AUIR, and their answer was simply -- and they actually put it into the study as well -- is that the analysis is based on functional population. But the county, to provide a tool to check their level of service in future years, it's easier for us to use weighted populations; this is something we regularly do. The functional population calculation is based on weighted population, but then has these other trip characteristics and things built in. This is something you have to solicit a consultant every year to go back and do this. And in the end, it turns out very -- only slightly Page 1 7 January 5, 2006 different. In this case, it was point two percent different -- or, yeah, point two percent different between the functional population calculation and the weighted resident population. MR. MURRAY: Amy? MS. PATTERSON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse my ignorance, but what is the intended purpose of going through this process, these machinations? MS. PATTERSON: It's in order to develop a legally defensible impact fee. MR. MURRAY: Right. That's the general answer, but, I mean, in particular by going through this -- is functional population used widespread? MS. PATTERSON: It's used widespread on impact fees to develop rate schedules. And that's the only -- that's the answer. They need to know how many people are in what places for how long and what are they doing. Therefore, you don't charge somebody for demand that they're not creating. So if there's more people, there's more demand. And that's really the function of functional population. MR. MURRAY: Okay. And I will tell you that when I read this over, I didn't see any other reference to functional population except in one. And so, does that mean functional population exists in these others? MS PATTERSON: It does exists in a lot of the others. It exist in government buildings, in law enforcement, in library impact fees. MR. MURRAY: I didn't see it mentioned, unless I missed it. Okay. Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: And normally, you would probably find it going to the studies that it would be, in these impact fee studies where MR. MURRAY: I think it was only mentioned in law Page 18 January 5, 2006 enforcement, to my recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's quite a few others that do mention it. In fact, I believe the government facilities impact fee study was based on functional -- MS. PATTERSON: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And not weighted. MS. PATTERSON: No, it's based on weighted and then derived from the weighted is the functional population. The consultant uses weighted population as the basis, and then they derive the functional population from that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, between now and the next meeting, because that one won't come up until the end of this program? MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please find for me where the weighted population number that is used in our document for the A UIR is spelled out in that impact ordinance, because I can only find it spelled out as functional. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. That's no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can email me, if you don't mind. I sure appreciate it. MS. PATTERSON: Sure. MR. MURRAY: Email me, too. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. No problem. Any other questions as far as impact fees go? I can answer questions as we go along if they're related to the specific facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got a lot of issues on the impact fees, but they relate to the programs as we go through one. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. That's fine. I'll be here to answer questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, our desire, with your Page 19 January 5,2006 concurrence, is to go through this in accordance with the table of contents as listed on page one of your book. And the first portion is under category A, will be county roads. Mr. Norm Feder, Administrator Transportation Services Division, will be the first presenter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, Ms. Student, it was my intention that this panel recommend on each section of the AUIR at a time, and not the whole thing. We'll take transportation; we'll take each one and make a recommendation. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: Before we jump into that, Randy wanted to just cover the one cover sheet that he provided on the A UIR funding. MR. COHEN: Yeah. I wanted to comment briefly on page two. Page two is probably a page that you may actually want to even take out of your book and keep it as a constant reference point, because it has applicability with respect to revenues and financing and levels of services that applies to all different areas. If you look at page two, what it does is, it identifies potential additional revenue that's required. And I just wanted to briefly cover that because, it mayor may not be required in terms of your review and the policy recommendations that you make to the Board of County Commissioners. Starting off with drainage canals and structures is a $13 million figure there, but when you get to that section, what you'll notice is, there's some potential revenue sources that may be available. They may render that $13 million figure moot if those revenue sources are realized. So, take that into consideration when you come to that section. Parks and recreation, if you look at the asterisk, the double asterisk that's down at the bottom. One of the things that we've done, Page 20 January 5, 2006 obviously, taking into consideration the cost of land increasing tremendously in Collier County is, we've actually programmed in some major purchases of community and park land and regional park land to meet long-term growth needs in the county. That's a prospective type of approach to take, because we know land value continues to increase, particularly into the eastern portion of the county where a lot of those purchases are going to need to transpire. With respect to the County Jail, you'll see that particular number there. When you get to the County Jail figure, you'll notice that there's a need for 76 additional beds I think in the year 2007, 2008. Obviously, our jail is going to reach capacity. And you'll have to look at it from the perspective of not only jail expansion, but perspective of looking at the possibility of are we going to need to build a new jail. And, obviously, are we just going to build a 76-bedjail, or are we going to build something that's going to meet the needs of the county long term? I just wanted to point that out as well. Library is a $900,000 item that's there. That's an addition to bring our library books up from a standard of 1.7 books per capita, 1.8 books per capita. And in the past, revenue has been budgeted annually to bring it on up. And we factored in that we need additionally, probably in addition to what's been done in the general fund, another $180,000 roughly on an annual basis. That's why the number is in there to bring it up to that particular standard. Emergency Medical Services. In the past we -- in 2002 -- we went from a weighted population calculation to a permanent population calculation. Jeff Page will get into a lot more detail with respect to what was the impact of that particular decision in terms of his levels of service with respect to response times county wide, and how that's adversely affected his ability to serve the general populous. That $19 million item there is something that would bring us back into the weighted population realm to bring his level of service up and meet Page 21 January 5, 2006 his goals with respect to the response time. Government buildings, that last item right there, that item there is obviously perspective with respect to the facility needs that are in addition to the impact fees to actually provide facilities for new employees with the county. And what I would like to also note -- MR. SCHMITT: That does exclude those enterprise fund type activities that pay for their own facility? MR. COHEN: Correct. And what I wanted to also point out with respect to this particular page, you probably had a page from before that showed $188 million previously. One of the decisions that the county manager made with respect to a lot of these particular items was that we need to push some of them back in the fiscal years outside the scope of the five year plan to make it more financially responsible and provide something, not only to this Board, but the Board of the County Commissioners where you can make some sound financial decisions. I also wanted to point out, when we look at total additional revenue required, and you'll see that .3122 mills figure right there, that can be a little deceiving. When I say deceiving, right now we're in the process of updating some impact fees, which, when they are updated, and if they are adopted by the board, will drastically reduce that particular number. The other option that's available to this CCPC, also Board of County Commissioners, if they decide to do so, is to reduce levels of service down to offset that particular increase. So I just wanted to be clear on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy -- Go ahead. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. The assessed value ballooned that we get, or had every year. That money goes back, what, into the general fund or is that -- is that money available for any of these purposes? Page 22 January 5, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely. That's just as an increase to the general revenue that comes into the county, and that's where you hear this term roll back rate. MR. MURRAY: I know, but I'm looking at millage -- the case here is against millage and that's not millage, that's revenue that you anticipate. MR. SCHMITT: Correct me if I am wrong, I'm looking because you asked a good question, but it's based certainly on the existing property appraisals that exist. MR. MURRAY: You pretty much have to, I think. But my question centers on, if that money were available, could it be utilized? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: That's certainly a policy decision for the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, what this panel didn't receive, but I did, was a different page two a month ago. And it had $72 per $100,000 of taxable value with about a $204 million shortfall under additional revenue. And within the last four weeks it changed to $65 per $100,000 taxable value, with $186 million needed revenue. And the one we are most recently reviewing is $31 per $100,000 taxable value at 89. It sure is a flexible document. I've gone through and looked at every change that was made. And I will go into very much detail over of the next two or three days into those changes. But I think the flexibility only shows that we don't have to increase ad valorem tax rate. We've had a 19.88 percent average ad valorem assessed value increase last year across the board in Collier County. This year I was told yesterday that we're going to be close to that again. That produced 25,30 million dollars for the county last year. It will produce that same amount again this year. I think the goal, my goal, and I'm not sure of the goal of the rest of this panel, is that we don't need an ad valorem increase. And through the course of events, Page 23 January 5, 2006 it's going to be my objective to see that that doesn't happen. MR. SCHMITT: Please understand, this has nothing to do with the staff making any recommendation in regards to budget policy, ad valorem or otherwise. All AUIR is doing is pointing out from the CIE perspective what is required to sustain and maintain the level of service and the funding in order to meet that level of service. Weare not in anyway promoting, recommending, or otherwise suggesting an increase in ad valorem. All this is meant to do is wrap up and display what our current level of service requirements are based on our projected funding, and each one of the respective directors and administrators can cover their respective portions, but all we're trying to do is identify. And frankly what we're identifying here is that -- as Amy pointed out, impact fees have not kept up with the pace of the cost of the capital investments that need to be made in order to keep the same level of service. So, I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman, but we are not in any way suggesting that. We're just trying to point out where there are -- where the funding shortfalls will -- could be experienced. And it's certainly up to the Board, through it's budget process or otherwise, how to deal with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I'm certainly in agreement with what you're saying. I see no reason to raise taxes in this community when we have assessment going up to the rate it is. I know you probably agree with that. I'm not putting words in your mouth, but then you'd be shocked. MR. SCHMITT: It's a policy decision that I've certainly not -- I will leave to the Board to comment on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I certainly want staff, because I expect every department that has a package in this document to be addressed here, and I will be looking for questions from every single one. And I would hope that through that analysis, they provide us with recommendations to alternatives to ad valorem taxes. If it involves an Page 24 January 5, 2006 increase in impact fees, then simply state that. That needs to be on the record. We need to know what to do. We need to make a recommendation to the Board that is concise in every single category that's short. MR. SCHMITT: That's a very good recommendation. And the way -- as staff, we can only point out the financial shortfalls, and describe to you where that will be raised during the budget process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So then I would hope the cover page that we've seen that talks about ad valorem increases, would be a different cover page by the time it goes to the BCC with recommendations, other than ad valorem increases in regards to what this panel may come up with over the next two or three days. MR. SCHMITT: We will advise the county manager. That's his decision along with the budget director. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our recommendations will go to the BCC; is that correct? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County manager, nobody is going to stop that? MR. SCHMITT: No, they will not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I wanted to know. MR. SCHMITT: Your recommendations go forward as you propose them. How we package this in regards to the presentation, we will note your comments. MS . MURRAY: Also note that we are the designated LP A for Collier County. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And whatever weight that carries in the recommendations, I would like to see to make sure that is retained as it goes to the BCC. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, my intent would be, you know, Page 25 January 5, 2006 after you make all your recommendations, would be after the executive summary, to have a separate section in there that's entitled CCPC recommendations, and be very deliberate with respect to every one of your recommendations. MR. SCHMITT: Just to paraphrase Mr. Mudd's comments during the last meeting when he had the introduction, we depend on your assessment, your evaluations, and the offices that you hold in regards to this commission. And certainly we will present that as a concise and detailed recommendation to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern is, as the LPA, the weight of our recommendation, if it's supposed to be a prioritized weight, and the staffs recommendation -- or the manager's recommendation, as a supplement to that, instead of as a supplement to his, that's what I'm saying. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. There is no place in our recommendation that shows staff recommendation. It is your recommendation going forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The comment made by Randy just now is there would be a second sheet describing our recommendations. Well, I think it's -- our recommendation may be the primary sheet, and the second sheet maybe anybody else's. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Joe, you indicated something about indexing, and you just peaked my curiosity. You said it hasn't kept up. On those impact fees, are you referring to all of the impact fees, or just some of the impact fees? MR. SCHMITT: Pretty much what Amy has talked about. We have fixed indexing -- and where did Amy go? Come on up here again. We have fixed indexing that's part of our consolidated impact fee ordinance. And as she expressed, specifically with construction of Page 26 January 5, 2006 libraries and other type of facilities, the indexing, because we base it on certain specific criteria, say, well, if it's the construction business industry -- MS. PATTERSON: The engineering record, CPI. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Bottom line for me is you're saying, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that these gross dollar numbers here are all shortfalls against indexing or impact fees? MR. SCHMITT: Some are -- most of it is impact fees because of our indexing -- example, construction cost, those who are in the industry know in some instances when you're talking about brick and mortar and concrete and other types of things have gone up 20, 25 percent -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As opposed to an index made of anticipated five percent. MR. SCHMITT: Ifwe provide a percentage out of the engineer news record, or another percentage say on the cost of living index or some other type of index, it normally is not at the same level that we're experiencing in Collier County. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I won't -- MR. SCHMITT: Don Scott will have a great example. I think he can talk about, certainly with one of the more recent bids he just had for Collier Boulevard, I believe. It's a great example of how the recent bids are far below what we anticipated the growth and cost would be. MR. MURRAY: Just to further break it down, so that if I look at this entire package, and I'm looking at a shortfall, I'm looking at both projects that were authorized and are being completed as an end proj ected proj ect, such as government buildings that we saw were introduced on here, and then removed as a projection because we felt maybe deferral was the smarter move. So if we were to sort it apart, we would look at two components, that which is lagging and that which is proj ected; am I correct under my assumptions? Page 27 January 5, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. MURRAY: Okay. So we have some real heavy duty lifting. MR. SCHMITT: And just to capitalize on what Mr. Strain said, that's exactly what -- we will take that and articulate that per item, as Mr. Strain had asked, and we will bring that forward to the Board of County Commissioners. That's exactly -- you're reviewing what staff is presenting, and if you have alternatives, that's what we will present. MR. COHEN: And just for the record, if Amy Patterson can come forward, she can let you know what impact fees are actually going to be modified, or proposed to be modified, in the upcoming year to address some of these shortfalls, so she can touch on that briefly. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, again for the record. As I had said previously, the library impact fee is currently under study to review the construction cost. Also coming forward, EMS, fire, for Isle of Capris. Our school impact fee, which I know you don't necessarily deal with, and road impact fees, are under study as well. And we're going back to look at government buildings in this upcoming year because that one was adopted in 2003 and we know there were huge changes in the construction cost and land value since that time. MR. MURRAY: I note too, to continue, and I won't continue the dialogue much longer. I appreciate the time. I note in the documents, and I wrote a note to myself, where the Senate Bill 360 requires that by December 2008 comply with section, blah, blah, blah. And my question to myself was, construction is, whether or not it's concurrently in compliance with state bidding practices, which again leads to the projections of cost, which leads to the conclusion of what impact fees are. Does that come under, more directly under the purview of the Collier County Commission? MR. SCHMITT: I'm not sure what you asked. MR. MURRAY : Well, okay, I'll go a little slower. Page 28 January 5, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: The bidding process? MR. MURRAY: Bidding process for construction. Okay? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. MURRAY: Construction. That's a projection for the future. Impact fees are based on that. My understanding of Senate Bill 360 is the Collier County Commission will have more responsibility for some of those, or maybe all of those activities. If I am correct, then it may be premature, because we're citing 2008 here. But are we going to require that the school -- do we have any authority or any activity there that we're going to get involved in and recommend to the School Board bidding practices for construction? MR. COHEN: No. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. That's all. MR. SCHMITT: We have a requirement for concurrency under Senate Bill 360, and updating the interlocal agreement between the County and the School Board, but -- MR. MURRAY: I thought some of that was woven in. MR. SCHMITT: We can talk about cost and their projected growth plans and other types of things in regards to meeting the demands, but how they execute the program, is their responsibility. MR. MURRAY: It still remains their authority, yeah. Thank you. I appreciate your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. And I also have here with me -- I'm going to try to do tandem mikes here in response to your questions -- is Don Scott, Director of Transportation within the division. What I'd like to do is just cover a couple of things that you folks have already brought up in the general discussion. Give you a very brief set of comments. Let Don do the same. We do intend to be brief, because our issues and our desire is to respond to what we heard -- I Page 29 January 5, 2006 guess I'd say at your workshop previously, and that is your input to help refine this AUIR. And we take that seriously, and we're looking for that input and would be happy to respond to any questions and, by all means, any recommendations that you have for that refinement. What I will note -- let me put up on the screen here what you've already seen. You've got the -- MR. SCHMITT: You have a different one, or are you using the one that's -- MR. FEDER: This is the one that's in their booklet. So either approach would have been fine, but I do have a modification I just wanted to bring to the attention. But basically this shows you how our funds are allocated. And you have impact fees to represent, as is shown in all of our funding, and this is consistent with the numbers that you have in your packet on page five, which is the beginning of the transportation or the road section. And essentially what this has done is taken those items that you see listed down there and put them in a pie chart. So you've got your dotted lines if you want to go along that on page five. So, 23 percent are impact fees, and really I need to add into that -- you see a lighter blue there that's four percent, which is Ave Maria, that's really impact fees as well, but because of the developer contribution agreement, we sought to track that individually. But basically, therefore, about 27 percent of our funding that you see here on page five, overall transportation funding, is impact fees. The next larger section you see here is carry forward, and those are encumbered funds. When we put out a contract, we have to encumber all the funds for that contract, even though we're going to pay it out in draws as that project goes forward. So you've got existing projects and activities out there, whether they be design projects for the consultants; whether they be right of way dollars set aside for estimate for right of way, or in the courts under condemnation, or if they be to a contractor for construction and of payout. Those are the dollars that Page 30 January 5, 2006 are carried forward in proj ects being completed out. The next biggest category you have here is the issue of the gas tax revenue. And actually, no, it is the -- okay, the impact fees and then it is the general fund at 17 percent. And we get 24 million a year that's been set up from general funds to transportation to meet the transportation program. That's important to note because I think Mark was raising an issue. You saw an original page two, Mark, that showed considerably more in the way of deficit. It even showed in roads. I believe if I go back, it showed that figure of$134,799, probably on that list. And because it didn't take into account -- no, let's see. The gas tax revenues. What's the number you had there? $134,790? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember. I mean, I can go through -- I can go through an order, but -- go ahead. MR. FEDER: But anyways, what basically you had there was looking at one year. And, obviously, you've got a program that's five years, and moves over time. And so, when you look at it, for instance, on that figure there, you have for gas tax, 24 million times five is less than you see there. That other 14 million parts roughly is in that carry forward amount. That is gas tax as well. So, you have the numbers that are being provided to you. There is no shortfall in the roads programs. It is fully funded with what you have here with the projects defined. So, that's the first thing I wanted to bring to your attention. If you take the encumbrance portion out, you get a little bit truer picture of the percentages that each of the revenues is of the stream. And that shows you that obviously the impact fees, especially when I add in the Ave Maria as the major portion still, but the general revenue as well as bond funding significant portions of the program funding for transportation. I'll open it to any questions that you might have in general on this Page 31 January 5, 2006 part of it, and then I'll go into the impact fees in a little more detail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Caron had a question. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's go to the carry forward. MR. FEDER: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: How do we start out on page five with a carry over of 195 some odd million? Then you go to page 12 and we're talking about a carry forward closer to 300 million -- 298. MR. FEDER: Because what you're doing, you're showing the monies brought in from prior year, the 298 is in fiscal year '06 carried forward. And so what he's showing is the dollars beyond that that you're carrying forward for each of those years of that 298. As I said, for instance, within the original revenue, you have the carry forward like, for instance, in the general fund, 14 million of that figure, $134,799, because it's 24 million a year, that first year is $38,790 because of carry forward, otherwise it would be 24 million shown there. So you've got a larger figure in '06, because they're within the items, as well as the carry forward. Am I answering your question? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. You're going to have to say that again. Because, again, you're showing a different number on the front, and different number on page 12. And if you go back to last year, you're showing a shortfall. And I want to know how we went from $104 million shortfall in fiscal year '05 to a $300 million surplus in '06, at least according to page 12. But then on page five, it's only 195. MR. FEDER: Okay. Well, what you have here is, first of all, 774,623,000 is the total on both items. As you come down our items you need to compare one for one and I'll be able to show you the difference. First of all, on your gas tax revenues, both of them are 107,032. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm looking at gas tax revenue of Page 32 January 5, 2006 2160 in '06. Are you doing a total five year? Sorry. MR. FEDER: I'm doing total five year. That's the only thing I can do. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry. MR. FEDER: To go across the equation here because the front page is only total five year. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. MR. FEDER: Okay. So that number is the same as shown here. Now when you see the impact fee number of 178,674 on the first page, summary, on page five. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. FEDER: You see a larger number, 207,396 on the other page. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. FEDER: But if you add in the Ave Maria, the two numbers are equivalent. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. MR. FEDER: 134 is shown down here as general revenue, is the same number. 22,285 is grants and reimbursement. It's the same number you show here. Total revenue, total revenue trust fund, $5.1 million. And then you've got carry forward and your bonds together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back up to your carry forward where she's asking about. You show 298 and that doesn't match the front pages where I think the issue is that she's trying to explain. MR. FEDER: I understand, but I'm also saying if you put carry forward and bonds together, you see the same number, 195 576 and 102,439. You carry forward in bonds. Bonds is -- we went and bonded. We have those dollars. They are carry forward, but they're certain kind of carry forward and bonds. And then I have carry forward of my other funds, which is general revenue, impact fees, and the others. Page 33 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Where is bonds? MR. FEDER: Okay. Bonds is on the first sheet on page five. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but where is it on the bottom? MR. FEDER: It is within the carry forward. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's within the 298? MR. FEDER: It's in the 298. You add the two together and that is 298. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. MR. FEDER: And it's rolled forward, because we have the bond revenue. COMMISSIONER CARON: These things need to be noted. MR. FEDER: I understand that. And I didn't develop-- COMMISSIONER CARON: You have to seek this out. MR. FEDER: The sheet provided on page 12 is a little different. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one other question with regard to that figure. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All of this above on page 12 adds across and down except for -- MR. FEDER: Below the black line. COMMISSIONER CARON: Except for carry forward. Carry forward does not. Carry forward is some sort of subtraction. MR. FEDER: They used the line down below here is what you're carrying forward from each year. That fiscal year balance surplus, or shortfall if you notice in the first year '06 on page 12, is coming over, and that is the carry forward on '07. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yup. It goes to Ten million? MR. FEDER: Yeah. And then it goes -- well, ten million, yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Four million to 13. MR. FEDER: But do you see each year is carrying over to the Page 34 January 5, 2006 subsequent year as the carry forward? COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. I get that. But why is this figure -- I don't know, there's a different. MR. FEDER: Put a zero to each year. COMMISSIONER CARON: There's a different set of math going on in this cell is all I'm saying. MR. FEDER: Yes. Down below the solid black line. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. FEDER: You've got a different set of math that's being used by our Budget Manager to try to show and carry that he's going 24 million a year under general revenue. And what he's doing also in bond reimbursement, I'm going to ask you for the purpose of this, and maybe your recommendation to me, because it will be mine to you, is that that be eliminated from this chart on page 12 because, the best I could understand in talking directly to my Budget Director was -- and it's Mike Smykowski -- is the way that they're trying to show, they could have zeroed each year out here rather than showing surplus and carrying it, but they're trying to show how they're dealing with that down here, both in the bonds and bond repayments, and other issues. And if you ask me to explain that to you, I probably can't do further, and I just did have to try to understand it more. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. And is Mike -- Mike's not here. MR. FEDER: Mike's not here. What I will tell you is the 474,623,000, which is the statement of our revenue stream, is directly the same number as the statement of our expense column. The revenue stream, what I did in the page five was try to break it out so you can see the individual items like bonds versus other carry forward items. But they add up and they're the same numbers. And the impact fees show both Ave Maria and impact fees together, rather than the two separated. Page 35 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you mind if I follow up on that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get to where I think she was asking the question. If you look on your column on page 12 under your five year total. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every one of those totals adds up from left to the right. Total is 506, 07, 08, 09, and 10 give you a total under the five year total. Everyone does that except for the one 298,015,600. MR. FEDER: Because that's coming out of the math -- it does go all the way across. Because you have a carry forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you add ten -- if you add $10 million to 298, you don't end up with 298. MR. FEDER: I understand. The 298 is the first number. And they're showing you that 298 they could have just zeroed things out then for each year, and what they've done here -- and that's why I said go to that total on and stop -- but what they've done down here, they're trying to show you how they're carrying that over in each year. And how, by the plan that we have, and an implementation, what the, in this case surplus, which we're not in shortfall, will be year by year, not just within a five year period, but year by year. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm just saying the whole thing needs to be footnoted so that somebody can understand what they're looking for. MR. PETERSON: I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it needs -- you need to know within carry forward is bonds. You know, I'm not just going to make that up. MR. FEDER: I agree. Page 36 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now see, if you take the explanation you just provided, turned to the prior page, Exhibit E, and you looked down at the bottom of Exhibit E, it has carry forward 298,016. And again, every line from left to right adds up to the column on the right side, except for the 298. N ow on this one, you don't have the negative explanation below the double black line you have in Exhibit F. So then why doesn't 298 add up to an increase of 32,800 -- whatever the number is. It's about 30,669. MR. FEDER: It doesn't because it's both the bonds and the carry forward. And the carry forward, as you quoted there, was the 134. And the bond, as we already told you, is 102,439. The two together are the 298. MR. MURRAY: I have a question here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If some of these are associated with projects that have been carried forward and encumbered, wouldn't it be also logical that some of those funds would have been expended. And wouldn't that then show -- MR. FEDER: First of all, what you're asking is for a point in time. Obviously, right now today, I'm sure that I've encumbered some of that '06 monies and spent it. It's not just encumbered and it's not on the books anymore. But when you asked for the spot in time, that's where we were. MR. MURRAY: It's a snapshot is what you're saying? MR. FEDER: A snapshot in time. That's what this whole AUIR is, yeah. MR. MURRAY: I appreciate it. Well, I too fell into the difficulty of trying to figure out that number. MR. FEDER: Well, and my apologizes to you because first of all, I will tell you the categories on five and 12 should be the same. And I will footnote or make some structure so it's obvious that impact Page 37 January 5, 2006 fee number had two categories on page five which was Ave Maria -- an impact fee that the carry forward represented both carry forward and bonds as it was shown on page five. And try to make that very clear. COMMISSIONER CARON: So how did -- let's go back to my other question which was, how did we get from an '05 figure here of 104 million in deficits to a carry forward into '06 of 298 million? MR. FEDER: Where is the deficit? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, according to the 2004 AUIR on page ten, fiscal year '05, it's showing a fiscal year balance or surplus or shortfall. It's 104,311,500, and it's in parens, that means shortfall, where I went to school. I don't know -- maybe it's -- MR. FEDER: No, it's a shortfall number. I understand. Well, part of the answer to that is, I told you we're talking --- COMMISSIONER CARON: But same question though 162-- I'm sorry. I think Mr. Strain is right. I actually only should be talking about 162 million, all right, that is not in the shortfall. Just the whole CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The carry forward changed from '04 to now from 162 million to 298 million. I think that's what she's trying to say. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, but, no that's not what it says. It says that there was a carry forward in '05 of 162 million, but the bottom line for the end of the year was a shortfall. So I can't carry forward a shortfall, can you? MR. MURRAY : You can carry an encumbrance forward as an asset. MR. FEDER: First of all, as you look at that number in the shortfall of 104 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. FEDER: You then come down to the issuance of Page 38 January 5, 2006 94,818,600 in bonds. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. FEDER: So, therefore, to address that shortfall was another issue of the bonds, which along with some remaining bonds, is that total of the bond figure I gave you that's in the current AUIR. So that's how you address that. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let's go with the simple ones. Ave Maria announced that cut backs were coming. How does that relate to your projections. Was that figured into it, or is it even appropriate to figure it into it? MR. FEDER: Basically by the developer contribution agreement, they've established a level of revenue stream that they anticipate from their build out. MR. MURRAY: No matter what? MR. FEDER: So that's what we've shown in there. The nature of their impacts probably won't be realized if their impact fees are not realized. MR. SCOTT: Well, the impact fees will also go up. And even though the revenue was based on when that impact fee was done, it will go up also. MR. FEDER: Yeah. Let me hit on impact fees for a second if I'm not going to -- would you like to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go ahead. I've got a moment. MR. FEDER: Would you like to continue -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I've listened. MR. FEDER: On the impact fees you heard the issue of Page 39 January 5, 2006 indexing. We are in the process of updating our impact fees. As you know, they have not been updated for some eight years. We went through that rather strenuous process of updating those fees. It was a considerable increase in them. At that time we did index them. We indexed in two manners. One for the right of way. We utilized the property appraiser's assessed value increased by this new development. That has worked fairly well, and in that component of what we're looking at now updated impact fees, we plan on basically keeping where we are on the right of way component of the impact fee cost, because we feel at least with the land portion of it, that that is pretty much well replicated how the original cost, and how it's changed over the last couple of indexes and where we are today. On the others, though, and I'm going to hit on some other issues about production issues and the like. This will ring true there. But we utilized a set of indices from the Florida Department of Transportation. I believe there were about 3.4, 3.5 and then 3.1 or something like that. The three successive years that they were utilizing in their estimation for updated cost give recent comments that they had to take everything out of their program, including Davis Boulevard and other issues because the cost went up 43 percent within the southern counties or district one, one might say that I shouldn't be surprised that that level of three plus percent of indexing has not kept up. And so in our update of our impact fee we will have some increase, nothing like what we faced before. But we will have some in addressing that issue that they would be indexed to keep it up to where another year of indexing -- let's say this year -- would equate to probably what will come out of the methodology that's still being finalized. And so we will be addressing some level of increase in impact fee as Don noted. MR. MURRAY: Getting back to the issue that I raised though, with regard to the Ave Maria, the impact fees are predicated on going forward with building; am I right? Page 40 January 5, 2006 MR. FEDER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so if they do tone back down, that will give us a little bit of a shallow there, won't it? MR. SCOTT: Well, even in the -- if you follow, the estimate, the lines across the bottom for how much we have for what we think the revenue for impact fees are, that's what I would say a conservative estimate. Because last year in realty we brought in 50 million. So it's in here at 25, 26 per year. We're not going out there and saying, oh, I think we're going to get 50 million per year. We're trying to keep it conservative based on things that might happen in the future. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, we -- MR. FEDER: The impact fees go up even if growth goes down a little bit in areas, then we equate, and as Don pointed out we are conservative, as least we have been thus far. MR. MURRAY: You don't see it as a percentage point changing, period? I guess that's the bottom line. MR. FEDER: No, hopefully no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How about the gas tax? Did it ever get indexed? MR. FEDER: No, it did not. The state gas tax has been indexed all these years, but for some reason it's considered a T word in Tallahassee to index the local option gas tax to allow its buying power to be maintained. MR. MURRAY : You lost -- MR. FEDER: Yes, we have. MR. MURRAY: I have other questions here, but I don't want to hog everything, so I'll defer it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Norm was going to say something. Page 41 January 5, 2006 MR. FEDER: What I'd like to do then is just give you a little more background. Let Don jump into a couple of things, and then open it to all your questions. What I wanted to touch base with you on, we spent -- I came here five years ago, we didn't ever have a five-year work program. So we didn't know where we were dropping projects, not moving forward, and it was easy, because for five years we didn't do any projects. But we made some significant success, and now I just wanted to show you over the five years -- lane miles have been added to the system. By color there, you see whether or not we've added two extra lanes, four, and obviously Livingston Road is the one we show six added lanes. And what that shows you is either already finished or under construction -- the added lanes to the system since the year 2000. I point that out to tell you that I'm very, very pleased since I came here in the success that we've had. We've spent about four plus years developing the program, and delivering the program on time and within budget. What we have faced recently though is some significant increases in costs. We're facing as well some hesitation in implementation of the plan. Santa Barbara Boulevard being an example of that where we have debated back and forth, do we or don't we. And that's why we have a new long range transportation plan being developed and soon completed, and hopefully we'll be strongly as a community behind that. That affects your production and deliveries. As well, permitting has become a bigger and bigger issue. We had a one-year delay. And I'm going to mention some others that we've had some delay. And a one-year delay in Rattlesnake-Hammock is supposed to have been done fiscal year '05, it's now -- it's notice to proceed has already been issued, but that's only recent because we spent quite some time deciding how we're going to address the panthers on Rattlesnake-Hammock between Polly and 951. And we've had some panther kills on 951. And we're putting up signs and other Page 42 January 5, 2006 issues, and that seems to have been what resolved what was quite a bit of delay in getting a proj ect out that we didn't expect to necessarily have those kinds of permitting issues to deal with. We've had permitting issues on 951, a critical project that's been delayed one year from fiscal year '06 to '07, which is 951 from Immokalee down to Golden Gate Boulevard. And that year's delay is right now set with permitting that is not quite in hand from the water management district, which is typically not our area of delay in permitting. We address their issues, and we need to do it right and we try to do that from the start. But we have gone back and forth with them somewhat because of our own fault, honestly, and that is that we've moved around some of our retention areas as we saw the exorbitant cost and issues associated with some of the initial selections and the opportunity associated with land to cost from Golden Gate Boulevard to keep it a three-way intersection, and so we moved one that we had just north of it onto that site. As we changed some of that, we hurt ourselves a little bit in our permanent review process, but nonetheless, it's taken us a lot longer than expected. Today is the 5th, or 6th or 7th, I'm not sure -- the last day for their review comment or to give us any other issues they want us to address. I'm hoping, and the indication is that we will get their intent to issue, and that will help us speed along issues with the Corps of Engineers, which means US Fish & Wildlife as well as EPA who review through them, and the issues that we have to address there. Hopefully that will go. But that has been delayed. So we've gotten delays from basically community concerns, Santa Barbara, from permitting issues. Both Rattlesnake as well as 951 that I've mentioned. And we've had one that was even previous. It's under construction right now. You see on this map. Those are Irnmokalee from 41 to 1-75. There's a one-year delay on that. Originally it was '04, it went to '05. That's one of the few, as I've said, after four years we had any delay. That one was self-inflicted and Page 43 January 5, 2006 for good reason. We had the initial design as we started going into the right of way acquisition, it was quite evident that the cost of right of way was going to be so exorbitant that we went back and did some redesign which has made it very constraining in that corridor with a lot of utilities, and for construction, if you've driven through it to see what they're having to deal with. Nonetheless, overall cost was significantly reduced, and we have brought that to the Board with a delay and with the recommendation that we go to modify the design to respond to it. County Barn has been delayed one year on permitting, LACIP. Leariary of storm water, which we finally have the permit after like 25 years of very concerted effort, so I can't be the one for that because I'm only here the last five of it. But that issue back and forth was, do you include the provisions for LACIP in County Barn, or do you exclude them? And to my surprise, permitting agencies didn't want me to include them because if they approved that, then they felt they were approving LACIP, which they weren't ready to approve because when we were designing County Barn. Which kind of surprised me, but now it's been approved. Everything is set on the design, and we're moving forward on County Barn. That one, actually, when I came here five years ago, I think it had been in the AUIR -- in and out of it -- 15 to 20 times. You won't find that to be the case. Proj ects are going to come in. We're going to commit to them, and we're going to produce them. But we are now, and I need to make sure that you're aware of it, we are experiencing some delays for various reasons. We experience a little bit of delay in actual time frames once it's under construction. Most notably, the recent delays have been part of the hurricanes, and in particular, are associated with the utilities. Florida Power & Light was extremely busy, whether it be up in New Orleans, Mississippi, or most recently over on the east coast of Florida after they did what they had to do to get us back up and running in each case. And so it's been very, very hard to get their crews, that's delayed some work on Immokalee Page 44 January 5, 2006 Road as well as Vanderbilt Beach Road. Both of which we had first milestones, and we'd hoped to have done by the end of last calendar year, and both appear to be March or so of this calendar year that they will be completed on the first phases to establish an off of 1-75, Immokalee, Livingston, Vanderbilt, while those areas two north/south corridors, east/west corridors in the north part of the county, are under construction. So there are some delays we've experienced. It's not something that I or my staff are at all comfortable with. We're doing an awful lot of things to try to resolve it. We're meeting with the environmental groups, with the permitting agencies trying to get them involved earlier on. Make sure we know the issues. So we're not surprised like on Rattlesnake-Hammock about panther issues. Weare working as well in trying to work with the contractors in how we address issues offill. Especially when I got a recent bid on 951 from Collier to Golden Gate Boulevard, which, yes, has been bid out. We had one bidder on it that arose. The bid was 70 percent over the engineer's estimate. We're going back and trying to evaluate the whys of that. But part of the whys are issues that if you own any PVC furniture, break it up and sell it. Because I can't believe the price of the lineal foot ofPVC. We're talking $54 -- we're not ready to accept this folks, but in the bid $54 on fill. And we have a major portion, about eight million of that overall bid of about 40 million, that's 70 percent over -- is on tree farm and we're working through with the developers that we're working on that project with. We're going to work with the one builder. See if we can negotiate something, and then decide to bring back to the Board whether or not we accept or rej ect that bid based on the prospects of where we go. So there are issues that we're having to deal with now. What I will tell you though, none of that should be a terrible surprise. The one year of delay that you've seen here is basically because we've worked very hard not to have the delays in spite of these issues. I would only submit to you the Floridae Page 45 January 5, 2006 DOT's work program and what you saw has happened to that on some of the same issues. For that matter, adjoining counties and what they've experienced in having to reject bids, move projects and the like. And I'm still waiting for my connection of Livingston to the north. So, I guess what I'm saying to you is that we have those issues out there. Now, what does that mean for AUIR? There is a concern obviously. AUIR is not our concurrency tool. It is a spot in time. We use a checkbook concurrency. So we figured out a while ago we can't just look at it once a year and make decisions for the whole year. But in that spot in time and what you're looking at right now, we have at least under our current processes, our growth management plan, land development code; we rely on the first two years. Well, once I rely on something, it needs to happen. And now I've had delay on some projects, as I just mentioned to you, of one year. Now that's still within that two year window. But I will tell you that one thing that I am going to recommend to you and to the Board -- and I've asked legal already to tell me if this is something that can be done by the Board administratively, or if it requires growth management land development change -- and that is that should we not stay within that two year window once we rely upon that capacity to make any development approvals, that once it moves out of that two year window, then it can't be relied upon anymore until it's under construction. I hope to never get there. I've had one year delay on some proj ects. I'm going to try hard not to get there, and what I'm telling you about that is, you've seen some other delays further out in my work program, because we've now restructured the program based on the newer set of realities and cost, time it takes for permitting and other issues that we're associated with, so we're not going to have a program that is not real. We have a program we're going to seek to deliver and it's not comfortable for me to stand here and tell you that I Page 46 January 5, 2006 had some delay, and that's what you see in here, but that's what I've had to do with the program on a few projects more than one year. MR. MURRAY: With regard to that, may I? There may be some projects that are subject delay at the moment, but there's also, I think, a real potential for significant limitation as we go forward with 1-75 pretty much going to take up all the labor pool and maybe all of the construction materials and what have you. How were you proj ecting for that then? MR. FEDER: Okay. Very good issue. We've got competing lines of thought and we're trying to deal with them. I've had some folks who have decided that they're just going to take a hiatus during that time. I don't know that you can really do that. We're getting the ones that we feel we can move on under contract, so that we have it under contract, and then we're not foolish enough to believe that the same contractor is going to get involved in 1-75 and we'll be fighting for their attention and their crews. But at least I have a contract I can use to fight with. Additionally, there's some thought that you're going to bring in some other contractors with that big a project of75. And that they may be looking for, which in our term, small projects. When I start dealing with millions, it's hard for me when it's one, let alone 30, 40, or whatever on projects. But that they then will be looking for the side work while they got their crews because they can't keep them on a constant basis on any job. That's why you see somebody not there some days, on a constant basis on ajob busy. So they may be looking for the side things to be doing as well. So it's one that we're going to have to pay close attention to. I can't tell you exactly how it's going to play out. If I had to tell you, I think it's going to make it a little bit harder for us to meet our schedules. But it may be that if they bring in some other contractors looking for things, they bring more batch plants and other opportunities that maybe it makes a little bit better. We're Page 47 January 5, 2006 going to continue to move along. We'll then make sure that what we have out there is done and we'll adjust our work program accordingly. If we find that it brings in better opportunity, we'll try to be as ready in our production to take advantage as we can. MR. MURRAY: Which, if I may, Mr. Chairman -- brings me back to the question that I had originally and deferred. We encumber funds, we anticipate projects. Those funds are set as a reserve essentially, are they not? MR. FEDER: Yeah, they're part of that carry forward. MR. MURRAY: Part of it is bonding, and part of it is cash in banks and what have you. That accumulates interest. Does that interest -- are we entitled to take that interest and retain it in that account? MR. FEDER: I believe we do. And I'll ask Mike Smykowski to answer that question. Yeah. When we're collecting funds, we can't, obviously I can't with my bonds. MR. MURRAY: Because if you were to refer to page 12, it only shows interest being placed in fiscal year '08, which struck me as kind of curious. I'm not going to put on you the spot to answer that question. MR. FEDER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's one they ought to consider for the Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to finish your presentation before we ask questions? MR. FEDER: Yes. Don. MR. SCOTT: I know you're dying to ask questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad's got some questions, and I know Bob's got to finish up on his, and-- MR. SCOTT: I know. MR. MURRAY: I'm pretty much -- Well, I've got a few for Don, but -- Page 48 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad's been-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let him go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe the presentation will answer my question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I have one. MR. SCOTT: I was going to shortly go over some of the things that you might see or you might not see in here when you're looking at the data that's here. Page 71, one thing that we're doing a little bit differently this year, I used to do just the first quarter count and then average, get an average daily trip AADT out of that and then factor that peek season for the purposes of AUIR. Now I'm using the four quarters that we have over a year. Part of that is trying to get better data over the whole year, but also and we know that we're going to be doing the A UIR earlier and I wanted to make sure, no matter what time of the year it is, I can use the last four quarters to do whatever analysis, whatever time of the year we happen to be doing it in. Overall there was a two percent increase in traffic counts. That is not as bad as we've experienced in the past. Some of that can be attributed to new roadways like Livingston opening up, because even though we had the three go up, three counts within that section go up a lot, meanwhile, Airport, Santa Barbara, Goodlette and 41 had a total of 12 counts that went down ostensibly because of Livingston Road. I would hope over time too with gas prices and some other things; we'd get more people riding together. I'm not so sure that that's happened yet though. On the next page, eight, I've identified the deficiencies, as you can see. For some of the purposes, that's the math. We have construction in a lot of locations identified to resolve some of those deficiencies. What isn't in, will be short and longer terms problems. Obviously, Davis from Airport to Lakewood, add design in there, was pointed out Page 49 January 5, 2006 that we had construction previously. With FDOT they've said, okay, let's do a design build. Obviously, my first question to that was, which we had put in previously, if it does a design build, I'm assuming I have all the right of way, and that means do I think I'm solving all the problems. Not at Airport and David Boulevard. So that's why at the moment they're saying you can still do a design build if you come up with money. Unfortunately, I don't believe I'm really resolving the problems in that corridor if I just say, okay, let's just do the six lanes and ignore the intersection. So that's some determination that we have to have over the next couple of years. Davis from Santa Barbara to 951. Obviously, that was going to be in a future year. That would have been, I think '08 or '09 at this point. Now with them pulling out 30 million dollars, it put the -- some of the right of way in 10 now, 2010. Obviously there's a lot going on to try to restore some of that funding. We are doing some things ourselves to assist FDOT in trying to get some of the funding back. But at the moment, we don't know when that's going to happen. And how does that affect us in the future? I believe based on the growth in the area, even though some of these things are identified as TCMA, that you average the area. The TCMA is most likely going to fail, probably within the next year. And that means that if you can't go by link, by link analysis, you won't be able to go forward. And that affects a lot of things along Davis and 951 in that area. Lastly, 41 to the south is the PD&E, is underway. Obviously, as deficiencies go, it's in it's existing deficiency. PD&E doesn't get you construction. There's been a lot of talk with the developers in that area about them building a project for at least the first couple of miles. That was a couple months ago. We had a lot of discussion about it. Since Davis, we haven't heard much about that, so, but that's something we'll move forward to the future to try to move that back in. Obviously, based on what you're hearing, we're going to have to do more of the Page 50 January 5, 2006 state projects in the future to resolve the deficiencies. Because, Davis has, for instance, has been the highest priority by the MPO on since 1999 and, obviously, I'm still not talking about construction. If we went by even assuming that the money gets restored in some future year, that still could be four to five years out. And as we go forward, 41 is a problem. Davis is a problem. 951 probably to the south to Marco would be an emerging problem in the future too. And there isn't enough state and Federal funding to cover those proj ects, so the county is going to have to take more of that responsibility in the future. MR. MURRAY: Mr. Scott, if that money were re-restored in say March or April, that would only be a hiccup that we have, right? Did I take somebody away? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad was supposed to ask-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's why I asked -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Finish, Bob and then-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'll just ask that question. MR. SCOTT: He put right of way in 2010. One of the things is if they, for some reason they can come back and say -- well, it's design right now, so we can't go any faster than finishing up design over the next year or so, and then right of way may be a two-year process. So we can't do probably any sooner than three years anyway. We could put some right of way in between and turn that right of way money into construction, if it got restored in that time frame, but I think you're still talking about four to five years out at the fastest. MR. MURRAY: Thank you. I apologize to Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's okay. MR. MURRAY: I didn't see you back there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He was hiding. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, Don, quick question. What time of the day are you doing the studies to show the level of Page 51 January 5, 2006 service? Is it still the afternoon? MR. SCOTT: It's a p.m. peek. It's 2:50 at the highest hour. And I know we've hit on a lot. It's the policy at this point now, and I'm saying that you can make a suggestion that we go towards, you know, an a.m. analysis in some areas too. I have to do some data collection. I went back to look at some of the things and, obviously, as developers are coming in, we're telling them to do a.m. analysis, but I don't have an a.m. level of service to compare it to. But in the east, you know, you'll look at Golden Gate Boulevard, for instance. Even though there's a mistake on the map, it says '09, it's actually '06 on the table. And in reality in the a.m, it's failing now. That could be a policy decision to say, okay, let's look at some a.m. level service. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who would make that policy? Because I think out of fairness to the citizens -- MR. SCOTT: The two Boards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the most important thing to do for the citizens is to get them to work in the morning. People can wander on home, but I mean, the nightmare of the existence of the traffic is the morning. MR. SCOTT: In the most urban areas it's always usually -- like even from the modeling aspect of p.m. peek, but as you go out to that area, there's a lot of trip chaining in the afternoons, so the afternoons aren't as bad. And school -- I mean, right now, we don't get as much complaints right now. I get to work faster. Schools start up again. There's a lot more problems in the morning with schools than there is in the afternoon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So I'd like to see -- is that something that we would do as a Board as we move it along, to really make sure that we pay -- because we've said that before. MR. SCOTT: You know, I'd like to try -- because I got to do a lot of data collection that goes along with that, I'd like to say, well, let's Page 52 January 5, 2006 start with maybe the eastern portion of the county. I only say that because we're not going to be back in front of you a year from now based on what we know from our requirements, it looks like we'll be doing the AUIR in June again this year, so-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think we do -- I mean, I know it's a hardship, but if you're some mother throwing your kid in the back seat of a car at 6:00 in the morning -- MR. SCOTT: I know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a lot of worse than what we got to go through. MR. SCOTT: Particularly towards the eastern part of the county, because that is where it's the biggest problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then anything -- any kind of studies being done on intersections, the speed up? I mean, we keep making -- again, back to the plumbing, we can make the pipe as big you as want, but if you got a tiny valve, it's not -- MR. SCOTT: We have intersection jobs that are coming forward on a monthly basis. Now one of our problems, of course, is we look at, you know, certain intersections say, well, we have a major project, do you want to spend $500,000 in an intersection project when you know a project is going to corne in two years. That's one aspect of it. You know, we did like Davis, for instance, that was an interim project. Might be an interim project for longer than we expect. That's a waiting thing. You know, is it worthwhile to do it when it's two years away, but you'll see a lot more as part of our congestion management system. In TCMA's I've taken in money for intersection projects, particularly in the TCMA area. You'll see more of. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Norm, one thing is look into the debt service compared to last year. It's on page 12. First of all, it looks like we're not going to be adding anymore debt service, so are we paying everything off of impact fees, or are we -- Page 53 January 5, 2006 MR. FEDER: We have dedicated the gas tax revenue towards that. That's one of the reasons that we're getting the ad valorem at $24 million a year. But, yes, it gets paid off, and then that $24 million allows us to address the program needs as we get further out. We have a 20 year financing plan as to how that $24 million in the general revenue is determined, both in paying off the debt service and helping to make a financially viable plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And last year we had an additional bond or something of $94 million? MR. FEDER: Yes, that was the second of two. The overall bonding and -- bear with me, but it was about 292 million was the bond level. If you remember, we went out with the halfpenny. The issue was that we needed bond level of about 292. I don't believe we bonded that full amount. We bonded just over 200 million, and portions of that general revenue you saw there, or previously on the initial set, was set to make up the difference on general obligation bonds, short-term bonds is how we made up the balance of it to the overall of about 292, and we carne out as the shortfall after the half penny at that time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then just out of curiosity, on this year's, there's like a fund that has a zero on it that we're making payments on it. What is, just out of curiosity, what would that be? MR. FEDER: I'm sorry. What page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 12, construction fund. There's only two funds noted this year. MR. FEDER: The zero is right here. And the two to three -- well below the solid line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's like, on the construction fund, there's debt service, there's one for 98,101, which we had last year, and then what's the zero? MR. FEDER: Oh, existing debt? Page 54 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We're making $5 million dollars a year payment. MR. FEDER: I've got to catch up to where you're saying. On page 12. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 12 down at the bottom, construction funds. MR. FEDER: Oh, I see it. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just curious, is that -- MR. FEDER: I think this is showing how they're getting it paid off, the bond service and the general obligations. And again, below the line is what the budget office is using to keep some of their records of how they're working with the funding. The total funds are up to that total line and I'll have to defer on that to try to get you an answer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But because there's no increase in debt service -- MR. FEDER: No. The debt service has gone up. We did the second issue on that, which is the 90 plus. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we will be borrowing to pay for roads in the future, right? MR. FEDER: At least not under this debt service. What was agreed to on this debt service was, as I said, all over 200 million, and we did the first draw on that, and then we just did the second for the balance of the debt service. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But we will be financing roads. We're not doing it all out of pocket, or all out of impact fees? MR. FEDER: We may well get into whether it's general obligation or other debt avenues in the future, but right now that's not anticipated even in our 20 year, utilizing that 24 million a year, utilizing our increase in impact fees. We don't anticipate necessarily having to go out for further bonding. Now, that is where we're looking right now. There's a reason you update your 20-year plan periodically. Page 55 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the only thing I can think is, can you pay a couple more bucks for the pedestrian guardrails along some of those roads? There's some gangly little aluminum ones. And we're building a beautiful town. We build beautiful buildings, and then, I mean, I think we could -- MR. FEDER: Tell me where you're talking about so I know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Airport Road is the best example. MR. FEDER: You want some more of that silver that I did on Airport Road? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I think we can kick that speck up a little bit. MR. FEDER: I'd like to not be doing it. It was required by standard. MR. MURRAY: Foundation Landscaping. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just, you know, it's a cheap little metal, all crooked rail, and it diminishes our lifestyle. I'm done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Anybody else? If not, I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. MURRAY: Okay. All right. Where to go? SCOOT. We're behind on SCOOT, I think. MR. FEDER: We are a little bit because of the hurricane. MR. SCOTT: I've driven down the road and I've seen the loops go in recently in the last couple of weeks. MR. MURRAY: So it's only, the bump is a result of the hurricane? We're okay then? MR. FEDER: Yeah. Basically what we did, our contractor is trying to put our signals back up and do that. Not too long ago we carne to the Board and added onto contractors, I believe was Kent Industries, and put them as focusing on that. They've got all the loops, which is the very intensive part of the process. We have the software, Page 56 January 5, 2006 the consultants coming over to start working on that. But we did get delayed from end of year completion because of the hurricane. MR. MURRAY: What's your prognosis now? MR. FEDER: About February, March we should be up and running on SCOOT on Pine Ridge. MR. MURRAY: One road? MR. FEDER: One road, Pine Ridge between Goodlette Frank and 1-75. MR. MURRAY: Okay. Also, I have here -- where is it, I lost it among my souvenirs here. Road cost, road cost, road cost. Where are we? 17,067 on dollars -- 17,067 -- $17,060,871 to do 4.78 lane miles, item 16 on page ten. Are those numbers going to hold now based on what was just told to us about the rest of this stuff with the TCMA restraining and the rest of it? This is the snapshot, the most recent snapshot or is this something a little earlier? MR. FEDER: What page are you on? MR. MURRAY: You want to look at page ten, of your TCMA report. MR. FEDER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 4.78 lane miles. I'mjust wondering about the dollar figure there, 1 7 million. I correlated that from somewhere in that package. All I'm really asking about, is that a good number? You don't have it there. You don't have the dollar figure there. MR. Feder: No, I don't. MR. MURRAY: My apologizes. MR. SCOTT: The impact fee is referring per the lane mile; the impact fee is about three-and-a-half million right now per lane mile. It will be going closer to five. MR. MURRAY: That's where I got it. MR. SCOTT: Probably. Page 57 January 5, 2006 MR. MURRAY: Okay. I think I'm done on that. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Norm or Don? Okay. I don't care who wants to answer these, but let's start with page five. Gas taxes, your projections for '06 to '10 are 107,032. In '03 the projection was for $98,790. In '04, the projection was for $107,690. Your proj ection has decreased. Why? MR. FEDER: We went out. This is a fairly conservative approach, since it's balanced. And we saw revenue issues going up, but there's some feeling that our overall gas tax collections are plateauing, and so that's what is shown here; is that correct, Don? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. FEDER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead, if you have more to add to it. MR. FEDER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then if you had every year increases in road counts and this year you've had 2.02 percent, why wouldn't you have increases and not decreases in tax revenues from the gas use for those road counts? MR. FEDER: Vehicle efficiency, other issues. What we're looking at, we're looking at our gas tax revenue stream and our 0 and B office has given us basically their estimate of figures out to the future on gas tax, which is a fairly level assumption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 0 and B office, what's that? MR. FEDER: Mike Smykowski, management budget. I'm sorry. MR. SCOTT: Office of the Management Budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can he explain why when we have more traffic we have less gas tax? Because we are going to SUV s. Every book you read, every magazine you see says SUV s are 52 percent of Page 58 January 5, 2006 the sales force, means gas is getting to be used more not less. MR. SCOTT: But even if you look at that versus -- we've done this part as impact fees, and look at the past, the SUV s get better gas mileage than the average car did say ten years ago. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if you look at the number of Hummers in this county alone, you're going to lose gas right there. You'll get plenty of gallons of tax right there. MR. SCOTT: Well, see, and I understand one side of your thing, but it's gas that sold in this county. Now is everybody buying it in Lee County on the interstate and everything else that can be a portion of it too. MR. FEDER: You have quite a bit corning in from out of town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to be corning back here next Friday. Can you get Smykowski or somebody to relook at this number and justify why when we've had increases in traffic, we've had decreases in gas taxes? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also I think Bob touched on it. I want to make sure it's the right number. Your working interest revenue. All these accounts, I would assume, are in some kind of interest working account? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I sure hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know I worked with funds for the same purpose as you do, and they sit in accounts until they're drawn against. Those funds generate quite a bit of millions of dollars of revenue. You've got more than most here, so, maybe we get can a monthly or a yearly. And I'd like to know where that is in this array of numbers that you provided to us today. MR. SCHMITT: If you want, I'll have Mike come up and explain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only got 20 minutes left, and I'd just Page 59 January 5, 2006 assume not -- MR. FEDER: I have noted those issues and some others for Friday, and I will have Mike Smykowski here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you believe you're not asking for an ad valorem increase. MR. FEDER: No, we're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the table on page 12, there's a line that says additional ad valorem required. At the end of five years, you're looking at 30 million dollars. Am I reading that wrong? MR. FEDER: Yes. Because if you notice here, what I show you in general revenue, is balanced out. And, again, I'll ask Mike to help define that. That's why I asked you below the total lines. This is somewhat -- he does his internal accountings and issues. But as you can see up here, the amount of general fund is the same as is shown in page five and balances out, as do the two totals balance out, the expense and the revenue stream so there is no additional. And what that represents, that number 134 is 24 million a year, and roughly 14 that's rolled from five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But then your additional ad valorem is really buried in your general fund draw down. You have it included in 134 because last year the 134 was 122. MR. FEDER: No. Once you establish it as a line item, it's the same millage rate even if you were to roll back. That 24 is covered as a continuation item. And it's already established at 24 and it's maintaining at 24. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then your general revenues of the last year of 122,470 have gone up to this year to the 134. That's not an increase in general revenue fundings? MR. FEDER: Because within that number that you've mentioned was the beginning of that 24 million a year, which has been the last couple of years, and that's continuing out. Once you got up to that Page 60 January 5, 2006 level -- as a matter of fact, if you remember, when we went out with the initial bonds, we were going to have a spike, and when we have to pay back, could have paid low on that. They've leveled it off from what that gave originally in general revenue. When they had some availability they bought it to the 24 million level. It's now staying at that. Now it's in that level, it is not demanding anymore, let's say, increased property assessed value even at the same millage rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you're saying next year we're not going to see a change in the general revenue fund amount in this category? MR. FEDER: In transportation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: Not from what you have here unless something changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that 134 that we see this year, even though we say 122 last year, the 134 was an increase to get you to this year, we're not going to see it again? MR. FEDER: Again, you've got roll forward there. Depends how much of that I spend. So, again, the 134 is a five year amount, I should say. So it depends what I spend this year. But, in fact, if I spend none of that 14, you'd see 134. If I spent all that 14, you'd see 24 times five, which is what, 120? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be here next year, I'll remember. MR. FEDER: I will, too. I hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll talk about it. I don't think all of us will be here. What's ironic is the amount of difference that you show on page 12 as additional ad valorem required happens to be the missing amount MR. SCHMITT: Here's Mike. Mike's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just let me finish my train of Page 61 January 5, 2006 thought in this why I'm at it. Okay? Norm, on the bottom of Exhibit E, you have -- the last on the left column, three lines up you have 298,016, then you have 10,788 -- and this is going from left to right -- 4321, 13,636, and 1924 for total again of298,016. Now those five numbers cannot total up to that number. Now, if you add them down, take the middle column, the 08 column where it has 102,043, it includes the 4321 so you can't tell me you didn't include it and add it because you got it going down, but you don't have it going across. So it looks like your numbers are missing, the 30 million that shows up on an Exhibit F under 30,668. MR. FEDER: Showing 298 and yet you show these in between. MR. SMYKOWSKI: But it's carried forward once. It's the same unspent dollar from the previous year. If you have a dollar left over this year and it carries over for two more years, you don't suddenly have three dollars, it's the same dollar over and over again, so at the end it's still the 298 that you started with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're carrying 298 forward every year? MR. SMYKOWSKI: No. We're carrying it once over the five year period in an amount of 298, and 298 only. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, that line item is like a balance number. And the balance is for the next year. If you added them horizontally, they shouldn't add up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe that from Exhibit F, but then when I saw Exhibit E and they add up vertically as well, but they don't add up horizontally, that's where my concern now comes in. And I don't know how -- if you shouldn't include it horizontally, why is it included vertically? MR. FEDER: It shouldn't be included. And what I will tell you on E in our work program, we may have just taken the numbers off of that and probably shouldn't have. And then, of course, the Lotus Page 62 January 5, 2006 spread sheet then totals it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can take a look at it. MR. FEDER: Yeah, I will. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I believe you asked the question about gas taxes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going next since you were standing there. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Why don't you repeat it just for clarification. I was printing and trying to listen at the same time. Your concern was that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the gas tax shown on this year's AUIR revenue is 107,032. The gas tax shown for a five year period in the '04 AUIR was 107,690. Now that's a decrease in gas tax revenues when we show increase in traffic counts. I want to know how the reasoning came out to have a decrease under those conditions. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Well, it may be a decrease in the projections, but what we do annually is take a look at -- and what I'll do on the visualizer -- and I apologize for the small, print, because I have multiple years of history here. When we do the annual AUIR update, we're also looking at what was the prior year actual for gas tax revenue. And if it was lower than anticipated, obviously we're carrying that lower number through over a five year period, which would result in a lower overall number in that five year window. Tiny and getting more difficult for my 44-year-old eyes to read. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, just wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you distribute that to us by email so we can take a look at it closer on our own between now and -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. I'd be happy to. But just in a nutshell, 173 was the -- 17.3 million in FY02, 17.7 in FY03, that's total gas tax revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're moving off the chart there, Mike. Page 63 January 5, 2006 MR. SMYKOWSKI: Oh, I'm sorry. 19.7 million in '04. Ad we had budgeted 20,160. That might be slightly light, but, and we carried it through at three percent annually thereafter. And the growth has been -- the growth in '04 was unusually high, and that was a result of a change in the formula with our interlocal agreement with the City of Naples. Every five years we adjust based on our actual transportation expenditures for the previous five years. And we share the five cent and six cent local option gas taxes by formula with the cities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but that happened to correspond though to a traffic count increase last year of 4.69. In '03 the traffic counts were 1.65. So you did have a huge traffic increase in '04 which may have also attributed to the reason why you have a higher gas tax. But the same reason would argue that you're going to have some increase in gas tax based on traffic counts. I don't know why that isn't reasonable. I understand what -- I think I see what you did now, is because you had an actual reduction in '05 while it could have been for hurricane or could have been for whatever purposes, that resulted in the drop in percentage of actual revenue. But you use that drop to predict for the next five years on a very conservative basis. Is that more or less what you did? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. We used three percent annual growth, which is fairly conservative. I will grant you that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you used the three percent growth, wouldn't you have a more positive increase in gas taxes then? MR. SMYKOWSKI: From the beginning number of20,160, which is the budget amount in FY06. That was our springboard. And we gross that up three percent per year for the period from '07 through '10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the result of that gross up was a reduction in predicted gas fees from last year's number then? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Perhaps, yes. I don't have -- Page 64 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just because there is AUIR in front of me, I have it in front of me, it's 107,690,000 was last year's number. I just thought it was odd that we would have an increase in traffic counts, increase in vehicles and people, yet a decrease in gas taxes. That was where the thrust of my question was. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wanted to understand how you got there. I understand how you got there, I'm not necessarily pleased that we got there that way, but I understand what you have provided. Thank you. COMMISSIONER TUFF: 2002 it was 89,000,000, so it hadn't been growing greatly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got the prior years and '03 was 98,790 and '04 was 107,690 and '02 was 89, so -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So every year we've actually shown a positive increase in our gas taxes. And that didn't seem to fit the norm. I don't mean Norm Feder. The other question that we had in numbers is the working revenue funds. How much were generated, and where are they in these numbers? Working interest. MR. MURRAY: Interest income on encumbered funds and the like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're dealing with over half a million dollars a year, that earns a huge amount of interest every day. MR. SMYKOWSKI: And it goes to the general fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much is that so we know how much revenue you guys are generating to offset your cost? Do we have a number for that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'd have to contact the clerk's office who administers that, and we can get you a number, certainly. Page 65 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful, yeah. If you can do it by next Friday, that would be really handy. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That would be interesting to know what that is because that really is an offset to Norm's expenses. And it might want to be shown that way to help any arguments that we need to show. MR. MURRAY: Yeah. If I may, is that by law that it must go to the clerk? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is the county policy. There was an issue raised about the allocation of interest revenues. The clerk felt by law the interest earnings had to be funneled through him. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then redirected back? MR. SMYKOWSKI: And then redirected back. MR. SCHMITT: Back into the general funds. MR. MURRAY: So we only see the negative side. We see the hurting side, we don't see any offsets to that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thanks. MR. SCHMITT: The only change to that was recently in the monies dealing with permitting activities, specifically the Florida billing code and the amendments specified that interest earned on any monies that are in -- MR. MURRAY: I would make a suggestion -- MR. SCHMITT: Go right back to the building funding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a suggestion. Maybe it's a good one. It would seem to me that if you know the amount of interest, it's likely you do, then you could put it as a footnote that this amount was derived from, and it might incite somebody to reallocate that apportionment when the time comes that he needs it. Because we're always in shortfall mode, shortfall. So I think that may Page 66 January 5, 2006 not be a bad idea. Anybody agree with that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: That policy is the policy decision of the Board. MR. SCHMITT: Board and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I'm talking about well, maybe we'll make it a recommendation here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way Norm manages his payments to his contractors and the way he manages his money, will produce a higher value in that item if it's done in a certain manner. The fact that he's got a carry over means there's huge amounts of interest being earned as well. I just think it would be handy to know what that number is. It would help to understand things. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's fine. Would you be interested in like two or three years of history? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, sure. If it's easy enough to do and you can -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yeah, I'll check with the clerk staff, but I think they'll be able to just run a report for it year by year and show how much of the interest that was earned was attributable to either impact fees or the gas tax fund. And that will give you at least some trend or history. Obviously though, with the bond proceeds that have been deposited over the last couple years, obviously, the interest earnings will be substantially higher than they were even the previous year, previous couple years just because of the magnitude of those bond issues was approximately one hundred million dollars each. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How is that shown on the county's line item budget when they go and do their revenues and budget expenses every year and they adopt a new budget? Does that show up somewhere so the public can see what kind of interest earnings there are? MR. SMYKOWSKI: There is a turn back revenue budgeted in Page 67 January 5, 2006 the general fund as a revenue that is a function of two components from the clerk. His excess fees, his unused, unspent budget, and then there's the interest allocation per the Board's previous policy decision in that regard, and the sum of those two numbers is shown. But Mr. Brock does annually report to the Board on his turn back. All constitutional officers are required to within 30 days of the close of the fiscal year. And this letter to the Board identifies how much of the turn back itself was generated from excess fees, and how much was a function of the interest earnings being redirected to the general fund. MR. MURRAY: It's curious because we have -- it seems that the county is constrained to seek ad valorem as a means to catch up for shortfalls, when, in fact, there's the intended allocation of funds forward generates additional dollars that could be utilized. It's kind of an interesting circle. MR. SCHMITT: Well, Mike just said it does. The money goes into the general fund. MR. MURRAY: I understand that. But there it's fair game for anything. MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's correct, but that's the Board's policy. It's up to the Board to budget-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't disagree that the Board has the right to make the policy. And my suggestion would only be to make it so visual, so available that this is the amount of money that those funds accrued that it gives an opportunity for them to be insightful about where they might use those dollars. MR. SCHMITT: Mike can highlight, but if the money does come back in that general fund and it does, for all intents and purposes, buy down the need to increase the ad valorem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure that most of it does, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another question on that page, and it's Page 68 January 5, 2006 not in the county issue. Thank you. Norm, last year we had a line item under revenue called commercial paper for 19,700,000. It doesn't appear this year? At least, that I can see. MR. FEDER: Commercial is paid off. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commercial is paid off. With the Board's funding ad valorem funding and commitment to keep the $24 million per year, even though the debt service is only like 14, the Board will have effectively paid down it's existing deficit so there would -- and that combined with the two bond issues that have been issued, and the gas tax, the second gas tax bond also yielded more revenue based on the actual historical revenues. There's no need. The Board will have met it's commitment in terms of meeting its existing deficit, and therefore no commercial paper will need to be drawn because of its cash commitment in terms of the 24 and the second bond issue yielding more in bond proceeds than was originally anticipated, because that would have been based on a proj ection two or three years ago as opposed to the actuals done at the time. It's updated obviously. The financials are updated at the time the bond is issued to actually determine what the actual yield is in terms of bond proceeds at that very point in time as opposed to two or three years prior. An estimate of what the remaining capacity of the gas taxes would be at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Norm, I've got another question on this page before we move to the next. Ave Maria. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a 28,722 income from impact fees. That's projected over five years. Is that the original projection pursuant to the fiscal neutrality document that Ave Maria provided to this Board? MR. FEDER: It's consistent with the developer contribution agreement, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not worried about that so much. Page 69 January 5, 2006 They also had to do a fiscal neutrality document that was provided, and it was a Hank Fishkein model. MR. FEDER: Yeah, they redid their model. They did one chart, they did a second one and based on these numbers, that's what was used also in the DCA. They found that it was fiscally neutral or beneficial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know they did. But the concern that I have is -- MR. FEDER: Based on these numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I heard -- I think I heard Mr. Murray indicate there's been maybe a cut back or something. MR. MURRAY: It was announced in the newspaper that Ave Maria, looking at construction costs rising so rapidly, was definitely considering a reduction in its activities, and the net effect of that would be a reduction in the project. MR. SCOTT: But is that-- MR. MURRAY: And I posed the question whether or not that would impact. MR. SCOTT: Ave Maria itself and not -- they are selling pieces of land in there to builders that build fast. And I'm wondering if that's not affecting them. Because the totals are the total for all the land, even though Ave Maria might not build their town as fast or whatever, there's other development going around her that they've sold portions of it. MR. MURRAY: But I believe strongly that, and my recollection is valid, that it also pertains to the University as well. They were not imploding, they were reducing their projections. MR. SCOTT: But we've seen things come in from separate like Pulte, for instance, separate. And I'm not sure that their announcements are consistent with what they're doing. MR. MURRAY: And I predicated it originally with, I don't know Page 70 January 5, 2006 whether or not our agreement with Ave Maria says you pay it regardless of what you choose to do. And if it's tied to their production, their improvement -- MR. FEDER: There is a pull out cost provided for there if the income stream that they're anticipating doesn't materialize. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's very valid as an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will reread the hearing before next week. At this point -- MR. FEDER: There's no further provision for fill, which we didn't think was that big of an issue at the time, but boy, was that a good deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got a few minutes left. I don't want to start a new section on this document, so we can end your discussion today here. We can continue this until next Friday at -- is it 8:30 or 9:00? MR. SCHMITT: 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:30 in this room, Friday the 13th will be an award winning day. Before we adjourn, I have a question for Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had put a request into David Weeks earlier. He wouldn't respond to me. You responded to him about a public record request for documents he's working on? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I will get that information, and I will call you tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the question, and what is the reason why I'm being refused those documents? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: My general understanding, and again, I'd like to refresh my memory, but if something is in draft form and hasn't been circulated around anywhere, it doesn't yet take on the character of public record. Page 71 January 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: As long as it's a work process. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: As long as it's a work in progress and has not been passed around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I would like to know what -- please cite me the statute that you're referring to that under the Freedom of Information Act, this information is not available? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: It would be Freedom of Information Act applies to the Federal Government, to local Government, and state. It would be our Sunshine Law. So I will be happy to give you that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Didn't the EAC review it yesterday, or portions of it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: They may have. I'll have to check Mr. Weeks'. MR. COHEN: The EAC just reviewed a portion of the nonproposed EAR amendments and they'll be reviewing the rest of the amendments that are forthcoming to them on, I believe, the 12th, next week. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that must be at least public. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, that issue -- was it not the future land use element that you wanted to see? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's working on draft documents for the EAR. I requested to look at those because I think it would help me and him as well address questions early. I thought they were public documents because they're being worked on by public equipment, in a public office by a public employee. They're not litigation documents that I know of. I didn't know there was a restriction on those. I would like you to take a look at it and let me know what restriction there is on those. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: So I will do so and I will get with-- Page 72 January 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Proper party. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I will get with you tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Ifnot, we'll stand adjourned until -- we'll stand continued until next Friday. Thank you. (Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.) ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 5:00 p.m.) AUIR Special Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY DANIELLE AHREN. Page 73