Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/13/2006 S January 13,2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, January 13, 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 8:30 a.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 Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Bob Murray Russell Tuff Paul Midney Robert Vigliotti ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, Community Development Administrator Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Here we go. If everybody could rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Secretary, would you take the roll call, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Mr. Schiffer. Commissioner SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is not here. Ms. Caron is. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is not here. And Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is a continuation ofa meeting that started last year in December, and it got continued at that point to our first meeting in January which was two weeks ago or so or a week ago, I believe, and it got continued to today. It's the AUIR 2005 review. It's the annual update and inventory report. At last meeting we had left off in the transportation section; but since the last meeting till now, I had the honor to be asked by Commissioner Henning if he could address us this morning before we started which I was pleased to say, Of course, we would welcome his comments. And so, Commissioner Henning, if you would like. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The -- first I want to say thank you for your time. This -- this being a volunteer on a planning commission requires a lot of your time. And it's not -- I think every one of the board members recognizes the work that you do Page 2 January 13,2006 here, and I'm sure many of them watch the Planning Commission from time to time like I do. And I can say when I go to the -- the item that you consider, comes to our level, I look at what the issue is and the first thing I look at is what are the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The presentation that -- that I'm going to present to you this morning is not to influence you or my presence is not to influence you. It's just to provide information. Information that I've been compiling over the last few months and I'm going to give you the short verSIOn. Recently working with a not-for-profit organization in the state of Florida, Florida Tax Watch. Florida Tax Watch derives its revenue from membership and donations. And they make recommendations to the governor, the cabinet, the House and the Senate. One thing they have done historically is compare counties on how they tax the residents or taxpayers or property owners. And one of the things on how they compare counties they've had is per capita of property tax collected, taxes levied of fuel tax, utility tax, and so on and so forth. What is not included is fees including impact fees. So in 1999 -- actually, 2001 they published a report on how taxation in each __ each county in the state of Florida. And as you can see the Collier County in 1999 ranked 18th with a $546 per person or per capita. The average in the state of Florida is around $600 per capita in 1999. Now, Florida Tax Watch provided me a packet of information, and I'm going to give you the David Letterman version of the top ten counties in the state of Florida as far as taxation. Of course, we must include the east coast, the west coast, Lee County, our neighbor to the north ranks No.6, Palm Beach County, Walton County, Martin County, Collier County. And the number one for several years has been Monroe County. And there's the state average of taxation. Now, I want to emphasize in 2004 Collier County was the highest in -- in impact fees of what it costs you to build a structure or a Page 3 January 13, 2006 residential home in Collier County. This year this is the total taxes what we collected in the county. Now, this includes the school board and other taxing districts. And it works out to -- to the figures. And I use the BEBR -- the same BEBR number that Florida Tax Watch has used. What I did not calculate is gas taxes and others. So are we No.1? I don't know. We are No.2. Do we want to stay in the top ten? Not from my perspective. I would hope not. And, of course, again, I don't want to influence you on your decisions. Capital improvements for building infrastructure for the future is very important. But I have confidence in this board that they're going to take a look at what is going to be presented to you today and ask the tough questions. Is it valid information? I'm sure it is. Can it change? I don't know. But I can tell you that your recommendation to the Board of Commissioners is very important, individually and collectively to the Board of County Commissioners. I want to show you something that -- information that -- that I got from the property appraiser. It is a certification of the taxable values of Collier County Government. The purple line is where we're at today of taxes collected. As you can see in 2001 we're approximately 150 million that we collected that went into the general fund. This does not include the unincorporated fund or any other taxes. It is just property taxes. As you can see the purple line in 2005 where we're at. Now, the light blue is what I'm calling for in the future is rollback. Now I can't go back or we can't go back to the years previous. What I would like to do is try to get out of the top ten. And the numbers there -- there's one graph there you really can't see is just because of the scale I couldn't put in the numbers, but it's new construction. Rollback doesn't include -- it includes collecting new -- new construction. What it doesn't do is include collecting increased assessed values. And that has been a factor in the collection of property taxes in Collier County. And let me just find the slide of new construction. That's what Page 4 January 13,2006 that looks like. I just want to show you per population and taxes from the general fund and how -- how it trends. So I'm -- I'm not going to -- you're going to have a very long day today, and I'm not going to take up anymore of your time. But if you have any more questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do any of the board members have any questions of Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I wouldn't mind having that e-mailed to us if you can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to the commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- why don't I just put it on a disk for you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Commissioner, this is very enticing, very interesting information. When -- in the last several years at least that I'm aware of, there's been additional funds that have been gained as a result of assessed value increases in property; and I understand that the rollback is intended to compensate for that increase. Those monies become available and then -- then -- then it is -- it is my understanding that the county commissioners are able to use that money to the advantage of the citizens. You're saying, if I understand it correctly, that the best advantage for the citizens perhaps is to return the money to them. I note that -- that there is a difference in the height in the graph. How much are you hoping to return to the citizens if they were a percentage? Let's say a 100 percent of the total assessed addition, how much does that represent in returning to it, would you say? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want to emphasize I want to collect less taxes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what it's really all about. It -- it all depends on -- rollback depends on the increase of assessment Page 5 January 13,2006 each year. Now, I can tell you, you and I enjoy the Save Our Homes Amendment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just to give you an example what it was last year. I'm not sure if you can read those numbers. This is my homestead property. Collier County in the previous year, 2004, I sent approximately $258 for the general fund. Now, if we would have did rollback, my taxes, the same column, would have been $853. Now, the same scenario but my total tax from that previous year was approximately $2,900. If all the taxing authorities use rollback like the Mosquito Control District, my taxes would have been $2,600. This is a comparable property from my neighbor who does not have homestead exemption this year due to either he just purchased it or he is not a resident of the state of Florida or chooses not to have homestead exemption. His taxes would have went up a little bit, $15 and it's just because of assessed value. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Assessed value, right. So if! could just follow up. See, here's the thing that -- that distresses me. Well, maybe distress is too strong a word. But on presentation of the AUIR, any deficits or shortfalls anticipated are to be made up using millage increases. Yet we know that each year and the last several years there have been, as a result of assessments, the values have grown that there's these monies that are returned presumably to the general fund to be used for whatever purposes. So we have -- in the one case we are -- we are to make judgments about what's appropriate against millage, and yet we know that there's the potential for these other dollars. There's -- to me there's a disconnect there that I struggle with. And -- and I just was hoping to understand a little bit more about that. I -- I think I can put the pieces together, but in terms of where -- where, for instance, I had suggested -- let me get to the crux of it. I Page 6 January 13, 2006 had suggested that on each of these sheets that indicate summaries as to dollars what the shortfall dollars are especially with interest that accrues against each of these accounts that they be -- that those -- those interest statements be placed on the bottom of those summary sheets to show what monies -- although sent back through the Clerk of Courts and then back into the general fund, what those monies are that could, in fact, be used for transportation and other purposes. And that's kind of like a rollback in my sense, you know. It's not -- not a good example. But that -- I'm merely saying those are the things that -- that go through my mind. And I appreciate very much what you're attempting to do. And that would be my comment and thank you. I don't know there's -- there's no question there. It's just -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think what you're stating is you're pealing back the onion to find out what the part of the solutions are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. That's -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. Just my question is that -- and I asked Randy this. I didn't have anything to compare these to. He sent me a 2002 in our road budget for the same thing we're working on there recommended was 658 million. And for this year it's 770 -- 774. And if I'm understanding it correctly, we've doubled our revenues and barely done any for roads, but roads is a top priority for, I think, most residents. So I'm wondering is it just a matter of where we've set our priorities and how we got -- because those numbers that we're looking at don't reflect what I believe we've heard is the emphasis we want. Normally, we'll build these roads and yet we're not -- we're collecting twice as much money as we were before and we're not spending twice as much as money on the things that we all want. And I -- and I don't -- we don't have those numbers in front of us to compare to see where it's going. I guess that's my main concern. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't speak upon that, but I can Page 7 January 13, 2006 tell you what -- what I presented to you the difference between rollback and -- and the actual where we are with the general fund. The board made a conscious choice to support Norm Feder in his transportation infrastructure building. COMMISSIONER TUFF: But not by budget compared to what you're bringing what I see so... COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- well, I mean, there's some other things, you know, that Constitutional officers and -- and other programs like landscaping of our roadways. But when I became a county commissioner in 2000, we were told that we were $320 million in -- in -- in monies to build the five-year plan. We bonded that with dedication of other sources, but in -- but in reality we used increased assessed values. In my opinion I don't think the majority of the residents would complain about that. Okay. And -- and what -- what we're finding out today, what Mr. Feder's up against, is it just increased costs of right-of-way, materials and labor, and so on and so forth? And Mr. Feder and I have had long discussions and he is working on and I will assist and I'm sure my fellow commissioners will also look at how we can -- for example, is it time in Collier County to -- for Collier County to own its own excavating pit? Is it time that we own our own batching plant for asphalt? You know, there's ways that you can -- you can tackle the issue, but it's just -- it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of hard work. We have collected more than -- than for our transportation budget shortfalls. We have grown. And I would hope that we would -- we as decision makers would -- would take a look at: Do we want to do better? Can we do better? And how do we do that? How do we provide services to the people who we serve? So that's -- that's a -- that's a big question, but first there has to be a majority of willing to do that so. Okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the Commissioner? Page 8 January 13, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Commissioner Henning. We appreciate your time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for the time. And, again, it's just information. It's not -- not to influence you whatsoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the last meeting we had just started on transportation, and I was on the very first page starting with the first numbers which we can continue with. But before I start my questioning, I would like to make sure that this panel has their first questions on the table and if there's anymore, obviously, as we go along we will certainly respond to them. Does anybody else have a question of transportation before I start? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: That's just the sound of money, Microsoft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I appreciate the handouts today. I'm not sure what you expect us to do with them, but I'll be using what's in my book so... MR. FEDER: And -- and, Mr. Chairman, please understand, this is no changed numbers. What I've given you as we discussed the last time we're together is on page 5 and then I believe at -- also page 12. I've taken the impact fees in Ave Maria and put them together in a single item. I've taken the bonds and the carryforward where they were separated into two and put it together. I've shown the numbers -- and in particular I'll call your attention on 12. I've shown what was a confusing set of numbers hopefully in a manner that -- that shows you exactly what happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEDER: And in that case what it does is it shows you that you have each year a carryforward, but we were trying to total it across and there was a difficulty. And so I've done that on a yearly both surplus deficit and cumulative which would balance out to zeros. Revenues equal expenditures and the chart, the numbers have not Page 9 January 13, 2006 changed, but I think the format -- and I appreciate the discussion because I think this is a clearer format for presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I get into my questions, if I hit on issues that these papers address, just let me know. But I'm going to have to follow the format I started to understand and keep track of how I wanted to proceed. MR. FEDER: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have -- did -- you said -- you indicated you had some more questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A couple of housekeeping items for me. On page 12 I wondered if you would explain to me why we seem to peak out on the impact fees Fiscal Year '08. I know the last time we spoke there was the discussion about impact fees would be subject to a modification either to the indexing or restatement of the -- of the impact fees. Is that associated with that in any way? MR. FEDER: No. Commissioner, what that is showing and, again, I think we told you and we have in this while we've got a balance, this is very conservative as was discussed last time on gas tax revenue projections. It is also fairly conservative on impact fees especially in that it keeps generally the current level projected out. But what that is showing and the reason it's down in '8 is a component of our impact fees is the 50 percent paid up front. And so, therefore, in '08 you see -- in '07 and '08 you're seeing that other 50 percent that's within three years. But since we haven't done '06, don't know the numbers and know that 50 percent, you don't know show the other 50 percent in '09 and of course the same over in '10. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You wouldn't even -- you wouldn't -- okay. You don't even take it. MR. FEDER: So, again, we're trying to be conservative on it. Not knowing the numbers, we haven't tried to put them in as established fund. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let me just ask you this Page 10 January 13,2006 then. This all -- the predicate for all of this now is really SP360; right? This is -- this is a requirement of the state, but we're concerned now. We're building this to comply with what we anticipate for 360? MR. FEDER: Commissioner, this has been a requirement all along. Collier's one of the few that has done it. And this is consistent with other requirements within transportation, long-range transportation planning, TIP, through -- I know you know are very familiar with, the month-long planning organization process as well as our AUIR. And for the last five years, at least, development and delivery on a five-year work program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, what I was attempting to get at is that any state money that's going to come to us via the Growth Management Act of 2005 is -- is reflected in what form? Will that ever be loaded -- MR. FEDER: You've got the issue under grants. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that -- MR. FEDER: You don't show an awful lot there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Grants-- MR. FEDER: We are not anticipating a lot of revenue stream under 360. We are not. You have -- we did acquire about five thousand a year for two years under the new trip program. MR. SCOTT: Five million. MR. FEDER: About five million, excuse me, each year, two years. One of them on the loop in Immokalee. One on 951 between Golden Gate and Pine Ridge. But I will tell you that there's not a lot of federal and state money assumed in this program consistent with the way the state's going under a strategic intermodal system emphasis. MR. SCOTT: The grants in there are what we know we're going to get reimbursed for. We will go after future grants, but we don't know what we're going to get so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 11 January 13,2006 MR. FEDER: Again, we've gone conservative in -- in our revenue projection. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really pulling in the dirt over us. Yes. I thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go get 'em. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Uh? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's yours. Chairman STRAIN: Well, Norm, I'm going to backtrack a little bit. Let's start at the top of Sheet 5. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it actually spurred a comment as a result of -- to the questions to Commissioner Henning. The recommended work program this year is 774 million. Last year it was 683 million, I believe. We have a carryforward of298. Does that mean of the 683, 298 did -- did not get completed or spent last year? MR. FEDER: No. There's two components of that carryforward. Actually two components, bond and actual carryforward, but there's two ways that those get carried forward. There are projects that -- that did get moved and we talked about some of those. Those are carryforward projects. The bulk of it though as the note shows you on the bottom of the page is when I go out -- whether it's a construction phase when we let it -- it's a $30 million construction, it pays out over a curve. But you commit all the dollars and then they roll until they payout. The same with right-of-way. Right-of-way actually pays out in a longer time frame, but you commit all the dollars and then it becomes part of your roll, your carryforward until it is spent out. Same with design but lesser time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So of the 683 in recommended work program last year, how much of that work program approximately Page 12 January 13, 2006 then was executed for that -- for the value of the -- against the 683 dollarwise; do you know? MR. FEDER: When you say executed, are you saying spent versus encumbered? Predominantly it was encumbered, but as I pointed out because of payout curves, not that much of the capital is -- is spent as you go forward. You spend it in increments over time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how much was spent last year on roads? Do we know that? MR. FEDER: I can give you the figure on that, but I don't have that with me right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I'm trying to go is to try to get to MR. FEDER: You're -- you're asking for expenses as opposed to encumbrances? Okay. We'll run a report and get that answer for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason -- reason I mentioned it is Mr. Tuff pointed out an issue that we really don't -- we want to know how much we're increasing road expenditures to and how they coincide with the taxation. Taxes went up last year on average 19.88 percent on all property values. We've been trying -- I guess Mr. Tuffs question was possibly to see how you're keeping track with the increase in growth. MR. FEDER: With all due respect, the question you're asking me will not answer that though. Because asking me how much I spent depends on what phase I've encumbered and how much of that has been drawn down. If you ask me how much I've encumbered, then I think you've got your answer. But that won't mean that the next year you won't see a carryforward of some of those encumbered funds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you had predicted some carryforwards in the last document you provided us. I know you've got -- MR. FEDER: We didn't predict what we had. Every year you only show your carryforward the first year. It's a budgeting item. And Page 13 January 13, 2006 we come in with budget. There are dollars committed to projects. And those dollars committed to projects are maintained along with the requested budget for new projects, but the continuation budget is that carryforward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you say the dollars are maintained, does that mean that they are acquired ready to be spent? MR. FEDER: No. That means that we have accrued them over the years in budget and have encumbered them. And until they are spent, they stay on the books along with commitment to the project and that's why you've got a work program as you see later in your AUIR that shows projects that don't have any funding activity past the current fiscal year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would that amount of money that is not spent but is yet encumbered, is it real money in a sense it's sitting in an account somewhere earning interest for the taxpayers. MR. FEDER: It is real money. And hopefully if Mike hears this down in his office -- I know you asked last time the interest accrued, and hopefully Mike hears this and will be bringing it. Otherwise we'll be making another trip down to get that answer for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- I certainly will be asking it. MR. FEDER: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The impact fees, by combining the number to the 207, it does clarify some questions because the 207 shows up in some of your worksheets as a solid impact fee number. But when it got to the front page, it was reduced to 178 until you explained that Ava Maria now is part of that. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why -- what spurred the thought to separate Ava Maria out anyway to begin with? I was just curious. MR. FEDER: Basically because we have an agreement, and we wanted to track on that agreement the progress of Ava Maria and their payment of impact fees, agreement to DCA; develop a contribution Page 14 January 13,2006 agreement and the interlocal both relative to Ava Maria, provide that. After seven years we assess. And if, in fact, conditions and issues aren't being met, that we can either modify and/or terminate the agreement. So as a tracking we do that technically through our impact fee office. Generally with any project on impact fees you've got an assessment, a tally sheet for any -- especially if there's any credits. Here only on the design was there a credit aspect. But the nature of that project, the size of it and the desire to track that interlocal and that DCA specifically is why we showed it separate; but now we've shown it combined and put the terminology including Ava Maria so that if you looked at the prior one, it wasn't confusing. And the future will just show it as impact fees because that's exactly what they are, but we were tracking it a little bit separately and because of the interlocal and the agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the 28 million -- it's over a five-year period, would you have that broken down what you expect each year? MR. FEDER: Yes. We've modified slightly from the agreement which was noted as -- as conditional upon issues as you would expect. Generally the 28 million is consistent with what was in the agreement previously, but we didn't see as much impact fee revenue. And I believe it was about 1.5 million last year instead of the anticipated level. So we've shown it moving over slower. I think the question was raised previously. It doesn't seem to be going as fast. They're experiencing cost increases and, therefore, not building as fast the -- the university itself. Although the town seems to be picking up fairly quickly. We've then projected out our revenue stream. MR. SCOTT: I checked with the impact fee office. We have about $5 million worth of impact fees in development right now. And if you look at the bottom of page 11, it's broken out. It's 3 million in '06; 5.1 in '07; 5.5 in '08; 6.5 in '09; and 8.6 in '10. So right now we're above the level for this year depending on how fast it gets permitted Page 15 January 13, 2006 through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next question I had last time when we started talking about was your gas taxes. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had made the comment that your gas taxes have gone down from last year even though your traffic counts have gone up. I think somebody was going to have an explanation for that. MR. FEDER: I believe Mr. Smykowski did go through a discussion at the end of our -- our last meeting. Essentially what he's looking at is he's averaged over time, but I will let him when he comes up give you a more thorough review of that. But, again, it's -- it's a conservative approach. We -- we acknowledge that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the gas tax revenues that you file with the State of Florida, I went to their site and checked. And really I went back three years. And on average over three years, we've gone up 4.11 percent. Again, that would lead me to believe that for the next five years, we'd actually be increasing, not decreasing gas taxes. So I __ I certainly would hope that Mike comes back with a better explanation on that one. MR. FEDER: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year we had a recommendation -- you had a line item called commercial paper for 19,700,000. I may have asked this last week -- or you may have -- so I'm sorry if it's redundant. I'm just -- MR. FEDER: The determination was that we didn't have to go after that. That increased assess value, if you will, has allowed the establishment of 24 million a year which is also in the 20-year financing plan that we have. That says that essentially we're not going to go up 24 million a year as things stand right now in general revenue, but that provision or that ability to go to that level made no need to go after the commercial paper. Page 16 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the -- the 24 million, does that also include pay-as-you-go funding? MR. FEDER: Yes. That is what the commercial paper was sort of noted. We had bonds as pay as you go. And the commercial paper was set as part of the pay as you go if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2003, you had a separate line item for pay as you go and it was 16 million 800. MR. FEDER: That was the soon-to-be commercial paper, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now those terminologies that are actually the same? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's just hard to follow when you change terminology like that with no explanation. The next issue would be on page 9, and this is more of a statement and probably a request for assurances from your department or maybe an acknowledgment. Weare also the same board that you bring PUDs to with recommendations for approval. And over the past number of years there have been repeated recommendations from the transportation department for approval of various PUDs. In fact, it wasn't until we questioned the -- I think it was the Benderson PUD on the Davis and 951 corridor a month ago or two months ago that your recommendation of approval was changed to a recommendation of denial at least at our meeting at that particular date. MR. SCOTT: Well, the reason why I changed it and I had already talked to staff about that was the fact that Davis wasn't going to be funded anymore. And -- and did it show up in the paperwork, no, because that happened after you received that. And, of course, we're going to see that again coming back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, that's -- that's part of the reasoning I'm trying to understand. During the Wal-Mart facility to the southwest corner of that and then the Benderson facility to the north that was the subject of our -- this just now, those two I understand Page 17 January 13,2006 have prebought certificates of adequate public facility. MR. SCOTT: Yes, they have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, it was over 100,000 for the remainder for a good portion of the Wal-Mart one and close to that number for the Benderson. Do you know what those two numbers are? MR. SCOTT: They pay for a certain amount and I believe the northwest quadrant was about 130,000 square feet. The south -- the -- it's two something. Two -- and I have a list. I can give you a list of the seven properties they have around the county that they prepaid back in 2002 or '3, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By prepaying those in that quadrant as an example, does that mean that they now have a vested right to utilize those COAs and build even though we now know that the road is going to be deficient, will continue to be deficient until such time we get a commitment for funds that seem to have disappeared? MR. SCOTT: To the level that they have paid impact fees, yes. And that was previous to our concurrency system. They came in just before the rules changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they bought all those COAs before checkbook concurrent? MR. SCOTT: About a week before, 15 million -- $15 million worth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And without the funding we lost basically the ability to stop the growth in that corridor until the roads are improved. Is that what you're really saying? MR. FEDER: Commissioner, when we've gone out with the concurrency management system, one thing we've tried to explain to people because they've heard and it's true that we are the most stringent in the state of Florida at least as things stand right now. And yet people saw the Wal-Mart on Immokalee, the Wal-Mart on Davis, two facilities that probably everybody realized had difficulties and yet Page 18 January 13, 2006 they got approved. They got approved because they were vested and we could not stop it under the new system. However, the Wal-Mart that came in as you're well aware at 951 and 41, we have not approved. They are proposing or they've gone through that they're going to make an improvement. That has not happened yet and they will not get a certificate of occupancy without the adequate capacity because they do fall under the concurrency management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings in another parameter. You said they have proposed an improvement, but they haven't done it yet. Does that mean you're going to hold off a recommendation for them to go forward until the improvement is in place and functional? MR. FEDER: They have an agreement with the county approved by the board that once -- and if they make that improvement, that provides more capacity than they will consume, then, in fact, they can get a certificate of occupancy but not until. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A CO. Does that mean, no, they can start construction prior to that? MR. FEDER: They can start construction I believe-- MR. SCOTT: Only if they get the project permitted and -- and we'll just say at this moment in time they are behind schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all these questions are real relevant to where I'm trying to go -- MR. FEDER: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on this table. On this table there's a series of road systems that have been changed in their construction of programmed dates from the last AUIR. There are road systems that have come before us with projects on them that had recommendations of approval. And we've proceeded with those on the basis of the applicant telling us what's in the AUIR. We have a -- you know, basically they have a two-year opportunity in which they have to get listed in order to apply and be approved. Well, that two-year opportunity is to start I understand, but in many times as you know Page 19 January 13,2006 we've asked the applicant to consider their COs at the time of road construction completion because that is an opportunity we have. That's all changed by this new table. And the first ten items out of ten, four of them were supposed to be -- have construction starting in 2005. Now, they say 2006. That means the completion might be a year or two years down the road for those same items. And projects that have come before this board are now approved will be open on-line on those road systems before your construction may even be halfway through its process. And I -- I'm pointing this out as you've done that not only with the four of the first ten, but five more of the next -- the next ten. So almost half of the projects didn't start on time. And I know there's a problem getting things started. I know there's money issues, but that needs to dovetail with your recommendations of this panel on the -- on the projects that come forward because this is really unacceptable on the basis of approvals we've already done. We're going to have a bigger mess out there than we ever could have possibly had now. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I fully appreciate what you're saying. What I put here is first of all you have as an example here Santa Barbara shown twice and Radio Road. That represents one project that as I've shown here has had one year of delay. It was originally '05. It is now in '06. The reason for that delay probably most are very cognizant of. There are a lot of questions about the project. Even though it had been in the long-range plans -- subsequent or previous long-range plans, the community concerns are something that we take very valid and try to work through. I had a lot of different forms, a lot of discussions. Went to a 60 percent set of design plans. Brought in another consultant to look at innovative concepts to resolve to the same intersection designs that we had for that section. Went to another set of 60 percent design plans. And now a completed and designed in right-of-way in going towards letting that to construction, but that did result in some delay. Page 20 January 13,2006 So three of those items that you note -- because Radio Road, that section over from Santa Barbara to where it was previously four lanes is part of the intersection line of Davis are all one project. Do I relish the idea of telling you anything is swift? No. As I told you previously, we spend time and we have a pretty good track record of holding the project, but we are running into some very unusual times and issues, and we are adjusting our program accordingly. And that's what you see here with those delays. Not that we want to show them to you; but as soon as we recognize and see that we're going to have a delay in ability to deliver, we're taking that into account in our best guidance to you. Now, that does keep them within the two-year time frame the first year. Now they are effectively in the second year. But regardless of that, they are a delay. They are a longer period as you point out before somebody will get that new capacity that in many cases have been relied upon in decisions. And we -- we fully understand that. The others here as you see, Rattlesnake Hammock, fortunately that one is already under construction. The notice to proceed the kick off is coming shortly. But that one got delayed basically because we finally resolved putting up four panther signs to warn motorists that, in fact, panthers are in the area west of 951, which is a little bit to my surprise. But nonetheless that was what created about four to five months of delay as coming to the resolution of four panther signs. And that has been resolved and we are now under construction. You have there as well County Barn. County Barn has been an interesting project. Before I came I think it was in and out of your AUIR at least 15 times. We -- I basically committed to no delay on that project. And, unfortunately, you have delay on this project. Because what we've done is we've redesigned a few times with the environmental groups addressing the issue of the Lely Area Stormwater Plan LASWP as it's known. We thought it made a lot of sense to put in the LASWP provisions, not utilize them, open them up until LASWP was approved and then make that part of the process Page 21 January 13,2006 rather than do it twice. The permitting agencies felt, no, you're backdooring me. You're going to make me agree to LASWP by saying that I approve these provisions of LASWP in this project. Strange orientation. The long and the short of it is we're in and out a couple of times. We now have the right provisions. We have the approval LASWP and we're moving on County Barn right-of-way acquisition, soon to construction. The last one in here in this fiscal year delayed from prior fiscal year is a very significant one I know especially as this board has sought very, very hard and the Board of County Commissioners have __ have followed suit to the direction of the Planning Commission to look at all the development that's occurring on 951 particularly the north section as we develop north of Vanderbilt Beach Road both on the east side and the west side. And we share and appreciate the support that we've had from this Planning Commission and the board's follow-up on that to try to establish a grid, to try and make sure that we don't inundate that section before its ability to move forward. What I will tell you is I'm resolving the last of the permitting issues. We had a bid on construction that was unfortunately very high. We have had one session to negotiate with the lone bidder. We have one other plan; but in anticipation of that, I already have an executive summary to go to the next board to reject the bid. Now, should something change our mind and we bring it to the board and they concur, that's different; but for right now I anticipate that's what it will be. Weare looking at how we can create some cost savings and issues on that without further delay and get it back out to bid. So, yes, I understand fully your concern. We take it very seriously. I did even before this became a bigger part of the issue when we established the five-year work program that we didn't have five years ago. And that five-year work program charts the course, gives the target. I've heard a lot of people say, Well, if you can't meet it, why even have a five-year program? I gave you a sheet that showed you previously -- Page 22 January 13, 2006 and I can put it up -- all the lanes that we've added in this county on time with one project with one month delay. Now, we do have some slippage here, and I'll be the first to admit it and tell you that I'm not happy with that. And I can't promise you that there will never be again. I can promise, as we know it we will adjust the program and, therefore, our decisions accordingly; but I can't go retroactive for you either. Now, having said that, we are still within the two-year window. We're going to try and bring these projects forward; but the only thing I know for sure is not to have a five-year work program, not to show when we're going to do it, make sure that I have no failure. But to have no target is the only way to assure that I will never hit my target. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate everything you just said and I do understand it. And one thing I want to comment on. I have reviewed your proposals and estimates for that segment of 951. Had you recommended approval of that, it would have been an injustice to the taxpayers of this -- MR. FEDER: I agree fully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm very pleased that your department took that stand. Maybe what we need is new blood in this county for road work. Now, back to the-- MR. FEDER: We're talking to Montreal believe it or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MR. FEDER: We're talking to somebody out of Montreal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we should look at every avenue. It's just not right what was on that particular proposal. On this table -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you just explained to us why some of these issues occurred. I have a couple here I want to further ask; but before I do, when we talked about the summary table, I asked you about the gas tax and impact fees. Your statement to the summary table was trying to be conservative in your entries. Why can't we be Page 23 January 13,2006 more conservative in our predictions of start dates on the roads? And the reason I'm asking for this is not to say we don't want to start them sooner, but this document provides an open-door policy for developments to use it to manipulate to get on the road system when we're not absolutely sure, and it may be more of a liberal look at the starting dates than it needs to be. And if you're going forward on a conservative note, could this table be looked at and become more conservative? MR. FEDER: Commissioner, there -- there's two sides to that answer. The basic answer is yes. Okay. And especially under the provisions of 360, we're going to have to be a bit more conservative on this side. The other side of that equation though is that you want to move forward on your projects. And the more time I give, it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If everybody has enough time, there's no urgency. And that was basically what was the process before I came here five years ago. There was no schedule and nothing got done. So the balancing act needs to be there. We need to have an appropriate target that recognizes there's an awful lot that we need to accomplish with the community for the community. And we need to have a schedule that we all know and can rely upon. Yet at the same time I fully appreciate under 360 the need to be conservative on that end as well because the implications of certain issues whether it permitting cost, manpower, affordable housing -- I can go on down my list -- could create some slippage and that creates a bigger problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would hope that maybe you'd consider looking at this table again for that -- from that position. On the table itself if you go and take a look at Item No. 13, Golden Gate Parkway, Santa Barbara to CR 951, in the past or in the AUIR from 2004, that was supposed to be addressed starting construction 2005. Now, I'm wondering what it's saying when it says constrained. Does that mean you're not planning to do something with it? What is it Page 24 January 13,2006 you're planning to do? MR. SCOTT: We never had -- MR. FEDER: Golden Gate Parkway -- MR. SCOTT: We never had construction on that section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm not sure then what was called out in 2005. MR. SCOTT: I think -- I think it's referring to the construction of a parallel facility as a possible solution to it. MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. SCOTT: Because we've -- we've identified this for several years as constrained. MR. FEDER: Green Boulevard. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I think it's probably referring to Green which is not on the same schedule it was previously. MR. FEDER: Now, from -- from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Golden Gate Parkway was No. 10 on AUIR 2004. And it said year deficient 2005 roadway Golden Gate Parkway from -- to Santa Barbara to CR 951 construction program FY 2005. That's what it says in the AUIR. MR. SCOTT: I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says a lot different in this year. MR. SCOTT: I think what I was doing with that was the-- obviously, when you drive out there, one of the constraints is Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. Santa Barbara was an '05. That was a solution towards it, but we weren't widening Golden Gate Parkway because it's constrained in the growth management plan. MR. FEDER: Commissioner-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this -- when this appears on this table and it's shown on the left side as an existing deficiency and you show on the right side you're going to program construction 2005, what are we supposed to think you're meaning? That you're going to try to help that -- Page 25 January 13,2006 MR. SCOTT: I got a column that's that big that I'm trying to say these are some of the things that might help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a lot of white paper here. It could be footnoted. MR. FEDER: The problem -- MR. SCOTT: Okay. Noted. MR. FEDER: Commissioner -- Commissioner, the only thing I can tell you is that's an error on our part. Bottom line is that our work program has never had a construction phase on Golden Gate Parkway between Santa Barbara and 951 nor -- nor design or right-of-way phase to bring forward that construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a project that was debated quite extensively. MR. FEDER: There was a project debated, but it never materialized into a design phase, right-of-way or construction phase in our work program previously or now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On No. 15,2006, so you're deficient 2006, CR 951, Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge. In the AUIR 2004 said that that was going to be constructed -- construction program was to start in 2007. Now, it's noted as a TCMA. Does that mean it's not going to get fixed? MR. SCOTT: No. The section that we had previously programmed was from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Green. We have shortened the project down to Pine Ridge. We -- as part of the project that we're doing, design has just started I believe or close to it. MR. FEDER: Yes, it has. MR. SCOTT: For Collier from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Pine Ridge, we're also doing 30 percent design further south to try to set up what our stormwater requirements are. Is there a project any time soon south of Pine Ridge, no, there's not. And as I noted last week, the TCMA will fail. It's -- it's not a solution to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go onto the next -- Page 26 January 13,2006 MR. SCOTT: It's -- if -- it's in there because right now someone comes in with a site plan, is the TCMA okay, yes, but in, you know, six months it probably won't be. It's a snapshot in time. COMMISSIONER CARON: In -- in six months you're saying -- MR. SCOTT: Probably. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it will probably be failed? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, since this is a five-year plan, I'm not so sure that using the TCMA under a heading that says "solutions" is really a solution. I mean, I think that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the TCMA happens to be the next page in this report and maybe we could turn to that. Is there any other questions from the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. By the way, if you guys have questions on pages that I'm moving past, just speak up and we'll try to get it on the table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But I'm enjoying your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're probably the only one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 951/41, you mentioned when they get permits, we're going to start moving ahead with those modifications to that road. You know, I'm -- I'm sure you share the same concern that that's going to be an issue that's going to be construction and reconstruction and reconstruction. And I'm just wondering whose permits are we talking about? Are we talking about a state permit in this case? MR. SCOTT: We are -- well, it's actually both because of the section that they -- they are going to construction south of US 41 to north of 41 on 951. So it's dealing with both of us, the state and the county and other permitting agencies. MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner, though, your point is well Page 27 January 13, 2006 taken. It is an interim improvement. While it is six laning, we anticipate the PD&E for US 41 that we advance that the state is doing to identify more long-term solutions in that intersection of 951 and 41. But that six laning until those others come forward, become financially feasible and the time frame it would take to bring them forward, this was considered a good interim project. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, no doubt. MR. FEDER: If they could come forward as promised. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No doubt from the point of view of somebody of having an interest in doing something and coming up with a solution, it appears acceptable. I will tell you, though, that the community in that area is getting very concerned with this and I -- I just worry about it. Now, also the chairman brought up a question that I thought certainly is very valid. We sit here and we depend upon the information in particular 5.1 when we see a petition and we rely upon your statements. And you've been forthcoming. I'm not suggesting for a second that you haven't been everything you need to be, but is there -- is there more that we could enjoy, we could benefit from? As was the question that was posed and the information illicited with regard to the Benderson, we'd have a better comfort zone for the communities if we were in a position to -- to know about current status, real current status rather than having to poke the question. Could you help me with that? MR. SCOTT: Well, and -- and we've had conversation with Joe's staff about that. And -- and planners are actually calling it right before stuff comes in. Because we might review something that you see a year and a half before, and obviously do things change, yes. And-- and that's some of the issue that we're trying to get through. Now, I've had a conversation with Joe directly about maybe we should be the absolute last sign off. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm thinking. I'm certainly Page 28 January 13,2006 thinking. MR. SCOTT: And say because things change. Obviously, the thing with Davis was one day it's programmed, the next day it's not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It -- it puts you in a position of looking a little foolish sometimes which is very unfortunate. And-- and more than that, though, the critical factor is that inasmuch as roads are a critical factor, it appears that we won't have the right information. And the chair makes a very good point. We've made decisions that are actually going to create agonies for you, for us and for the people who live there. MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner, a couple ofthings on that. In addition to getting later in the review process which we really need to do -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. FEDER: -- the other thing we're doing is every project is going under MS Project. We have a much more sophisticated effort that we're undertaking both in trying to control costs and time, but have a much better indication of where critical path items may be slipping and, therefore, a better feel. If we have some hesitation, then we'll relay that to this board about whether or not a letting is going to go. As I said, we enjoyed about four and a half years ofletting them on time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I-- MR. FEDER: Some of the issues we're facing now, it's even more critical that we manage those critical path issues very, very tightly so that we don't find ourselves giving you guidance and then shortly afterwards having -- MR. SCOTT: Specifically for your answers if! had -- you know, I have four positions open right now. There's things I want to do that I can't, but I try to be here every Thursday for you guys, you know, sometimes I'll read it, you know, two days ahead of time too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me be clear. I think you Page 29 January 13,2006 folks do a fine job and do the best you can under your circumstances. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're welcome, sir. I know Mr. Smykowski's back here. I am probably going to be hitting on several accounting issues or numeric issues and maybe we can accumulate those to the end or, Mike, whatever you prefer. The two that are on the table right now -- if you want to come forward then -- the working interest revenue and the explanation of the reduction in gas taxes from last year while we had an increase in traffic counts. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski, Budget Director. The clerk's office provided me with a -- an itemized listing by fund. What you see on the visualizer is a listing in '05 is the cash from interest that was earned on funds in -- and it's listed by Fund 313 is the first one. That's the road gas tax fund and where the bond proceeds are. And the balance of the funds listed are by individual road impact fee district from Funds 331 through 340. In aggregate, $5.2 million of interest was earned in cash -- on a cash basis on the available funds within your road -- your various road -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that one year? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is a five-year AUIR. So we're look at 25 million roughly? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Fairly close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where does that show up on the summary sheet as a revenue source? MR. SMYKOWSKI: It does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it did show up as a revenue source, that would mean some of the other revenue sources such as the general fund may not be so widely needed. I don't know how you-all do your accounting, but I would just subtract that amount that's earned from funds that already go there including impact fee account I would Page 30 January 13,2006 assume. MR. SMYKOWSKI: That money is deposited into the general fund. So it is not shown as a revenue in the road financing plan because it is not deposited within this fund group. I will grant you there is a transfer from the general fund on an annual basis of $24 million from '07 through' 1 0 of which the interest that is deposited into the general fund in essence helps make that transfer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The interest that -- this interest money goes in, I understand, to the Clerk of Courts and funds it back to us in the form of the general fund? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then it's looked at for whatever it may be. Maybe it's considered contingency money or money unspent and it's divided up into various parts of the budget; is that correct? MR. SMYKOWSKI: In the general fund, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does not get credited back specifically to the transportation department? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Not specifically, no, but the board has made a formal policy decision in terms of funding roads that obviously before they would consider discretionary positions in any of the various operating departments or divisions, that the first priority was meeting the road requirements and being financially feasibly sound in our road program. So that is of the highest priority to the board. So before they would consider any other discretionary positions, that transfer to the road program has been funded on an annual basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My point is it is a revenue source generated by the management of the funds in the transportation department. It's a good management program. It's good they're earning interest on it. I give them the highest regard for that. That's a good move. I think that it ought to be shown on this document as a credit to that department through its revenue source. Now, I know that Page 31 January 13, 2006 would increase the revenues from 774 to possibly 800,000. You only need 774 so you'd reduce another line item by that amount which I would assume would be general funds or other costly items like bonds. But I would like -- I think that ought to be looked at as a -- as a possible avenue to pursue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, Mr. Chairman, if! may. Even if it -- even if it can't be put down as a reduction because of policy, certainly as I've indicated previously as -- as a parenthetical, if you will, in the summary to show that that's the amount of money, it certainly would help the commissioners know. Because I was going to ask you is it a one for one when you say that they -- they determined in past years to put that money back in those priority projects? I'm not going to go there if it's a one for one. I don't really care. But I want to know, isn't that -- isn't that a reasonable request for that to happen? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Adding -- adding that as a footnote, I don't see that as a problem. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I'm not disagreeing with your desire, but I'm saying if that's now possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: For the record Joe Schmitt, Community Development Environmental Services Division Administrator. Just to help Mike out there. That -- that -- that money that comes back in is inherently part of that $24 million a year coming in out of the general fund. Whether a specific portion of that 24 million is earmarked as the interest, though, we recognize your recommendation, but in -- in being somewhat factual, that is a decision that is the board's during the budget cycle as budget guidance to the county manager on how that happens. Because that money does come back and comes back as Mike said into the general fund. It's not earmarked to go back to specific programs. So I think based on your recommendation, all we can do is note that that interest money comes back in; but if it's directly tagged to the Page 32 January 13,2006 road program, that is a decision made at the budget hearings, not at the AUIR. And -- and -- well, I think, Mike, if you want to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt -- MR. SMYKOWSKI: I think it's clear the interest is used, deposited in the general fund and the general fund makes a transfer to support roads. I think it's accounted for properly. I understand your point, Mr. Strain. Obviously, that interest availability helps buy down the net cost of the general fund transferred to the road program on an annual basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Mr. Schmitt, I wasn't making a recommendation if it appeared that way. I was asking questions to find out what the recommendations might be at the end of this particular element. So let us -- let's go with that. And, Mike, the second issue we have right now for you was the issue on the gas tax. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's very dark. It's hard to see. MR. ADELSTEIN: It's not even picking it up. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I'm sorry. Let me talk in very general terms. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't see it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: When we built the AUIR, our initial starting point for FY'06 was the budgeted gas tax revenue. As of this point in time a few months later we actually have the actuals. Mr. Strain, I will be addressing your question directly too. Your concern was that the gas taxes -- I said they were probably conservative. If you use the actual FY'05 which amounted to $20.1 million in FY'05 and then we increased that 3 percent annually, the number at the -- at the far right over the five years from 6 through 10 would be 110 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. Versus the 107 that we showed in Page 33 January 13, 2006 the AUIR. I indicated, you know, they were conservative. I -- I updated the figures to reflect the actuals so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Technically that explains why. I used -- the beginning point for me, the spring board that I inflated by 3 percent annually was the '06 budget. Given that the '05 actuals are very close, in fact, to the '06 budget, there is a slight incremental impact. And then by running that out for a five-year period, the differential would be about $3 million. And would actually show then if you used the 110, that updated figure compared to -- I think that addresses your concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does and I -- I -- even at the 3 percent, I still think you're conservative based on the revenues I've seen this county send to the Florida Department of Revenue in reporting their gas taxes over the last three years. The average increase has been 4.11 percent. Three percent is an acceptable, I think, compromise. It gets us there. Now, if this gas tax line increases to 110 million, what decreases? On the -- on the summary page you have to get back to the 774 work -- recommended revenues for work programs. How do you get back to that 774 if you've increased gas taxes by 3 million? What number comes down? I think I know, but I want to understand from your perspective. MR. SMYKOWSKI: I would probably say no number's going to come down. The board is committed an ongoing $24 million to support the -- to replace the gas taxes that are used for debt service which is about $14.6 million annually. And then the -- the differential between the 14 and the 24 is designed to begin to address long-term issues in the Golden Gate Estates such as bridge maintenance program which we will be in dire need probably over the next 20 years of replacing many of those bridges. And the -- the commitment was to not only meet our AUIR needs, but to begin to address the long-term Page 34 January 13,2006 needs in the Golden Gate Estates in the road maintenance and bridge maintenance areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but what you're saying is if these conservative numbers are found to be more conservative than reality and we end up having more money from gas taxes and impact fees, that money is going to be spent. MR. FEDER: With all due respect, Commissioner, we've been fairly conservative throughout. And yet at the same time what I'm looking at right now you asked a very important question and that is: Should I not be conservative also in my scheduling? I will also tell you to get to the exact penny on estimate of costs is probably a fool's game. And so hopefully where we are in a conservative set of estimates and our best estimate of costs is a balancing process with midterm corrections as we go along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have no -- no problem with that, but I think you've got to start somewhere. And I still think the numbers that are being discussed are not -- are still conservative compared to some other revenue sources and streams that have been reported. So I'm still not convinced we need to not -- I don't believe that if you have more funds going into gas tax you increase the revenue sources and not decrease them appropriately from another category so... MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sir, respectfully, I believe that over a five-year period, the margin of error on the side of construction inflation given the price of asphalt and steel and the like will far outstrip any differential in gas taxes on an annual basis. Just because that's been so all over the board, and the recent bids show that cost differential and what we're really up against on the cost side of this equation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not satisfied those bids show anything other than is too much going to local contractors. In that particular regard, maybe that'll change. That might be the one thing Page 35 January 13, 2006 that that bid's going to do good for this county. On the next item -- I'm ready to go to the next page at this point. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I may have a few more. I've got some -- MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, before Mike leaves here -- before Mike pulls down from the podium, if you will, you had asked one more question as well. You had asked on the roll forward the encumbered and the bonds, basically in '05, and that's the figures we have. Obviously, we don't know '06 what we've encumbered and/or spent yet. In '05 we encumbered 153.7 or 154 million. Approximately spent 78.4. Now, I need to put that in perspective. Our program as you see is roughly on the average of about 120 million a year. And so we encumbered obviously more than that because some items roll and you encumber. In the case of the expenditures, again, that goes on a payout curve. So I don't want to mislead you that you're going to not -- you're going to see a different or exact carryforward the next cycle. It depends on which phase we're in and how those payouts are going on the projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're addressing the question about the 298 million carryforward; right? MR. FEDER: Yes, I am, sir. I'm trying to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your revenues in '05 were 210 million. Your expenses against that was 76 million. You had a beginning balance of 163. If you add the revenue to the beginning balance and take off the expenses, you have -- end up with 298 as a carryforward. MR. FEDER: Again, and that's from different years carrying forward. And one of the major jumps there you see was the second issuance of the two bond releases that we had, another about 100 million, overall just over 200 million. Page 36 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My next question would be on page 10. And, Don, this is a TCMA. And you've got numbered percentages on the bottom. 93.47 percent lane miles meaning level of service standard. The way the LDC reads, you've got to have at least 85 percent so you're still okay on that TCMA. Is that the interpretation from that sheet? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. But as you notice and as we were talking about, if you look at No. 15 or look at No. 22, they're very close to capacity . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If any one of those slides to full capacity, does that take the 93 below the 85 percent? MR. SCOTT: Um-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or can they be deficient but the TCMA still allow projects to move forward because the overall TCMA is not deficient? MR. SCOTT: It can. But I think mileage-wise if you keep-- you know, obviously, if! take two of those out, I'm going to be below 85 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. On page 12 the road financing plan update, this item I'm going to ask about does appear on the summary page. I just happened to notice it the way it was spread out here. And it's the impact fee credits. What is that $5 million impact fee credit? How is that -- what does that mean? Where's it come from? MR. FEDER: Basically we have -- and it's an expenditure and basically it's acknowledging that we had prior commitments where we've given impact fee credits usually for right-of-way. And as those credits get used, it's an expenditure to our program and they've averaged about a million a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you give any impact fee credits to -- in the DCA agreement with Ava Maria for the oil well -- MR. FEDER: Yeah, we did only for the design phase. And the Page 37 January 13, 2006 provision on that is until they've accrued I believe it's 6.5 million in overall impact fees, they can't get any of that impact fee credit or use it. So, obviously, they'll be paying impact fees up to 6.5. Then after that, they can go after a dollar for every two or 50 percent on an impact fee credit to try and keep that impact fee stream going. MR. SCOTT: I think there was a future year tied to that too though. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the million dollars cover that, their credits as well as is that just -- just other county credits? MR. FEDER: That's -- that's the overall. This one is built into it but, no, that's overall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 13 you start into your update inventory report. Through some of the discussions over the period of time it's taken to get here today, I got answers to some of these, but Line Item 25 on page 13 is for Goodlette Frank Road. It's operating at a level of service B yet it's under construction. Why? MR. SCOTT: That's assuming the six lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, I mean, Goodlette Frank Road is that the piece between Golden Gate -- it is between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge? MR. SCOTT: Right. Because what we -- what we've done in the past and I think I'm consistent with this throughout is if it's under construction, I've assumed the lanes that we're going to go to as the capacity for comparison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. SCOTT: And then in some of the other columns as you go down, I'll have both columns. If it's, like, a future project, I'll show the four-lane capacity and then the six-lane capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean-- MR. SCOTT: Once they're under construction I put six. Page 38 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that mean on No.4 where it says overpass under construction, even after the overpass is done, we're still going to be operating at a level of service E? MR. SCOTT: I think the one thing with the overpass is from a -- from a -- yeah. The model basis it doesn't -- it doesn't necessarily -- you know, it's more of an operational improvement. So I might have some analysis as part of Syncro that lends itself to it, but the real benefit's not going to be seen until-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the $40 million or whatever of that big overpass is not going to give us a better level of service on that road? MR. SCOTT: It will definitely give you a better level of service. MR. FEDER: It will give you a better level of service. The difficulty is modeling is what Don's saying. And your modeling you're based on lanes. Like you asked on No. 25, you see there in the column under lanes right after the Fund 2, it shows that it's assuming a six lane divided in that analysis to get you to a B. MR. SCOTT: I mean, even from a standpoint of traffic, you're going to see traffic change on different links around it for one reason or another, like, off of Pine Ridge. It might be off of Airport in certain areas too, but we're not going to see that until -- well, I'd say next year; but if it's done at the end of year, maybe traffic counsel might not be till a year after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you go to the next page, Don, you look at No. 33. We have an existing deficiency on north of!-75 to Davis Boulevard. I'm assuming that's north of Davis Boulevard to I-75. Is that a correct assumption? MR. SCOTT: It's Davis to north ofI-75 through the interchange essentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it shows that if you go way over to the right, it shows -- your -- as your years go on, they're all boxed together. Your lines disappear. So it looks like it might be Page 39 January 13, 2006 considered all one project. MR. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it shows the year of substantial completion 2008. That's not correct anymore, is it? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You looked at Norm. Norm looked back at you, so I guess he's thinking you're going to answer that question. MR. SCOTT: I got to -- we went over this, the work program numerous times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned. Is that dependent on the state's money? MR. SCOTT: No. This is our job. It's the first one listed on page 11. MR. FEDER: Which is 2006. MR. SCOTT: Which is 2006. So I've assumed two years of construction after that. That's -- that's our job. Weare going forward with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Without the -- without the state's -- regardless of what the state does with Davis? MR. SCOTT: Exactly. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I think what you're thinking: Is this on 951 as well, we're talking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. I just wanted to make sure MR. FEDER: Even without the state's -- yes, we'll continue forward. MR. SCOTT: And we are, for your information, within the next two weeks meeting with them to dovetail their project design with ours to say, okay, what are we building? What are you building? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was going to be my question. Page 40 January 13, 2006 MR. SCOTT: To nail down more of their cost, what our -- their right-of-way is and what we can help them with on that. MR. FEDER: And I think also we finally have gotten Florida DOT acknowledging that while we'd love to get the interchange that would be 951, I-75, Davis, the practical aspects are right now a need in both Collier Boulevard which we have a project; Davis which they had a project is to get the six laning done. And so I think they'll pull back from trying to accommodate all the issues of an interchange, not to do anything that would stop that or create double work. But nonetheless focusing on the six laning, I think is going to allow us to hopefully work with them and with Buddy Park, the owners, to bring something back into the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Y eah. Well, we know that this is a very significant issue. An awful lot rides on it. Make it clearer for me because I understand you can't speak in absolutes because you don't know the absolutes, but just so I at least understand. MR. FEDER: Florida DOT in the project that they have to Davis Boulevard, if you saw, their level of right-of-way is because they're assuming they're going to buy both gas stations on Davis Boulevard, do other things to accommodate the future interchange; then they looked at the cost of the future interchange under PD&E designs, started going to a entrance scale back, which we didn't want, but -- but they're still looking at major actions on 951 and on Davis to accommodate the interchange -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. FEDER: -- not simply the six laning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So we're back to __ MR. FEDER: Now, we told them on first order of business. (Multiple speakers.) THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. Page 41 January 13, 2006 MR. FEDER: I'm sorry. We told them focus on first order of business. Excuse me, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. My apologies. I apologize. We're back in business essentially. We're -- we're -- we're __ MR. FEDER: We're not back in business yet, no. Understand-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Got their -- MR. FEDER: -- we've got their focus and attention and that needs to translate into a project and it needs to get done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don or Norm or whoever is going to keep going with this -- keep this line of questioning, Nos. 41 and 42 on page 14 show under construction, but levels of service D and E. Now, if under construction, like No. 25 on the prior page means you show the finished level of service. Does that mean that we are going to be in a failure or a close or a D and E level of service on those two sections even after the construction gets done? MR. SCOTT: For Immokalee, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What happens with Immokalee Road from -- if you look 951 to Wilson, Wilson out there it's going to go to a B because it's -- that's -- so there it's going to be B, but from 951 back the other direction, it could be under a D and E in certain sections. MR. SCOTT: Understand I have bank trips in there. Will those bank trips turn into reality trips? I have more in the 41, I -7 5 area or around I -7 5. That remains to be seen in terms of reality, but that's what my level of service is based on. MR. FEDER: And also, Commissioner, unfortunately you've got many more signals which also relates to your level-of-service calculation. MR. SCOTT: At this point the Livingston east/west, though, doesn't it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes? You guys -- yes, it does. If you Page 42 January 13,2006 are pointing -- if you are looking at this as an E level of service, E which is not good, I mean, it's not going to -- what's it now out there, F orE? MR. SCOTT: It's F right now, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a way to fix it to get a better level of service now -- MR. SCOTT: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or are you going to be constrained ifit isn't? MR. SCOTT: And we've talked a lot about this. Vanderbilt Beach Road extension or let's say just Vanderbilt, the two to six lane project might do more to help that; but from a standpoint of what I'm doing from analysis and the traffic counts that are out there, it's not really shown on here. Now, hopefully that -- that takes more traffic off of Immokalee but, again, I'm not going to know that until after __ MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner, just like the overpass answer, unfortunately, some of the operational issues that we're doing don't equate well to the level-of-service indication. One thing we are doing and we'll have Pine Ridge at about March -- end of February/March, if, in fact, that proves to be as successful as it is billed to be, then we're going to look at other corridors. Probably the next one would be Immokalee in particular between 951 and I-75 and then carried over towards 41 areas where you've got a long succession of signals where a scoot is able every four seconds to reestablish a good progression. That's what we need. So we're hoping that that will be successful on Pine Ridge and as part of the answer as well as other projects coming forward. But as far as six laning, you have maxed out at six lanes and, unfortunately, that still results with our current situation of level of service E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that six lane dovetail with the completion of that clover leaf that the whole target approval was hinged upon or is that now off the table and done with? Page 43 January 13,2006 MR. SCOTT: No. We -- we have a design build-out right now for I - 7 5 to 951. I think we'll get our proposals in the next two months back. We wanted to have that project as part ofthat project where we'd be starting in a couple of months. But FDOT through -- really, FDW A telling FDOT that they wanted it to be included as part of their I-75 project. So we -- they're trying it -- with our conversations with them, they're trying to put that as a milestone at the front of the I - 7 5 project because it's a long project over several years, but we don't know exactly when that's going to start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's nothing I can ask you further on that although I don't particularly like the outcome. Page 16. MR. SCOTT: We didn't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can imagine. Item No. 124, it's expected year deficient 2006. And expected year for substantial completion is 2010. Your table that we started talking about where you have your -- your top 20. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. That was a mistake that I identified last time. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that-- MR. SCOTT: I think I had last year's in there. And we had -- I think when I stand -- stood here last year I said the traffic went up 25 percent. I think this year it went up about 20 percent so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to correct these tables before they go to the BCC so that someone doesn't rely upon these? MR. SCOTT: If! have an opportunity to, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's important. MR. COHEN: You will have that opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. MR. FEDER: The answer's yes. MR. SCOTT: They might have been in their hands already. MR. FEDER: You'll have to do it by addendum though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a worksheet that you guys were Page 44 January 13,2006 using to put together your pay-as-you-go funding and at one point on the worksheet you showed a $17 million remaining shortfall on pay-as-you-go funds. Are you familiar with that or is that still applicable? MR. FEDER: I'm not familiar with it very honestly, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know of any shortfall in your pay-as-you-go -- MR. FEDER: No. No. Based on the 24 million a year which is a partial return of my interest; but nonetheless based on that 24 million a year and our other revenue streams as conservative as they are, we don't know that they show. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of your other revenue streams, there was a couple listed or a couple shown in another worksheet that I found of yours under the gas -- gas tax issue at 1.35 X coverage. Other available pledges, there are three of them listed. One was a guaranteed entitlement, parentheses, revenue sharing for five million. Do you know what that's referring to? It was in your worksheet to your backup to this AUIR. MR. SCOTT: Is it an agreement with cities or something? MR. FEDER: This AUIR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This AUIR, yes. It's posted on Randy Cohen's web site under your -- on Attachment F and I'm wondering __ basically when you open that up, you only see what opens. But if you go look deep into the Excel spreadsheet, you'll find additional tabs. And if you start opening those tabs up and unhiding all the columns and rows, these numbers start appearing. I'm just wondering __ MR. FEDER: They've been hidden on me as well, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEDER: I don't have them. I don't have them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's three sources of revenue Page 45 January 13, 2006 listed on a sheet. And I just want to make sure that if they're viable revenue sources -- MR. FEDER: Let --let me understand and I'll try to give my best stab at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The guaranteed entitlements is the first one. It lists it for five million. The tourist tax is another one listed for 19 million. MR. FEDER: There's no tourist tax in transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But I don't know why these are on your -- your report or your worksheets. I -- I've downloaded it to keep it just in case it gets lost between now and the next time you look at. The franchise fee -- and I don't know what that is -- is listed at 29 million. It says, Other available pledges. I don't know what these are, but they're all -- MR. FEDER: Okay. What I will tell you the only franchise fee collections I know of -- and I'll refer to -- Mr. Schmitt is over there __ it's in utilities. Entitlements, I have no tourists. I'm almost thinking you have some of Mr. Schmitt's table attached to my table, but I couldn't tell you for sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll put it on the overhead then you can MR. FEDER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- maybe you can recognize it. MR. SCHMITT: Franchise fees at one time were discussed. It was never implemented. Franchise fees in regards to an additional fee on your utility bill. The City of Naples does charge a franchise __ franchise fee. Collier County does not. And it is another source of revenue. It came up a year and a half ago when we had the revenue commission look at other sources of revenue, but this board never moved on a franchise fee. So why that's there, I don't -- I'm not sure what that is. It might be old data. MR. FEDER: What you're showing there is different funding Page 46 January 13, 2006 and looking at bonding levels because you also have a courthouse annex. It shows special other issues. So this was a worksheet probably relating to bonding level and bonding capability. And I'm not sure it was even for transportation, but nonetheless that's probably what that's for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you go to the posted draft AUIR on the comprehensive planning web site, open up Attachment F, go to the bottom of the Excel spreadsheet, you'll see numerous tabs on an Excel spreadsheet that I would have assumed compiled the top page of that spreadsheet. So if you take a look at it, maybe that will be where the answer is. MR. SCOTT: Is that within this spreadsheet here, our spreadsheet that's the AUIR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's in the spread -- the single Excel spreadsheet. MR. SCOTT: I think that's all old. Because what I do is I take previous years and update the thing. And all those tabs were from years and years ago I believe. MR. FEDER: And that may have been when they were doing the calculation for bonding capability. My impression from what I saw there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is portions of those same sheets that are relevant to today's numbers because they have today's numbers on them. So it looks like some of that was used to put the numbers that are in the summary page. MR. SCHMITT: It may be the other way around that they link into that page. MR. SCOTT: It's either that or they're checking for the future when it was an old sheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You-all might want to look at it. MR. FEDER: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any more questions on Page 47 ----- ---.-.- January 13, 2006 transportation. This is actually the later ones to deal with today. So does anybody else on this panel have any -- any other issues of transportation they'd like to ask? (No response.) MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I want to applaud you for taking a very strong effort at trying to work with this AUIR. We've given you a couple of sheets. I think you've given us some things to reply and a couple other things to go research. What I will encourage you, though, as you take a stronger role in the county in planning, is I'm going to encourage you to get involved in the long-range planning and to help us define what we're going to do east of 951. Because five years ago when I came, I said that the urbanized area, even when we do the improvements needed, cannot handle the demand of a bedroom community of four or five hundred thousand people. And if we don't have jobs, if we don't have areas for shopping -- I can't put the beaches there -- that are viable, then we are not going to address the transportation issue in this county. So beyond with we've discussed today as important as it is, I will offer to you that if we're going to really address the issue, we need to start addressing that issue. Because otherwise I'm not going to be able to respond to the others. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Feder. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something on that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- since we're beyond what we're supposed to do today. One thing, Don, we talked about, are you going to put together a chart showing the early morning time? In other words, all our traffic loads are based on evening times when I think the morning commute is the most important time. So is that something that will happen? MR. SCOTT: Is that something that you're requesting as -- for Page 48 January 13,2006 the next up or whenever I can get it essentially is a.m. __ MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I think what Don's telling you is he does not have the data to give you that answer today, but we are committed to getting it. And we agree with you that that's an issue of concern. We can get you some data that gives a frame of reference, but the ability to take the full chart, calculate out the level of service and service volumes based on a.m. is something we don't have right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing too is that in the road summaries, is there a way that you could put in what the potential -- the ultimate potential, not what it is now -- for a road could be? In other words, if it's a two-lane road now, it could ultimately grow to a four-lane. And I think the reason for that is sometimes we reduce density on parcels because of the existing road, yet maybe we could restrict or phase the density such that it would be available. MR. SCOTT: Well, then I think that's one thing that Norman was touching on is if -- if, you know, I presented at least the LRTP map to you, then you would know what at least the future is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. SCOTT: And beyond the 20-, 30-year plan, modeling the buildout as part of the east of951 study, then you can see beyond, you know, what the future looks like. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because my concern is that if we're restricting density on sites that will be in the urban area in the future, we're really sprawling the housing. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And it's -- and it's -- but it's not always the roadway itself. It might be a parallel roadway that you don't know anything about too so... COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There -- there is a question that was portrayed -- raised -- raised to me as a result of -- you have 144 Page 49 January 13,2006 count stations, right, I think I remember? MR. SCOTT: It's, like, 200 something I believe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I took 144 as some kind of question earlier. The data are there all the time, aren't they? Are you not counting on a 24-hour basis? MR. SCOTT: No. The regular count program is four times a year, but I have permanent count stations that we -- the traffic operations has installed I believe around 15 or 16. And then beyond that, we as part of our PUD monitoring process, the old way was each year someone goes out and do counts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. SCOTT: To save them some money to give me more data in the future, we've gone to permanent count stations that we install at locations related to those developments that come forward. So we're adding more of those in. What Norman's addressing is that from a standpoint of calculating a level of service, it's not only just the volume on the road, but it's the turning movements, everything else. This is -- the concurrency is driven by a p.m. peak analysis. You have to have all the opposite directions, that type of stuff for the a.m. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The raw data may be there in those few stations, but it's a matter of the other aspects? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Turning movements counts, things like that. And I'd already -- I'd already put in motion to go out and assume. You know, we've had discussions before about this. Now, development -- a developer comes in and he analyses. He has a.m. analysis, p.m. analysis. The part we don't have is what is the real a.m. concurrency. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And -- and that puts you at a disadvantage -- MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- when there's an assertion made. Okay. Thank you. Page 50 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would like to do, first of all, you guys the same individual's going to be discussing the drainage component? MR. SCOTT: Not me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the reason I'm asking, we're not done with you if that's the case. MR. FEDER: Gene Calvert, my director of stormwater will be addressing it and I'll be assisting as necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going there yet. I'm not going there yet. I want to have a break, but before the break I wanted to finish transportation. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then after that we'll come back and start working on -- on drainage. So I have four suggestions for a recommendation to go forward that I'd like to discuss with this panel. One is that we recommend that a more conservative approach be used for the table on page 9 as far as construction start dates. Second would be that the credit that's accumulated by the use of these transportation funds be credited back as a revenue source in the transportation summary sheet, that the new gas tax numbers brought up here by Mike Smykowski be the ones actually used on this sheet, and that the difference between those gas tax funds come off of some other line item preferably general funds and likewise with the interest money to keep the balance at 774 like transportation needs, and that we recommend that the a.m. peak data be used for the level-of-service calculations for next -- next year's AUIR as Brad Schiffer has pointed out. Those are what I would like to see as recommendations. I don't know what this panel __ MR. ADELSTEIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have discussion and a motion was made to accept those as recommendation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. Page 51 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it was seconded by Commissioner Murray. Motion was made by Commissioner Adelstein. Now discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. I just want to -- I found Mr. Smykowski would seem very reluctant on the gas tax issue to take something else off. And I don't know what that represents. And I know what your interest is and I appreciate that. I wish I had more comfort from where his concern was. It harkens back to a question of whether or not the argument is -- I mean, it's three million bucks. It's a lot of money in my mind. I -- I only wanted to make that point and I'm not sure that there is a point to what I'm saying except that it distresses me. And I'm going to indicate a favor toward your view, Mr. Chairman, and -- but I think that's not an -- I think that's an unresolved issue. The rest of the items I agree with you. I had written the same things. But on the a.m. peak data, is it too much to ask for the a.m. and the p.m. ? You want to use the a.m. and I understand that. And I think it's appropriate. Will we lose the opportunity to get the p.m. data as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're already using the p.m. data. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words we're not going to lose anything. It's just an addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't -- that wasn't the intent, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Fine. Then I'm -- then I'm happy with what you think. COMMISSIONER CARON: The goal has always been, Commissioner, to use the real peak whatever that is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate, but I didn't want to lose something in favor of putting something else in its place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments from the commission? (No response.) Page 52 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll-- go ahead, Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, just should address the five million in impact fee revenues that -- did we feel comfortable at __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the interest? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, that's -- that was the second thing on the -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, that's what I didn't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Credit back the interest to the transportation account. That's 25 million over the time frame of the AUIR. Now, whether that impacts any of the other elements as far as the BCC goes, that's up to them. But at least they'll know what department generates what revenues from what sources. And then if they want to create -- have an excess in the general fund to do, they'll know where it's coming from then. So that would be my comment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we also -- could we also, even if it's just for the record, just to include it as a footnote in the documents, to reflect the actual interest dollars that are there so that the board will have guidance in that regard? MR. SCHMITT: I think that was the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The motion was to show it as a-- on it as a revenue source. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was a recommendation to have it as -- as an income. Okay. That's fine that you saw it. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wouldn't need to-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing that, Mr. Feder, did you have any input? MR. FEDER: With the board's indulgence, I just want to make clear, the 25 million I'm sure is accurate that Mr. Smykowski gave you for this year. What I will tell you assuming that that carries out, I think Page 53 January 13,2006 you said about 25 million carries out every year evenly is probably inaccurate in the sense that you had bonding which gets paid down over that payout curve. What -- what I think your guidance is is that that get calculated out based on all the other assumptions of revenue stream and payout curves and appropriate level of expected interest be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The intent was to credit back the interest. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever that is. That way it's fairly shown. With no other discussion we'll call for the vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. With that we'll take a 15-minute break. We'll be back here at 10:25. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) MR. SCHMITT: You have a hot mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Murray, if you're anywhere in the building, would you please come to the podium. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just -- we start on time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next element in the AUIR is the county drainage canals and structures. And we will start with the Page 54 January 13,2006 presentation if there is one and then go into questions from the board. MR. FEDER: Very quickly on presentations. For the record Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. Stormwater is within the division. Let me do a quick overview, then I will introduce you to Gene Calvert who's stormwater director as well as Jerry Kurtz the principal engineer within stormwater. On your overview page, a summary page, what you see is that impact revenue stream is just less than the overall program, but you also see potential funding sources. And given the last discussion will hopefully assist you in your questions by noting that the revenue stream again is only identifying what we know we have. And as you look at the provisions of how we're approaching this program, when the board established a .15 mill as a support for a ongoing stormwater program in this county, a very important move to finally get a funding source, but also the ability to go after grants with a dedicated funding source. That process is under way now. As a matter of fact, within the thirteen million, I believe it is, shortfall that you see shown here in the AUIR, almost eight million of that has already been made up with a Florida Community Trust Grant that was given for the property at the Fleischmann where the water quality park is going. Additionally, there are dollars proposed within Big Cypress Basin Water Management District budget to come to these projects that you see here. But until those funding sources are committed and in hand, we have not shown them. So, again, we feel that we are probably -- with the funding scenarios you see here and our expectations under grants, we'll be able to expand the program with no shortfall. But what you see here, again, we can only show you what we have on our plate at this time. And that's a very quick introduction. And I'll let Gene go through the projects and the particulars with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, Mr. Murray, Ms. Caron had questions. Page 55 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, I'm so sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. She already notified me. But I wanted to wait until the presentation was completed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to point one thing out is that you said 1.5 mils. I believe you meant -- MR. FEDER: Point 15. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I misheard you then. Okay. Thank you. MR. FEDER: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was all I had. MR. CAL VERT: Mr. Chairman and members of the board, it is a pleasure to be here today. My name is Eugene Calvert, the director of the Stormwater Management Department with the Transportation Services Division. I'd like to take just a few minutes to give you a brief overview of the -- of the thought process that went into this AU -- AUIR. The transportation division has projected that the total expenditures over the next 20 years for the stormwater capital improvements is over 400 million. Over the next 20 years, we're looking to construct approximately $400 million worth of capital improvement projects. The 75,240,000 five-year stormwater capital improvement program that you see within this AUIR form represents what can be addressed with existing funding sources and conservative anticipations of grants and other funding sources. As Mr. Feder mentioned we're already receiving -- we've already received about $8.6 million where the grant just recently. This is not reflected within this -- this program. The stormwater funding policy was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in June of 2004. This particular funding policy we anticipate to generate approximately $140 million over the next 20 years. The source of revenue is through the 0.15 mill levy from the ad -- ad valorem tax. This funding source is dedicated solely Page 56 January 13, 2006 for the stormwater management capital improvement projects per operation for capital improvement projects. The funding policy also recognized -- the board in adopting their funding policy also recognized that other additional funding through grants and other possibilities such as MSTUs would be required to supplement the funds for the needed capital improvement projects. Within the funding policy, they identified that under -- for capital projects for our secondary systems we have a one-third, one-third, one-third funding scenario. And what that means is that we have one-third from county funds or from the ad valorem, one-third from Big Cypress Basin or other grants and one-third from MSTUs. As we get into the tertiary system and our tidal receiving areas, the funding policy identified as a 50/50, one-half from the county and ad valorem and one-half from grants or other sources. It is the responsibility of the stormwater management department to actively seek the supplemental funds through either the Big Cypress Basin or the South Florida Water Management District or any other sources we can look for. As -- as mentioned, we've already received some money from the Florida Community's Trust. Weare -- have put a number of our projects on the federal -- federal legislative program that the Florida County Commissioners are considering as well. The county's growth management plan recognizes that stormwater capital improvement projects are to be undertaken in accordance with the five-year plan of the Big Cypress Basin. Within the county's stormwater capital improvement program, there are five projects that have also been identified by the Big Cypress Basin as regionally significant. This really -- while the inclusion of these projects within the Big Cypress Basin draft master plan and their ten-year work program is really indicative of their commitment to their projects, I have received a copy of their ten-year work program. And they have identified approximately $19 million worth of projects that are really county projects. So this is eligible possibility for grant Page 57 January 13, 2006 funding. While the master plan does not preclude the county from applying for or the Big Cypress Basin from considering additional funding projects, so we can go back and even though it's not identified in their ten-year program, if it's a significant project we can apply it to the Big Cypress Basin for additional funds. The existing revenue sources as indicated on page 19 of your AUIR includes about four major or three major items. One is the dedicated ad valorem taxes. And that shows that both for ad valorem and fiscal-- fiscal year '06 as well as the fiscal year '07 through '10. Number two, it shows that the approved grants as of November 2005. So these were existing revenues existing grants that we've had in November. It doesn't reflect any new grants we've received since then as indicated this 8 million that we recently received. And, thirdly, it calls for funds that are carried forward through fiscal year '05. When the funding policy was approved in '04, many of the identified capital projects were in the design change -- stage and construction of the improvements was limited during the first year. However, in fiscal year '05 over $7.6 million worth of construction projects have been completed. And that was completed on -- we spent around 30 -- had 35 projects. We've completed 18 of those. And we have for next year -- this current year we have 38 new projects under way. Not 38 new, but some of them are continuing projects. Page 2 of your -- of your AUIR which is in the very front indicates that there was a $13.3 million additional revenue required to adequately fund the five-year plan. It was noted with the double asteric that additional funds would be required if the potential resources are not realized. The potential revenue sources include funding from MSTUs and future grants including the Big Cypress Basin as well as South Florida Water Management District. The staff of the Stormwater Management Department is very optimistic that the county will receive a substantial amount of this additional revenue -- potential revenue. Page 58 January 13, 2006 Weare actively pursuing -- pursuing quite a few grants at the current time. If the potential revenue is not received for a particular project, the construction will be scaled back. Our funding policy with the shared cost whether it's 50/50 or one-third split dictates that in order to receive 100 percent benefit of an individual project, local participation through MSTUs or other funding sources may be required. Realizing that MSTUs are really under the local control, the local -- the local individuals have control whether we -- they want to fund those particular MSTUs or not for those particular projects. If they are not funded, we will seek to great -- greatest amount of benefit but, again, falling underneath the guidelines of our funding policy. The department is committed to maximize the benefit and to complete as much of our project as funding will allow under our current policy. Conversely, though, if all the potential funding is obtained as is indicated on page 19, our five-year capital improvement program may increase in fact. I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have on particular projects and how we came about some of these -- these numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to start the questioning with Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Let's start right at the top. Under existing development, it says we're using current level of service. So does that mean the 25-year three-day storm? MR. CALVERT: That is our -- our -- our design for any of our capital projects. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Let's go down to the summary of drainage inventory. There are two categories here. One is what will be available to us in '06 and then the additional miles and structures that you need. MR. CALVERT: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're talking about an additional 22 primary miles, canal miles and 14 secondary canal Page 59 January 13, 2006 miles; correct? MR. CALVERT: These are actually improvements to these -- these -- some of the existing canals. That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And for structures it's ten primary and eleven secondary; correct? MR. CALVERT: That look -- yes. That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Now, let's move on down here to the costs and component costs. Why are secondary costs more expensive than primary? I mean, I don't -- that's probably a fact but I just don't know why so... MR. CALVERT: Well, part of the issue too is -- is you look at our funding sources. As I mentioned, a lot of our secondary systems because of our funding policy we're looking at a one-third, one-third split for funding for such. So while the cost of the facility may be equivalent, the county would be responsible for funding of a little bit less because we're looking at funding for our primary and our tertiary systems as a 50/50 split. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Well, if you use your own figures here and do the math, I don't think it comes to -- well, first of all, because if from '06 to '10 you have that, you're going to be looking at 22 structures. Well, if we add 10 and 11, that's 21 where I went to school. And if you do the math according to your figures up above, it comes out to 76,959,750. So, you know, I know it's a million here and a million there, but it's a million dollars. MR. CALVERT: It is. And keep in mind that as we put this five-year program together, many of these -- these items that are on the BCB's board, they're developing some master plans for -- such as the Belle Mead, such as the Immokalee master plan. Those projects are now just being identified. In fact, the Belle Mead is probably another six months to a year away from being finalized. So we don't know specifically what those projects might be. The Immokalee has just been finalized. There's now -- right now identifying the projects. Page 60 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, all I'm saying to you is I don't know how you can come out with less money, have more projects here supposedly by at least one than your own estimates above. I think you need to put -- if you're going to use the math, do the math and put the real figure in here No.1. And now let's move down here to ad valorem for '06. You're only estimating about $8 million for ad valorem in '06; correct? MR. CALVERT: That's correct, 7.9. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's based on -- MR. CALVERT: The .15. COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. Now, when you go to seven through ten, you're averaging out 12 million. Why -- why do you think there's going to be a 50 percent increase and why wouldn't it apply to '06? MR. CALVERT: I do apologize for the value placed in here. I am not certain where the 49 million came from. As mentioned, I was __ came on this position about two months ago. I looked at that particular item and while it maybe high, the 49 million may be high for an ad valorem, what they did look at was the increased values through the next five years. Our -- in our 20-year plan, the transportation's 20-year plan based on the values, that will be coming up at around 39 to 40 million. So that may be a little bit high. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think somebody needs to go back and -- and relook at that. Now, let's go down here to potential and supplemental revenues. And -- and everybody's made a big deal here that you've gotten $8.6 million in grants that should be factored in before this goes to the BCC obviously. But none of these, the Big Cypress Basin grants and the MSTUs are not reflected at all in existing revenue sources. MR. CALVERT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that means you're not getting money from those places right now; correct? Page 61 January 13,2006 MR. CALVERT: We are getting a certain amount of funds. These are potential new funds because all these are project related. So the money from, say, the MSTUs, for instance, it would be up to the MSTU -- establishing of the MSTU and the establishment of and getting those funds for a particular project. COMMISSIONER CARON: Are these established MSTUs or new ones? MR. CALVERT: These would be new MSTUs. COMMISSIONER CARON: These would be new ones. Okay. MR. CALVERT: And these also would be new grants under the COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Have to vote them in. MR. CALVERT: -- potential some of them as sources. So there's no guarantee that we're going to get these grants. There's no guarantee that there'll be funding coming from the MSTUs. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yet the cost share ratio demand that you have to have a third out of MSTUs; correct? MR. CALVERT: To complete the project, yes. Now, that doesn't mean that we can't get our maximum benefit with our one-third cost. So let's say, for instance, the MSTU decides that they don't want to fund their project, their portion of the project. COMMISSIONER CARON: Or they don't establish one to begin with. MR. CALVERT: Or they don't establish one to begin with. Okay. So we -- we can take a project and determine what the benefit is from -- from the -- could be the secondary systems separating out the tertiary systems from the primary systems and then we can try to get the maximum benefit by applying our one-third as well as any type of grants that we may be able to get from Big Cypress or other sources. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if! could add to that and give you an example, make it a little bit clearer. First of all, we didn't have a Page 62 January 13, 2006 dedicated funding source. Along with that 1.15 mills came a set of standards as to how we would apply it. Take for instance on a secondary project with one-third, one-third, one-third. Take LASWP, Lely Area Stormwater System, we -- I'll call it a number, let's say 45 million for the overall project. You've got a lot of different phases that you can do and you obviously have to start downstream. Upstream makes no sense. We could bring -- even if we got nothing, although, they made commitments in some of that 19 million that's showing in their ten years is also toward LASWP -- but let's say it was only the county's 15 million to be brought to that out of the .15 mill. That's the most we could spend on it to meet that funding policy. We could do $15 million worth of improvements starting downstream with that one-third maybe actually make about a 50 percent improvement on the needs of the area, but we wouldn't be able to solve it. Along with Big Cypress Basin we can, in fact, make it 66 2/3 level of improvement which might be 80 percent of effective improvement. But to get that last -- and I'm just throwing some numbers here and I know how critical that is right now -- to make an example. To get that last 20 percent we're saying that there is benefit solely to the property owners in that area. As well they need to come forward as well with an MSTU for us to do the 100 percent improvement. And so that's where the funding policy and the ratios play in. And as Gene was noting, that based on that direction from the board, we look at the projects, the overall cost and make sure our involvement does not exceed. Now, having said that we just started up recently and as we get into these project, LASWP just got a permit after 20 years. And with that permit in hand, we're now trying to go out and talk about the overall improvement, what we can accomplish on our own, make sure we have Big Cypress Basin standing with us and saying what we can accomplish with them to the community. And if you want the full solution which we recommend, this is what the implications and how Page 63 January 13,2006 we pursue forward on it. So those aren't in the plan yet. We're only now moving on them. And until we have the permits and those costs, it's hard to go back to the community and try to establish the MSTU as an example. Does that answer your question any better? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah. I mean, I just think that relying for a third -- a third of a project on an MSTU that mayor may not be established is -- MR. FEDER: But the direction we got on -- the policy direction from the board just to try -- try and put it into perspective, I understand what you're saying, was that the public in general benefits by improvement to stormwater throughout the county. We have partners that we need to pursue to get some of that funding as well because everyone pays taxes to the water management BCB. But then there are some individual benefits or level of benefit also gained when I work in certain areas as opposed to another area of the county. And that's why we were directed to try and proceed on projects in this manner. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let's skip to page 20. MR. CALVERT: Uh-huh. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CARON: On your list of projects. And I don't claim to know anything about what -- whether these are good or bad projects. I assume all of them need to be done, but let's go to No. 1, county-wide GPS network. I'm assuming that in stormwater management GPS means something different than what I think GPS means. MR. CALVERT: No, I doubt it. GPS is global positioning station -- system. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Well, first of all, you're not setting up a GPS network. We already have it. It's in the sky. It's satellite. MR. CALVERT: That -- that's not correct. And let me explain Page 64 January 13, 2006 this project a little bit. Weare setting up a GPS network, a land based network county wide. As you're aware we have satellites up in space and people can grab their little GPS units and get a location. However, the accuracy of that is limited particularly in vertical elevations. Horizontal you can get them fairly close, but that's not what you would call survey grades. You can't go out and survey a property ownership using a GPS with just satellite-based systems. What we're setting up is a series of ground systems that will tie to the satellite systems that will allow a very high accuracy for any type of GPS locations. Now why is it within stormwater management department? COMMISSIONER CARON: That was my next question. MR. CALVERT: It's a good question. The stormwater management department not only includes capital project for stormwater. We also within my department includes right-of-way permitting as well as our surveyor. Now, our surveyor is very instrumental with working with road and bridge department in completing some of these improvements as well as identifying grades, identifying various different design components for any of our capital improvements as well as our -- our repair. So we work very hand in hand with road and bridge when they have a -- a culvert failure. It may not be listed on this. This is a project sheet because we didn't know about it. It will become a project and come underneath our jurisdiction. The GPS system will help us do our job a little better and will also help us identify as-built drawings, record drawings so that we can tie the entire network and get a better database for our stormwater system. So it is -- it is a network. It is a county network. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, two other things to bring your attention specifically to what Gene just covered. One of the biggest issues we have on what's labeled here, the tertiary system that's out in the estates, is the fact that over time without this GPS, people are putting in culverts, many even permitted at different heights so that Page 65 January 13,2006 you don't have a positive grade to outfall. And so this gives you the ability especially on the vertical to make sure as we do our right-of-way permitting as we go in and try and clean out the canals and deal with the culverts as well that exist and not permit any others that are at the wrong elevation, that we get a positive flow. The other thing I'll point out. We just went to the board last board meeting and with this GPS that we're putting out there, we're offering it out free for a short period of time to see the interest in the community to surveyors and others, and then we'll establish a fee structure to help this support itself in the future should we see that the public interest is sufficiently there, which we expect it is from the input we've gotten. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What is the -- what is the level of accuracy of the -- of that vertical -- the vertical data? MR. CALVERT: Our preliminary tests show on -- is showing that for the most part she's within a couple hundredths, but every once in a while we get a blip and she might be off a tenth. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's 100th's ofa foot? MR. CALVERT: A tenth ofa foot so, you know-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's very good. MR. CALVERT: Yeah. It's still good particularly for local control. If you're out in the middle of nowhere and wanting to get a -- an elevation, that doesn't do too bad. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I appreciate that. I understand. While we had raised the issue and I note here that the carryforward is rather small by comparison to transportation, but probably want to take into consideration interest on the carryforward as well. And -- and also the word potential. While Commissioner Caron went over some of the details with you and the questions -- Page 66 January 13,2006 same questions, help me with the understanding. The tertiary systems are the ones that are essentially nearby homes; correct? MR. CAL VERT: Your tertiary systems are what we work on with the county systems gives -- the tertiary systems are really your third level. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. CALVERT: They're not your main canals or they're not your secondary canals, but your -- your -- your road swales if you will COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. CALVERT: -- next to our roadways. It might be the swales coming off of an -- individual properties. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You -- I've heard mention ofthe MSTU being applicable to the secondary. MR. CALVERT: That's correct. We consider-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How does that connect? MR. CALVERT: Any tertiary system coming off of a private property, we don't get involved with. So it's any tertiary system off public property we're dealing with on the 50/50. Now, if it does involve a secondary system that may even go through private property because it is transmitting or transferring water from the tertiary to the primary system, that's where we -- we feel that there is a public benefit. So the tertiary system off the private property, directly off the private property unless it goes into a road swale if you will, we are not participating in those type of projects. It's up to the private individual. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But an MSTU, which would be taxpayers agreeing to tax themselves, would be sought for secondary systems and the premise is because it goes through property that's owned by private owners? MR. CALVERT: It depends on the-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't understand because the servIce -- Page 67 January 13,2006 (Multiple speakers.) MR. CALVERT: Let me give -- the best way I might be able do it is maybe an example. An example might be from some of our -- our neighboring lakes in some of these communities, maybe not the PUDs, but maybe the older development communities that were just dedicated to the -- to the public. They may have a variety of different lakes in that area. We don't maintain those lakes because they're private lakes, yet they do provide that secondary conveyance from roads to the canals. So in that case, if they had to upgrade a lake, a private lake, we would consider that a secondary system. We see that as some benefit but, again, the homeowners would benefit as well. So there's where the MSTU would fit into it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Okay. I had heard it said especially by Naples Park that the tertiary systems are really a critical factor to remove the water from the units. And there is no mention here, and you've just confirmed the county doesn't concern itself with the tertiary systems from a capital point of view. MR. CALVERT: Right. From the private properties -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. CALVERT: -- into the secondary. We do-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But do we have a -- MR. CALVERT: We do consider if it drains, as I said, off our county roads -- our tertiary system on our county roads. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we have a program to help those areas where tertiary systems are in some degree of weakness? MR. CALVERT: We don't have a formal program. Now, the-- many of the master drainage plans that have been undertaken by BCB, the Big Cypress Basin, has identified certain problem areas. We've also identified a lot of problem areas around the county. We are undertaking some of our projects to start looking at the smaller areas to come up with an overall master drainage plan, that we will include these items in there. How that will fit into the -- the funding program, Page 68 January 13,2006 that needs to be decided. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're -- you're reading me correctly because that's where I'm going with this. If we're thinking for the future and an SP 360, that's certainly a part of the infrastructure that's critical. And so you are accounting for that. Okay. I -- I realize you're in process on that then. The Gateway Triangle improvements, is there any impact associated with the CRA, any new -- any changes? I know this is a serious one. We spoke about vaulting that area at one time. Is that -- is that part of a program that's -- MR. CALVERT: There's a number of items on -- in that entire package for the Gateway. We're pursuing areas where we can create new ponds to look at a pumping system, possibility of pumping systems. It's all in the design phase at this point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will that be an MSTU as well? MR. CALVERT: Portions could be. MR. FEDER: There -- there is an existing MSTU as well as well as a CRA. The main thing is we've taken and we're working with the same consultant that the CRA is working with to try and coordinate the plans because there are different concepts in that area as you're well aware. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Australian pine removal. I know that there was some question about it. Some -- somebody wrote a letter to the -- to the paper and suggested that after Hurricane Wilma the Australian pines remain. Is that -- is that because it's an exotic that has to be removed or what's the reason? MR. CALVERT: That is the reason we're removing the Australian pines, that's correct, is they are exotic invasive species. They do spread quite a bit. And so we've taken -- undertaken a $500,000 a year project to remove those along our waterways. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there a state mandate for that or is that -- Page 69 January 13,2006 MR. CALVERT: I don't believe there is a state mandate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we're -- we're called upon to do this on a proactive basis because -- MR. FEDER: We're -- we're pursuing it because those -- that exotic species, first of all, tends to fall down. And as they're along the canals, let's say Golden Gate City as an example, they tend to end up becoming a barrier to the effect of drainage of the area. So that's why we've gone after and that's why Big Cypress Basin is continually supported with funding as well by removal of those Australian pines. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's a wise thing, not something to be deferred? MR. FEDER: No. It's something we need because, unfortunately, we have a lot of blockage in the canals and issues from the Australian pines. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you do? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. That would be my questions then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Excuse me. I just did it. It's difficult to get a handle on how we can judge whether we have adequate public facilities. Do we have adequate drainage facilities and how would we -- MR. CALVERT: Generally I would say, no -- or we have adequate facilities. Do they need to be upgraded? Yes. You know, maybe they're -- they're in a state of disrepair in a lot of our areas or need to be upgraded from just the lack of knowledge when they were first built. We -- as we worked hand in hand with Big Cypress Basin and look at some of these different drainage areas as I mentioned Immokalee, Belle Mead, some of these areas we're looking at what are the deficits in these areas and those are being identified. Page 70 January 13,2006 MR. FEDER: As new development comes in, Commissioner, it's -- it's addressing this level of service and -- and some of the needs. The difficulty is that we didn't have a lot of those issues addressed in some of the older development. And even our new standards which required new development to be elevated ends up exacerbating some of the problems in the older development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question, and Mr. Murray kind of hit on it, is we're developing these urban centers. Are we going to have storm sewers in those centers or are they going to be on-site drainage? And should we expect them to be on-site? We're trying to create downtowns. Downtowns don't have on-site drainage. MR. CAL VERT: Weare working fairly closely with community development in developing and revising the growth management plan. One element in that growth management is the stormwater issue and addressing that. So we are addressing that. We're working with the -- with the community. To answer your question, that's a good question. I don't know the answer to that and, you know, when we develop these outlying communities. I can tell you that based on a lot of things that are coming down from the Feds, you're going to be hearing a lot more about TMDLs which is our pollution mode that we can put in our stream. You've already heard that our entire -- almost all of Collier County's impacted with nutrients. I've seen this in other states where the F eds and then the state turns around and puts the burden on the counties and cities to clean up these to get the pollution out of it to get it to a level. Now, they may end up giving us time, you know, five, ten, twenty years, but the -- but the net result is that we will be forced to create a program, develop a program to clean up our streams, get the nutrients out which means hand and hand we'll be working with developers because we don't want them to impact us any more than they already are. In fact, we want then to develop it better so it'll meet Page 71 January 13, 2006 the new standards rather than just our existing standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the other question is in Immokalee there's a lot of open canals. Does this budget closing all of those drainage canals? MR. CALVERT: No, it's not. There's certain things that are making improvements to it, but it does not close all the canals. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason being? MR. CALVERT: Well, there are a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons the canals function, we need those open canals for the adequate drainage of the stormwater. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, you could put structures in there instead of open canals. That's my point really. MR. FEDER: In many cases the open canals cannot be put into structures because they serve for water quality not just conveyance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The canals I've looked into, I hope that's not water quality you're after. MR. FEDER: Well, we've got some issues beyond, but what I will tell you is many of the canals are required to be maintained as -- as open canals conveyance as well as for treatment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, before you do, I read in the paper that FP&L is having a 19 percent increase in their electricity and then because of that the county was going to raise its temperature from 72 to 74. It must be all but in this room because 55 or whatever it must be in here right now is way too cold. Maybe whoever's hearing this can possibly save the taxpayers money and put a temperature in here that's at least other than numbing everybody. Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's the intent. COMMISSIONER TUFF: The only thing, I don't know how your operations or who oversees what, but I know that if we are taking out all these projects -- just recently there was the hurricanes hitting Page 72 January 13, 2006 us, people -- just running by people, draining, some are too high and -- and to get a response or an answer from somebody. You know, they called and called and called to Big Cypress Basin. And I don't know if this belongs in this forum, but it would be my preference that some of this would include oversight by our folks versus somewhere else. Because there was no response until finally the crisis got hit and we finally reached the right people to cause a stir. And then all of a sudden, oh, yes, we messed up. We're sorry about that and then the valves get changed. If we are funding these and this heavily, are we having more of a say in oversight on how they run and how they process and is that included in this budget in here? MR. CALVERT: We do have a very good working relationship with BCB. While they do have control over their main canals, we certainly have the control over some of the smaller canals that are under our control. To talk about Hurricane Wilma, our department did take -- is taking the lead as far as getting the debris cleaned up that's eligible for FEMA under the Hurricane Wilma disaster relief. And so we are working with FEMA in trying to get some of those areas cleaned up. Now, that's not to say that we're going to clean up all the canals because some of that debris was not eligible for FEMA assistance. We're -- because of the funding, we are only after those areas that are -- were due to Hurricane Wilma. MR. FEDER: And, Russell, the first thing we do in a pending storm is work with BCB. They do control their structures, and they keep it for a management level, but they've been very good maybe with some exceptions -- but working with us to basically free up the canals to be able to handle the storm event. So that's one of the first things we do. One of my ticklers for a hurricane is to make sure that we're getting -- basically flushing out our system and encouraging and working with BCB to do the same on theirs so that we don't have that water in addition to whatever else we end up incurring. COMMISSIONER TUFF: And the opposite just recently Page 73 January 13,2006 happened too where they were letting that thing flow, and it's all the way down, and we're coming into the dry season, and that was an oversight on their side. MR. FEDER: Yeah. That's one thing and we didn't get to discuss and we'll get that -- follow all the issues. I know we have to address today, not only here but elsewhere, but we're trying to look at is a resource to be managed. I think we've learned and probably the Corp has learned and others that just draining the swamp doesn't get it done. And if you manage it, that means at times you're going to have water in the swale, maybe some water that gets over the swale, but nowhere near a household point. Because if you really drain it well, come the dry season there's nothing around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go to page 19 and we'll go right to the top and start from the beginning. Under the summary of drainage inventory your FY'06 secondary structures you have 24. You had 23 last year. Under the -- a balance of your canal structures primary and secondary for FY' 1 0 proposed you have no changes from last year. The entire top section you've added. You have one structure, one secondary structure that's been apparently added to the system since last year. Is that your understanding? MR. CALVERT: That is -- that is my understanding. That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you say canal miles, does that mean excavating a canal? MR. CALVERT: No. These are canal-- you mean as far as our improvements or existing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, your new ones. MR. CALVERT: Oh, the new ones? Yeah. These would-- these would be the new canal-- actually, it might be excavation or Page 74 January 13,2006 improvements. For instance, Haldeman Creek we consider that one of our canals improvements because we are going to be -- deepen it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go too far, let me -- I want to try to get through this quickly -- MR. CALVERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because-- MR. CALVERT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I know we're going to be running out of time. MR. CALVERT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when you have canal miles in '06 of 163 and canal miles in '10 of 185, there's 22 miles difference in canal miles. Are you double counting existing canal miles or you're adding 22 miles of canal? MR. CALVERT: Adding 22 new facilities -- miles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Twenty-two new miles of canal. Is that a dug canal in the ground, excavated dirt? How is that done; do you know? MR. CALVERT: It should be a -- an excavated canal. And we also are looking at as we go through these it could be a storm sewer as such. It's not -- it may not be your 50, 60-foot wide canal. It maybe taking a existing swale and turning it into a 30-foot canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CALVERT: We have several of those on the LASWP project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be excavation. MR. CALVERT: Excavation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or it could be a RCP installation? MR. CALVERT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as structures go, is those your miter ends and your outfalls generally? MR. CALVERT: And your control structures too. Page 75 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, and your outflow. Outfalls and mitered ends are all made of concrete. Canals are all excavated or made of concrete RCP. Concrete's increased in price. Excavation is -- Mr. Peter has testified it's gone up substantially. Your cost components are the same as they were in '04. Whatever your department's doing, could you please influence Mr. Peter's department so our road prices can stay the same as they were in '04 because somehow your numbers haven't changed, but his have radically. I don't know what's going on there, but I think someone should visit that cost component. Because what happens is your cost components remain the same; but when you go down to your ad valorem needs, you double from 28 million -- almost double. You went from 28 million to 49 million. And that's a huge increase in revenue sources for expenditures yet your costs haven't gone up and your structures haven't virtually changed since last year. In fact, putting one structure in last year, you had 77,700,000 in proposed CIE. This year you drop down to 75. But the one structure you put in was only worth 530,000. So you should be around 77,200,000. I'm wondering what the other 2 million is lost in there for. MR. CALVERT: Of course, one thing you need to realize too as I mentioned before, we do work hand in hand with road and bridge. And a lot of our projects are replacement projects. So we're not adding any new systems to our new structures or miles to our system; however, we are increasing the value because now we're putting in a new -- new facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how did you get from 77,700,000 last in proposed CIE and end up this year with basically the same number ofCIE but for a lesser amount of 75,240,000? Do you know how that came about? MR. CALVERT: I -- I do not now how that came about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I heard you earlier say you weren't responsible for some of these numbers. That you inherited them. Page 76 January 13,2006 They did that to Ricardo Bollero too. He was your predecessor. And I understand you may not be able to answer these, but I think that maybe we're going to have to have some answers before this goes along. MR. CALVERT: And I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is it that's done with the 49 million or the 12 many years starting in '017 What -- is that your actual construction of the canals, the installation of the RCP, the maintenance, everything wrapped into one? MR. CALVERT: It is. In fact, if you go to the next sheet, you'll see a lot of the different projects that we've actually outlined through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I did see those. So that is the step-by-step completion of each one of those projects? MR. CALVERT: Right. You know, those are the projects that we're going to be implementing or -- or completing through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're dealing with millions of dollars in money. What are your interest earnings on that account and how is it managed? MR. CALVERT: I think -- I believe, and I could be corrected if I'm wrong, but I do believe the -- again, the interest goes to the general fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know how much that is, Mr. Feder? MR. FEDER: I will get you an answer for that and, no, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any impact fees involving your -- I don't -- didn't see any noticed in here, so I'm assuming there are none? MR. CALVERT: No. We're totally dependent on grants as well as our ad valorem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do your potential revenue sources -- in Page 77 January 13,2006 '03 you had the Naples -- the City of Naples supplying 5 million. I notice they weren't on the '04 and they aren't -- aren't in this years. Do you know what they were there for originally because basically the 5 million in '03 was supposed to be a million -- a million a year over five years and it got dropped. I don't know why. MR. FEDER: Initially we thought they were going to participate in the water quality park -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: -- because we had along with them done the long-range planning and the stormwater planning for the Gordon River corridor. And since that serviced not only county but city, the anticipation is that they would be participating both in the land purchase and in the improvement. And that did not come about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that permanently off the table or has someone just not approached them? MR. FEDER: They've been approached a number of occasions. That's not on the table as I understand it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Gordon River Quality Park was just added to this AU -- AU -- this year's AUIR for $11 million. And does it benefit -- MR. FEDER: But the land was purchased before that, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that benefit the City of Naples that water -- Gordon River Quality Park? MR. FEDER: Yes. It benefits all of us, Naples Bay in particular it benefits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But yet Naples has decided not to participate in the cost sharing of that? MR. FEDER: At this time, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the page 20 of the different elements that you're going to be working on, last year you had an Item 510052 which was titled Gordon River Master Plan. Now, this year you have an item called Gordon River Water Quality Park. Are those to be Page 78 January 13, 2006 considered the same program because the Gordon River Master Plan isn't there any more. Is that completed then? MR. FEDER: Gordon River Master Plan is essentially completed. That is the broader plan although we're doing some refinements to it. That was the one BCB, City of Naples and the county. The water quality park is a -- a very specific project pulled out of that master plan upon completion as is the Twin Lakes projects and some others that you see cited here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The Golden Gate City outfall last year was in your plan. Has that been completed? MR. FEDER: Jerry? MR. CALVERT: I don't know. Jerry said yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your improvements from last year for the GPS network that Ms. Caron asked questions about was listed at $85,000 last year in AUIR. This year it's gone up to 425. What is the reason for the increase? MR. FEDER: The initial was to try to evaluate whether or not the technology could work. Since we've shown that ability, it is to put the system out there. And as we said, now that we've got the system out there to the level that it's functional for our use and for others, we're now trying to bring back a fee stream in its application use by others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 85,000 last year was supposed to have been intentionally a study for 85,000? Is that -- MR. FEDER: I think you had some of the first implementation of it. Some of the equipment that they needed to purchase the surveyors to be able to utilize the processors initially set up for that -- for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That certainly wasn't clear, but I understand you wrote your explanation meaning to the last year. It didn't -- you know, I guess no one asked -- asked the question. The Twin Lakes interconnect, you had it about 1,750,000 last Page 79 January 13, 2006 year. This year it's a million. So you actually benefited. Is that because work was done or the cost changed? MR. CALVERT: We have actually completed portions of that work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CALVERT: Now, we still have quite a bit left to do, but that has been completed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Lely Area Storm Improvement Project, that was 38 million last year. You're at 26 this year. Is that because you've completed $12 million worth of work on that improvement project? MR. CALVERT: No, it's not. It's an adjustment of funds. That project is probably on the order of a 40 or $60 million project ultimately. But as we look at the project and what we can fund over the next five years, this is what we look at -- at funding through there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though it's a larger project because you're going to spend an estimated 26 million instead of 40 million of the overall project in the next five years? MR. FEDER: Yeah. There's two parts of that. One is our revenue stream to it. The other one is as I said you take off logical projects that don't end up creating a problem, but help to solve pieces of it. And so it comes forward in that manner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did this rather second largest project in your whole inventory, the Golden River -- the Gordon River Water Quality Park come about to be added to this? I mean, that's a huge project to all of a sudden be dropped on the county taxpayers for 11 million bucks. MR. FEDER: I'd like to say it was very good effort to take advantage of opportunity. And what I'll-- what I mean by that is the master plan that we mentioned to you identified the level of need for stormwater storage and treatment in the area. The Gordon River sub-basin which far exceeds the size of the Fleishmann property and Page 80 January 13,2006 the water quality park. But nonetheless that was essentially at the time the only vacant land out there. And as soon as that became an opportunity, we thought along with the city with Big Cypress Basin at last coming through with some dollars and the county, we moved on that quickly. Because we saw its value for stormwater in the area. Beyond that afterwards I think staff, Ricardo who you mentioned and others, saw the opportunity to do something greater and go after some funding which is the 8 million referred to by establishing it as a water quality park. So it is for retention, but it goes beyond that because it is servicing as a true purifier -- water purifier, if you will, for what is typically been put straight into the Gordon River by the city and by development in the area to have that treated before it goes there and, therefore, to help Naples Bay. Also to control the amount of flow, again, to help Naples Bay. MR. CALVERT: One thing I might add on that too that that -- that water quality park is really a tool, one tool that we can use to address the issues that I mentioned about water quality and this future mandate from TMVLs. Without this water quality park, we would be looking at other methods to improve the water quality and bring that water quality up. Which those other methods could be quite a bit more expensive and more a burden, so this was an opportunity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much of this project has been more or less materialized? I mean, have we acquired the land? MR. FEDER: We have acquired the land. We have done some clearing on the land. We're working on the wetland area and it's being considered by Conservation Collier. But nonetheless the land's acquired. The planning effort, the design effort I should say -- the planning concept efforts have been done. They have been useful as I said in getting some grant funding as well. The design is already under way. It is programmed to go to construction as you see here in the program. So there's been -- there's been -- there's been some very significant progress already made. And I think this is going to be a Page 81 January 13, 2006 hallmark for the county in stormwater. We did just come to the board to modify it to look at potential ASR on the site, but we're trying to have this truly be an opportunity to address what is a lot of stormwater along the Gordon River area that we're working with the private developments, water parks and others, in utilizing their lakes; but that there is not a lot of open land in which to do stormwater retention and water quality improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a dollar viewpoint, how much has been completed of this project. MR. FEDER: Really only right now you've got the commitments. Of course, 20 million to purchase but you've got the commitments to the design that's been fully encumbered and most of that spent out. Nothing in the construction at all yet. MR. CALVERT: If! might, as you look at the site where this is going to be, you'll see construction out -- construction going on; however, that is not part of the park. That is really part of the Goodlette Frank Road improvement project. Now, we are going to incorporate those drainage facilities that are being constructed as part of the Goodlette Frank project into the water quality park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we have -- we have spent in excess of 20 million in regards to this project already? MR. CALVERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you need -- well, what did you say? I thought Norman just said the purchase -- MR. FEDER: Oh, the land purchase, yes. I'm sorry, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we did spend money for land purchase? MR. FEDER: Yes, we did. MR. CALVERT: But not for construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're leading to finally my question, last year this was not on the AUIR. How was authorization -- authorization done to obtain a purchase of this magnitude that isn't Page 82 January 13,2006 in the AUIR if this is the basis for our budgeting of future expenditures? MR. FEDER: Well, I'll tell you is you just now are starting to structure a stormwater AUIR versus generally what you had in the past. You now have a.15 mill. We have a set of projects that we're committing to. Ricardo is working towards that. We had in the past a roll forward for many years that wasn't being about the projects. I think you've seen -- hopefully the community has seen some turnaround on that. This became a real opportunity to meet the need that came out of the study for the Gordon River, and it was pursued and worked through with the board and with a very open and very active issue in this community at the time of the purchase and hopefully in the bringing forward in concept and decision to develop a water quality park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it's not on the AUIR, it's -- if the board obviously can then change things and go in a different direction than the AUIR dictates? MR. FEDER: The board can. If I have a construction project, let's say, in transportation and they find the opportunity to move forward faster, they have directed at times if a developer comes in and has the ability to move something faster and the like; and there have been modifications. Now, having said that, none of that is done without the public process of the board action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to understand it because-- MR. FEDER: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's not in the AUIR, I wanted -- I just wanted to know how it got there. MR. FEDER: Again, the AUIR -- and I must say particularly for transportation that the AUIR is a snapshot of a point in time. And there are things and decisions that are made in between. But the AUIR is what directs our work programs and we want to hold to that, but, again, some things do change over the course of that year and Page 83 January 13,2006 then they're brought back to you in the next -- subsequent AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2004 Line Item No.8, Gateway Triangle improvements was listed at 8,720,000. This year it's dropped to 4.9. Does that mean you've already completed some of it? MR. CALVERT: No, we haven't. I'll let our project manager address any of those issues on Gateway if you may wish. Jerry. MR. KURTZ: Hello, Jerry Kurtz. We've had to redesign Gateway. We're in the second redesign of it. We have spent money to buy property in Gateway approaching -- it's gone over a million dollars in property. We've bought every vacant piece of property down in the Gateway Triangle that exists for stormwater treatment area. So we have spent money on that. But we had a design that wasn't to the level of service that we wanted, so we're back in design to get us a better higher level of service with the new land that we purchased. So we've had to kind of redo that project. MR. FEDER: Jerry, that's also coordinated with the CRA and what they're looking for in their planning as I understand it? MR. KURTZ: Yeah. The other thing that we did is we're -- we're coordinating with the CRA now completely to incorporate all redevelopment elements into this stormwater system design. And that's -- that's a big change from what we were doing previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on last year's AUIR, you were going to spend 720,000 last year out of the 8,720,000 leaving about 8 million. So your redesign is saving the taxpayers $3 million? Is that what we're thinking? MR. KURTZ: Not necessarily. Just different concepts, different ideas, a whole different approach. We're just in the throws of design right now and I'm not sure what the final construction costs will be for the project. We're also looking into ASR components in that project as well. So we're -- we're -- we're not really sure what the final scope of the project will be. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, it's a little bit different now in the Page 84 January 13,2006 transportation. I'm sorry. But that is not the total cost of the project. There are components of the project that they see possibly coming forward. So Gateway is not going to be done simply by seven or eight million. So you don't have a project in that sense where the construction phase is the full construction, the component construction of base and improvements. In this case they're looking at the Gateway Triangle as one of the phases. Is that fair, Jerry? MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Shouldn't it be listed then as just a design project so that -- so that the commissioners and the public do not think that this is a completed project? MR. FEDER: We're -- we're looking at refining how the work program is done in stormwater to show whether or not it's a design phase or construction. And if it's a partial construction of a broader concept to try to get that in. Your point's well taken. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, may I ask a question on Gateway? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does that include drainage for the private properties also -- for the structures? MR. KURTZ: Yes. We're -- we're going to try to build a master stormwater drainage system that the private developers through redevelopment can tie into. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they'll fund through that system? MR. KURTZ: That's our hope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we go past the Gateway Triangle improvements, there's a listing of a series of brand new improvements, the next seven or eight are brand new all the way down to Imperial Gulf Estates. I notice that there're individual subdivision or actually developer projects in here. Riviera Golf Estates, Palm River Country Club, Bayshore and Thomas -- well, that one isn't. That's public. But Page 85 January 13,2006 imperial -- Imperial Golf Estates besides Riviera Golf Estates, Victoria Lakes outfall improvement, are those items that could not be developer related for the improvements that they putting in those areas? Obviously, they're named after them. Are these-- MR. FEDER: Basically what you've got in each of those cases are older developed areas. Imperial Lakes, we have some drainage issues that we're trying to modify after the overall drainage in the northwest corner of the county. And so we're trying to develop modifications to the drainage designs that were put in some time ago to meet broader drainage needs of the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it -- are they items that were deficient from the time the development went in or -- MR. FEDER: They were items that were consistent with the stormwater requirements placed on them at that time in the Land Development Code. But we all know the people are required to build higher, retain more on-site and other issues today than they were previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my last question goes back on something that was said earlier. I think when we -- when Ms. Caron originally questioned the $49 million that shows up in your needs for ad valorem, you indicated that you're not that -- responsible for that number or experienced with it or something to that effect. MR. CALVERT: I can't support the 49 million. I don't know where the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did I hear you say that it might end up being somewhere like 39 million? MR. CALVERT: Thirty-nine million I can support. I know where the documentation is for 39 million. I cannot support the 49 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm done. Any other questions from the panel? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. Page 86 January 13, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I -- I'll mention to you-all the notes I've made so we can make a decision on a motion before we probably break for lunch and catch water/sewer or solid waste and go on to parks and rec after that. There are three issues I've seen come out of this discussion. I don't know what the value is yet, but I know that before the day's over we might know it. But whatever it is, I think we ought to do the same credit back as a revenue source for -- for the interest earnings on the accounts that are attributed to this particular element, that the board or somebody approach the City of Naples again with a strong recommendation for some kind of cost sharing between the City of Naples and Collier County. It was originally set up to be that way and a large beneficiary of all that is the City of Naples. So I certainly think we ought to encourage that transition to occur. And lastly that the ad valorem revenue from '07 to 'lObe revised downward to no more than 39 million at this time subject to staffs new recommendations going to the BCC. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would also make a suggestion that the enhancements, that part of any project be portrayed as a separate item in there so as to make it easier to discern what -- what is happening as they -- as they go through periods. You've indicated that some of your component there was -- was enhancement to canals and such, and I think it would be easier to understand. MR. CALVERT: Are -- are you suggesting on a project by project basis go down through those or-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To get to where you would want to be to give us the summary figure, you'd know those project by project. You'd know them because the data are available to you. I'm not asking for that level of clarification, but instead be able to see -- like you've mentioned the numbers. When you start to question the numbers, some of it doesn't correlate until you find out, well, we've Page 87 January 13, 2006 done some enhancements as well. And I thought maybe it might behoove you to have it clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, maybe I could make a suggestion. Basically they're talking -- you're talking about -- I think I understand it -- is some kind of delineation that either the element includes both soft and hard costs or just soft costs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you were to use a footnote, the Footnote 1 say and all those items that include just soft cost, putting on them as just soft costs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those that don't, indicate they're soft and hard cost elements both in that particular line item. That may then make others realize that it may not be physical construction work you're doing. It may be design work -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and proposal work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. That's exactly what I was trying to say. MR. CALVERT: Okay. Okay. Because most of our -- a lot of our projects, yeah, they are design projects as well. So, you know, if they haven't been completed, the funding is -- is encumbered and carried on through the next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Transportation has done that with all their road improvements. They've actually used lettering to indicate what's a proposed -- what's a design element and what's a acquisition element for right-of-way and things like that. I think that's kind of where Mr. Murray's heading, some clarification. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's exactly where I was going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with those four recommendations on this particular element of the AUIR -- and before I go too far, if any of the staff that are monitoring this in two sides get indications from the Page 88 January 13,2006 public that anybody would like to speak, please let me know before we vote. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, also on this item, can I clarify something with respect to Mr. Murray's comments. I think what he's asking for is the addition of two footnotes on page 20 which are Attachment A. One which would indicate soft costs. One which would indicate soft and hard costs; correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Okay. With those four items, is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me just ask one thing, Mark. Did you pick up -- I think there was a math error on the structures that were proposed year '6 to '10 should be 21 not 22. COMMISSIONER CARON: And the math actually comes out higher if you're using the figures above. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wasn't going to ever push him for more. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just, you know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When I brought that up, I think it was explained that the expenditure may be more than just the simple -- the structure, the other enhancement, that they utilize that difference in funding for it. MR. CULVERT: We'll review those numbers again. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point being I think that 22 should be a 21. MR. CULVERT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to-- MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll so move. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made by Commissioner Adelstein. Seconded by Commissioner Murray to support this element subject to the recommendations that were just discussed by this panel. Are there any other comments? Page 89 January 13,2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one's opposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask you a question, Mark, is there a website we could go to to see any kind of maps of the structures and the canals? MR. CUL VERT: We do have a website, however, it hasn't been updated. It's very -- it doesn't show -- it shows a lot of the major drainages, but it doesn't show the location of all these other projects. That's probably something -- we do have a website, but it hasn't been updated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So next year we'll -- MR. CULVERT: Yes. We will plan on getting it updated within the next few months. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Commissioners, it's probably a better break time now than go start trying to get into water and sewer. So with that we'll take a break. Be back from lunch at 12:35. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll set my watch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (Lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schmitt, we resume this meeting of the review of the AUIR 2005, and the next element Page 90 January 13,2006 that is coming up for discussion is the potable water element. And with that we'll turn the meeting over to Mr. Delony. MR. DELONY: Good morning, Commissioners. And my name is Jim Delony. I'm the Public Utilities Administrator. And I'm going to speak to you today about not only potable water, but also the elements of maintaining compliance and concurrency with regard to our wastewater program and our solid waste program. I -- Mr. Chairman, I have prepared script here for me and my staff, and we can pursue -- we can do this either way you choose or the commission chooses to go. I can give you what I have prepared in presentation format referencing pages 21 through 42 of your books in detail or we can respond to your questions if you have them now. I'm really kind of at your pleasure. I've got a few directors that are in route as I sit here -- stand here, but at the same time I want to meet your needs and ensure that we get your questions answered or at least do our best to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your -- your materials supplied gave us a lot of information and the ability for us to research on our own gave us the additional opportunity. I have done both of that. I'm very familiar with what you've provided. Your presentation may answer some questions, but maybe not as expeditiously if I just ask the focused question -- MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you responded. But I don't know what is the wish of this commission. I'd just prefer to go with what other commissioners would like to hear. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I could defer to you without difficulty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think asking -- I mean, we did review. We could ask questions and that would-- MR. DELONY: The only thing I would caution is that this is a Page 91 January 13, 2006 little different than what you've heard or seen before in that -- and I'm going to remind you of something maybe that you already know from the presentation, those rules you have in front of you, that this is an enterprise fund. It is not an ad valorem -- ad valorem situation. Many of your questions to date to staff that dealt with ad valorem issues and issues associated with ad valorem are not applicable here. Rather this discussion certainly deals with services at points of time and space, and it levels the service required to stay concurrent with the growth and the demand and protecting public health in the three areas that I'm responsible for. So with that caution in mind, that's one reason why I said I can go either way because this is a little different. It's not all that different, Mr. Chairman, but it's your call how you want to proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, one thing that would be true, though, is since you are an enterprise fund, if we found ways for your enterprise to save funds, it would reduce the user fees that you would then distribute to the taxpayers of this county. Is that-- MR. DELONY: Actually, rate payers would be the appropriate term, sir, if I might. And not every taxpayer in Collier County is a rate payer to our water/sewer district which -- now in terms of solid waste, that's correct. Our franchise is the entire county and, therefore, by default even in some of the incorporated areas of Collier County, you're still one of our customers within our franchise. But with regard to the presentations I have, we're talking about rate payers typically. And absolutely your ability to help me and my staff sustain a best value solution to our challenges is something I need from you as -- as Mr. Mudd so eloquently put it in his opening remarks so many days ago that we began this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I found most of your stuff pretty complete. Obviously, I do have questions. Mine will-- I have more questions on probably solid waste than any other part of your operation. Page 92 January 13,2006 MR. DELONY: All right, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we start in order with potable water. And if the commission is satisfied, we can move forward with questions first and then any loose ends may be tied up with a brief presentation. Let's go that route. So, Commissioners, what's your pleasure? Anybody have any opening questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some on potable water. MR. DELONY: Potable water? All right. We'll begin with potable if we would, sir. (Multiple speakers.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We'll begin with potable water until we finish -- MR. DELONY: All right. Thank you. Can I just add just before we begin. We're on pages 21 through, I believe, 42 of your packets is the area for us. One of the critical things I always remind myself and the board as we explore these options and, therefore, plans based on recommendations from staff that these are infrastructure projects with the normal need to delivery period of at least eight years in planning from concept to delivery of services in terms of expansion. Of any type of service there is a long lead time required. And so you will see that our concurrency model is set up around our ability to deliver typically at that window particularly for water and wastewater services. And we look for concurrency all along that period of -- of -- of -- of execution with regard to our concurrency. Now, with regard to solid waste, and I know there's a lot of questions about solid waste, and I'm excited about it because I love to talk about our solid waste program. It's an excellent program. And quite frankly I hope you agree with me. It's got all the makings of the best in the nation in terms of its service and its quality. It's a little longer because of the difficulties associated with permitting airspace and so on. So you would see in your concurrency model we took it -- Page 93 January 13,2006 look at two-year and ten-year bites of time in terms of concurrency. So I've just got to caution you in terms as you ask your questions and you begin to evaluate options that -- that you would provide to us as recommendations to keep in mind the time it takes to make a difference or a change in infrastructure. And I know there's some experience up here with this Planning Commission and you're no -- no -- no news -- that's not new news to you that things take time to build. So I just want to start that if I could, sir. And I don't mean to interrupt you, but I did want to put that at least in front of you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd -- what I'd like to do is focus on each of your three elements. MR. DELONY: If you would, go ahead. If you would then give me a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if you want to go forward with your questions on potable water to start. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're pretty simple I think. Number one, the population that you show is less than the population that's in here and that's because you're not serving the whole county that the population has; correct? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. DELONY: The water/sewer district is not contiguous to the political boundaries of the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The -- right now are we running a little bit below? I mean, looking at the required system capacity and the reliable system capacity are we close right now? I mean, obviously we're pulling away so... MR. DELONY: Sir, let me take you to a chart that's in your packet, and I think it will tell you exactly what the story is. And I have behind me a world class expert, the director of our water department, Mr. Paul Mattausch, so he will eventually hold my hand Page 94 January 13, 2006 at some stage of the game here. But I believe page 13 is the chart that we would look at. And looking at that chart you can see very clearly what is the status of -- excuse me, 23. Excuse me. Yeah. Let me do this. Let's just stop messing around here and just admit what I have to admit. And I see that you do that as well there, Commissioner Schiffer. You can see where we've been and where we're going in terms of answering your questions in terms of shortages and overages in terms of availability of reliable and constructive system capacities on that chart on page 23. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're coming out of a little deficit and we're okay from here on out or -- MR. DELONY: Well, no, sir. We're not okay till we execute. That's the bottom line and that's what AUIR provides for us is the -- is the -- is the approved way in terms of execution by the board of when I have time certain infrastructure improvements to do what you said and that's to stay okay with demand versus supply. Given this plan that's in front of you here today, this is my recommendation to be okay in that regard, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With looking at all the things you propose and even just looking at the chart on page 26 is easy for me, it looks like this year we pull ourselves into a position where we're much safer with -- it looks like we're right on with our crossing over right now. MR. DELONY: That's right. This is -- this is a milestone year for us. It is a cross-over year. Thank you. That's exactly what that is this year. Up -- up and since the day I arrived here three and a half years ago, we have been doing what's called demand management in our water system. Meaning that we were very careful with regard to both our pressures and supplies so we did not fall out of meeting demand. And throughout that period we were not able to sustain the prescribed level of service consistently. I mean, we did it a lot but not every day Page 95 January 13,2006 with reliability of 85 pounds per square -- 85 psi from the head of works at the plant which is an AUIR prescribed level of service for the water department. And so through that demand management and manipulating those pressures as well as some dang gone good work by our public in conserving water consistent with our water conservation rules that we have here in Collier County and within the South Florida Water Management District, we were able to get through that very difficult period. We're at that crossover point now where we are not going to be worrying every day whether we have sufficient supply to meet demand in the water supply system for potable water in Collier County . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With that said, my only suggestion is next year could you -- you have population charts in the back and maybe, Randy, you're the one that does it for the water department. MR. COHEN: They're all the way in the back. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Could you break them up so that it's not one line, maybe break it into two lines so you can actually read the numbers just -- MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- without a magnifying glass and stuff. Thank you. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here we go. I had met with some of your staff prior to today to try to resolve most of my questions. One of the things I had asked if you had a service area map that we could take a look at that could be put on the viewer, let's say, so we could see how the service area that you're servicing fits in with the overall county. Because I too wanted to understand what you didn't Page 96 January 13,2006 include and what other municipalities did. Do you have one? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was mostly concerned about the East Naples area that's serviced by the City of Naples. Are you including those populations in yours or are those not yours? MR. DELONY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DELONY: These are population served on the water/sewer district. Now, as you know, and I think we briefed you on this as well, there are interlocal agreements between the city and the county with regard to how it's -- to some crossover. What I call the border land between the two districts. And we have some interlocals in place. But those populations were backed out of our population to be served. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the servicing of that, your -- my Column 4 for 2006 or 2005 -- MR. DELONY: You're on page 23, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, I am. It shows there's -- in 2006 that we have 40 MGD. And that does balance with what FDEP has in regards to your capacity. The highest peak month demand -- and I need to know how this compares to the available -- or to the whatever capacity you're using that was told to DEP was the highest peak month demand was 28.57. Remaining capacity available was 11.43. This was as of November of2005. Yet I notice that we seem to have a deficiency in the right columns in -- starting in -- well, the deficiency goes through in the far right column retained for three years. What is the -- what is the difference there between what's reported to the FDEP and what shows on these tables here? MR. DELONY: Okay. I'm going to have Paul give that, and I'll come back and sum behind what Paul has to say with regard to that specific report to DEP. And I'm wondering the genesis of your question. DEP as reporting requirements consistent with their oversight and -- and overwatch of our -- of our management of the Page 97 January 13, 2006 water resources in providing that safeguard to public health. This discussion deals with concurrency management in terms of infrastructure to meet demand and stay in compliance with DEP. So I don't know if we're talking apples and oranges. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. MR. DELONY: And that's what I want to make sure that we're clear is that what we have in front of you are the required documentations and the computations as best we understand through our learning and our understanding of9J5 of what we need to do to stay concurrent. DEP's process has another end in mind. They have a different end in mind. So I don't know if they're apples and oranges or if this is just a matter of they're due different numbers and they look at it different than we do with different ends in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I just know that one shows we have a surplus -- MR. DELONY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and yours shows we have a deficit. MR. DELONY: Actually, what -- and I'm going to have Paul talk to you about the terms of the max month. Okay. But that's what that basically comes down to is two different -- two different types of reports and two different kinds of data. Paul. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DELONY: Introduce yourself. MR. MATTAUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, Director of the Water Department. Commissioner Strain, you're -- you're exactly right. The number that was reported to DEP is our max month average day. That is the average of the 30 days or 31 days taken during the maximum or the peak production demand on -- placed on the system. Typically that happens in March, April or May and may vary a little bit depending on particular conditions. Page 98 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your -- so your peak month which would be March, April or Mayas a suggestion would have a demand of 28.57? MR. MATTAUSCH: On the average day, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MATTAUSCH: And that ranged from a maximum day of 33.6 down to a minimum day on a nonirrigation day of somewhere in the neighborhood of 24 million gallons on a single day. Yes, sir. So that is the average of all 31 days if it was March. And I believe that it was either February or March this last year. I don't have those numbers right in front of me but, yes. And the other number that you're referring to is 40 million gallons a day. That's what DEP looks at as far as constructed capacity of the system. They are only looking at constructed capacity. They are not looking at levels of reliability that we have to have when we're talking about a utility that provides an essential service. For some reason people always expect water to come out of the faucet. And-- and for that reason, we can't always talk about just constructed capacity which is 40 million gallons a day. We need to also talk about some factors that -- that you have just like any other, with any other mechanical piece of equipment. For instance, a car, if -- if you don't maintain it properly and have down time when it's in the shop, then you can't expect it to run. And, in fact, you don't expect a car to run 24/7,365, okay, every day every hour of the year like you do with a utility. So there are some other standards that we have to talk about, and I'm -- I'm prepared to discuss those if -- if you want to. But -- but I think that answers your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does in regards to the original question; but now if I listen to what you're saying, you like reliable capacity. Is that fair to say? MR. MATTAUSCH: Well, my -- my customers do. Yes, sir. MR. DELONY: Just a second. I don't think it's a matter, Page 99 January 13, 2006 Commissioner, if I might, of liking anything. I think it's a matter of what we need to do to accomplish our mission. Just if I might and I -- and I don't want to -- mean to interrupt you, sir, but we need to provide a consistent reliable means to provide potable water to Collier County. We need to have within that the necessary means and methods to do that 365, 2417. You know, that's what we need to do. It's not a matter of liking anything. It's just what -- that's our mission. And so when we look at our needs and evaluate concurrency, that's what we're looking at in the global scheme of this annualization inventory report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, back to reliable capacity. MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mission dictates you want to use reliable capacity. Whatever terminology you want to use, you guys are using reliable capacity as one of your elements to measure against. And even with reliable capacity showing 40 MGD on as-constructed, your reliable capacity is 36.90 according to the year 2006 or, no, 2005 in this table you've provided. Even with that, that would allow a substantial plant capacity based on your DEP maximum daily utilization. I'm trying to understand is if we show an excess to DEP like we do show, why is it that the numbers you're presenting to us today show a deficit? And I -- I understand there's different reporting requirements, but DEP's got to have a level of comfort that we're going to supply water to our citizens. And their reporting requirements apparently give them that. MR. DELONY: Sir, I gave you the answer to that when you asked the question earlier. They have a different intent there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is their intent? MR. DELaNY: I think I gave that. Their intent is to measure where we are with providing -- providing supply on a maximum basis. They're not running it off -- operating a utility 365. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But yet we report to them we have -- we Page 100 January 13,2006 have an excess capacity. MR. DELaNY: We report what we have. We don't report an excess capacity. We report what we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In this case it's an excess ofa need based on -- and, Jim, I'm not trying to mince words with you. You guys are getting a little defensive here. I'm simply trying to understand your process so I can ask better questions and hopefully get -- get the answers that make me understand this whole process. So, you know, with that wherever you want to take it. I did notice that you've got a plant on Column 5 in 2005 for 8 MGD and the reliable capacity is 6 MGD. And I guess that there's a loss of 25 percent. Is that fair to say? MR. DELaNY: Not a loss, sir, but a reliability factor of twenty -- of -- of one unit of production out of service is the assumption made with regard to measuring the reliable capacity versus the constructed capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 12 MGD that's being added in 2007 and it stays reliable, is that because an expansion to -- expansion to an existing plant is done? MR. DELaNY: That's exactly correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The 20.75 that's added in 2009, we still have a positive reliability left in 2009 of3.36? We're adding 27.5 that in the 2004 AUIR was split up into two ten MGD plants. Now, we've combined them into one which provides us a very healthy reliable capacity left afterwards; but if we split it back up to ten and ten and delayed the second plant for four or five years and save the cost of that plant, we still would be covered with a surplus in our -- in the retained system capacity. Can you comment on that? MR. DELaNY: I think I did in the beginning. Again, we are looking at eight-year windows of execution in terms of any -- whether it's one MGD or ten in terms of our ability to put the plant on the ground typically. We can make some in- plant improvements and Page 10 1 January 13,2006 expansions inside that window, but these -- with these new footprints of plant, that's what we're generally planning for. And as we look at over the window of time of consuming that surplus that you spoke to earlier, this is the execution matrix that looks most feasible both from the standpoint of putting in the ground, getting the committees of scale of mobilizing once versus twice with regard to plant expansions, but not overbuilding in context of the eight-year window. There are many variables here that are not known but assessed, for example, population. We -- we -- if you'll look at your same chart on page 23 and look back in years 2000 to 2004, you can see where you can miss it significantly. I'm providing a plan, an opportunity here where we can stay, I believe, at concurrency throughout the planning period given the variables that we have. And the good news is with regard to making the decisions today as we evaluate these positions yearly in this forum such as this one and before the board, we can dial in those decisions as we see certainty in those populations and that demand. This is a plan. The intent is for it not to be too wrong, but to be just right. What we have here is just the best -- my best assessment of how to do that. And certainly we will look at the economies associated with delivery in context of construction, permitting and real estate which really back up these hard numbers. So I think I've answered your question. I hope I have. If not, I know you'll -- you'll make sure that I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I've still got a few more questions to ask. MR. DELONY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much is mobilization? MR. DELONY: It's a function of the cost of doing business. Every job has a fixed cost associated with bringing the contractor on board, him occupying the site, executing the contract and leaving. The economies of scale -- and that's for two MGD or ten MGD in Page 102 January 13,2006 terms of fixed cost. So do you want to build five times two or do you want to build two times five or one times ten in terms of your installation, in terms of your economies. And that's the decisions that we have to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All the contracts that I work with, I pay mobilization. I know what it is. My question is, on 20.75 MGD or on a 10 MGD plant, how much is the mobilization? MR. DELONY: I don't have that answer here today, and you know I don't have that answer because the economics associated with that are not part of this analysis today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, I didn't know you didn't have the answer. It was a question I brought in a meeting I had with your staff. I suggested that we delay these -- the other ten MGD like was delayed in the 2004 AUIR, that we delay it a few years like it was in that AUIR and save the money. And the comment to me was mobilization. Well, I said, Well, how much does the mobilization cost compared to the interest on the bond that would have to be floated for an additional MGD four or five years earlier? You don't have that answer is what you're telling me? MR. DELaNY: Sir, I was not aware of that and that's my fault if I don't have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well-- MR. DELONY: Again, sir, if! may, this is a plan that deals with concurrency of availability of water supply. It deals with the specifics of what infrastructure's required based on the models of population and levels of service. The economics associated with execution of this plan is carefully weighed once this plan is put in motion through the master plan. And those opportunities to do what you're suggesting should be made real time as we move forward and refine this plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If this plant were to be moved beyond the five-year window that this AUIR is written into it, it goes into another time frame and has -- it effects, I assume, your rate pairs Page 103 January 13, 2006 at a different rate based on the savings of putting the plant off for four years or five years and the bond interest rate versus the mobilization. At some point before the day's over, maybe someone could give me that number. MR. DELaNY: I don't know if we'll get it to you today, but certainly we will be prepared to answer it at some -- at some later date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Last year the average daily demand was 172.9. I know that you use as a benchmark 185 gallons per capita. You also -- we have -- it seems like we've got 185 per capita as the standard that we use as a -- as a measurement for level of service and we have constructed capacity. We also go back to a conservative element called reliable that gives you a more conservative capacity available. It seems to me that if we're going to look at a conservative level of service standard, then we ought to be looking at what actual is, 172.9, and compare that to reliable and see how these tables come out. Has that been done or is that __ MR. DELaNY: Well, first of all, the 172 is a calculated based on last year's experience. And I've explained to you, sir, that we did not have a normal year -- year last with (inaudible) pressures. We manipulated pressures and demand was manipulated more by me than by the public in some regards with regard to it. Now, that's -- that's __ that's it. We also know that that 185 is a good basis of decision making reference all the other utilities in this end of Florida as well as the state at large. The current average for the entire state of Florida is about 173 -- MR. KURTZ: One hundred seventy-four. MR. DELaNY: -- seventy-four right now, the entire -- taking the whole state in aggregate. So you try to pick the best number. The average for Collier County between all the utilities that we have within the county is about 232. Is that correct? That's our current-- that's the current planning factor used by the utilities within the county in the semi-tropical environment we call Collier County. Page 104 January 13, 2006 So, again, I -- I want won't debate the nuances of what the right level of service is because it is an assessment. An input of that assessment is -- is a determined opinion based on our best -- best opportunity to make that assessment. I -- I believe it's a fair -- it is the right number. I believe 185 is the right number to use. Certainly a couple more years at 170 sure changes that assessment and will change this AUIR as we move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know it will. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. We are standing -- I think, if! might, sir, we don't -- we don't write this plan and forget about it. This is evaluated nearly every day if not every year for sure in front of people like yourselves and the board to make sure this plan is kept up to speed. And so 185 is in my view the appropriate level of service with what we know today. That's not to say it will be the level of service in the future. Absolutely, sir, it would be in our best interest to lower that level of service realistically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With what the -- if you take the level of service of 172.9 that was established from last year, would that provide a different capacity available in a reliable system? MR. DELaNY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. DELaNY: Absolutely. Lower the number, less the demand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exactly right. MR. DELONY: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to make sure that-- MR. DELaNY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're in agreement. Out of every ASR well -- ASR well that you have, how much MGD do you give? MR. DELaNY: We have one ASR well. It's located for potable water. And you -- you don't -- you retrieve what you put down the hole. We're able to retrieve somewhere between 900,000 and 1 Page 105 January 13,2006 million gallons a day provided we put the water down the hole and we're able to pump it back out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you show that available ASR capacity is one MGD. Is that for the one well that you have? MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that one well theoretically puts out one MGD? MR. DELaNY: If you tap that well and we're able to consistently keep it pumped up, we can achieve one MGD of yield from that well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There -- the four new potable wells that you have on Manatee Road, how are they shown on here? MR. DELONY: Four new wells on Manatee -- the ASR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. DELaNY: Well, they would be coming on-line -- I think we've got them coming on-line throughout the period 2008 till 2014. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your business plan showed them at 2004 and 2005. MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir, and I moved them out doing what you suggested earlier. You know, Hey, take a look at what you got. You know, in 2004 I had one set of facts. Now, in 2005 I have another set of facts with regard to managing demand and supply. And we've made those adjustments in our -- in our infrastructural planning. That's a good example of what I spoke to again about dialing this plan in as we get more certainty of what we know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Had those been in place, would there have been more of an argument that we wouldn't have needed to run 20 million gallons per day plant all at one time and left it ten and ten like it was? MR. DELONY: I think that the term ASR in making out a well is not correct. That is not a supply source until I put the water into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 106 January 13,2006 MR. DELONY: I have to have the capacity in the system to charge that resource. So up to now I haven't had the capacity in the system to charge that resource. I'd ask that you go back and look at the -- the numbers in the years 2000, 2005 to see what was the actual system capacity available to charge that resource. It wasn't there up till now. That crossover year, I think, what we spoke to earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish I had the time to go into more detail on that one, but I just don't. That's all the questions I have on __ on your system at this point for potable water. Does anybody __ anybody else have any? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I do have a question because I'm looking at your page 23 which should correlate to page 26 which is a chart. But if we're already -- if we're over in Column 9A, once we get beyond, what is it, 2007, we're into positive figures all the way down. It doesn't look like your chart is showing the same thing. Because I'm concerned only about reliable or what last year we learned was firm capacity because that -- that is the most important figure in my mind. MR. DELONY: The chart that you have on page 26 has got a terrible scale to it to see the nuances of 1 or 2 million gallon surplus that you see in Column 9A. So that may be what you're seeing there just in term of graphical display. The data that you see on page 23 is the data that we're operating under. COMMISSIONER CARON: Because if somebody just looks at this chart, they're going to think we're way under a lot more of the time than you're telling me on page 23. MR. DELONY: Page 23 is -- is -- is the AUIR. The chart was there only for illustrative purposes in terms of trends and so on. And hard numbers are on page 23. Did I answer your question, ma'am? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'm just -- you know, I think you should redo this chart as -- MR. DELaNY: Okay. I understand. Yes, ma'am. Page 107 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the potable water? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, are we going to come back and vote on these in total or just on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather take each one and get done with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue that I still feel is something that will be recommended is the 20 million plant being split up into __ like it was in the 2004 AUIR and be two tens. I see no reason why it shouldn't be other than, you know, somebody wanting it that way. At this point I still would like to see it split up as a recommendation, but that's the preference of this panel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, in terms of the -- the people that are using it, what would it do, would it reduce fees or what would happen if that was done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know because I'd have to -- I don't know what the savings are between the bond costs and the mobilization cost. So it's hard to say at this point. COMMISSIONER CARON: I would think that before any vote was taken, we'd want to get an answer to that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we need to defer this to later today or the next time we bring it up and go on to the sewer. COMMISSIONER CARON: If that can be -- you know, if that answer can be had today, I mean, let's --let's talk. MR. DELONY: If! may, again, I don't really want to repeat myself, but I don't think right now it's a matter of the economics with regard to ability to meet demand and stay in compliance with regard to our -- it's concurrency reporting. We were not -- we're not going to do anything that's not financially feasible with regard to our method of business. But at the same time I understand your desire for more data. I'm just not able to produce it today. Page 108 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to reduce that plant to ten and ten, you still would not be deficient. MR. DELaNY: And I'm not sure that's a feasible plan at this stage of the game because I have -- I'd be frank with you, the plan you see in front of me is entirely feasible in terms of the permitting, the real estate and the timing and the economics that we've looked in within the context of our master plan. And I will share with the board -- with the panel here that we are undergoing as I speak today an update to our master plans. We would be back in front of the board in the late spring with a set of master plans. Very well that data that you see here today will cause a recommendation to change and split those. And after today I guarantee you I'm going to make sure I've got that well rehearsed and well done within the context of those master plans. But given our current approved master plan from the board and my recommendation -- and understanding of that and understanding demand, this is our current AUIR model. But that model will change when that master plan is brought forward, vetted publicly and approved eventually by the board. And certainly with the direction I've -- I've heard from you today and the suggestions, we're going to take a hard look at them. I can assure you of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the design work and everything done on that plant? I mean -- MR. DELaNY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- do you need an eight-year lead time? MR. DELaNY: No, sir. No, sir. That's -- that's project delivery the eight years. The design would be the first couple of years along with the permitting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me correct something too. I just -- I was thinking about that meeting I had with your staff. I did not ask Page 109 January 13,2006 them to produce that number. So you wouldn't have had it today. MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But now that I've asked for it, is it something you can produce? MR. DELaNY: Not -- nothing I'm going to produce this day. I can promise you that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But I mean is that a number that-- MR. DELONY: It's certainly in the context of the master plans, I certainly plan to do that. In the master plan we will deliver to the board, I'll answer that question specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I think we talked about splitting the plan up, but I never got to the number because it didn't dawn on me until I was looking at that DEP stuff that maybe we didn't need that much and what would be the cost differential so... MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point I'm still wanting to see that number. What do you guys want to do? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we're going to get that number and we'll get that number in the spring and the board can make a decision at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's up to you guys. MR. ADELSTEIN: I -- I'd have to go along with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm inclined to -- to support the posture of -- of the organization. If we don't have that information, it's hard for us to make a recommendation. And I fully -- I think fully understand where you're going with that. But once before that gentleman said to me, it's our job to set the conditions. And I -- and I feel comfortable that the conditions to protect the communities are there. And not disagreeing, but unless we could have that information now, I think we can't make a judgment on it. So I'm -- I'm __ MR. DELONY: I've already made the commitment to this commission that I am go to look carefully at that and will respond to Page 110 January 13,2006 that within the context of the master plan. And certainly I can provide that at the time that I feel that I've got the right information for you to make a -- a positive decision one way or the other. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! could just amplify it maybe. If you're going to make an oblique left, you're talking what's your time frame for realization to -- to performance: three months? six months? MR. DELONY: No, sir. Sir, these plant -- these plant capacities with regard to where we are, some are in motion now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. DELaNY: For example, the expansion of the south water plant is well under way now both in it's procurement and the wells to fill development. That's under way. I'm under design currently in the northeast plants. This would be the area served in the vicinity of the fair grounds. That area up in the northeast there. You see a red star in that area there. And we're under the design. If -- if we could -- if we could -- if we could keep, you know, everything constant with regard to the land use and the populations, you know, we could take a little bit more risk. But right now with what I know and what's been projected on the population and -- and-- and the real world variables that are inside of an eight-year window of execution, this is my recommendation today. Now, as I have promised as I look at this master plan update this spring, I'll evaluate carefully that again and make an additional assessment for review and vetting with -- with the public and with the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you have an interconnect between the north and the south plants. The other plant in the northeast, do you anticipate an interconnect with that? MR. DELaNY: The water system is totally interconnected. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. DELaNY: The water -- the water is a system of plants and Page 111 -~-_.."~..- ----.,,,.. January 13,2006 pIpes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why you were talking about 40 million gallons? MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A big tub. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so really you have this big tub with the ability to shift the water around? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so, again, if you had to make a left oblique, if you found out you really didn't need a 20, you'd be able to make that call pretty quickly. MR. DELaNY: I believe we'd be able to dial in the level of service to stay concurrent and that's my challenge. And we can see that it's been a challenge for this -- for this utility historically. The chart in front of you tells you how difficult that challenge is given crystal balls and the realities of pipes, pumps, policy and prices. And so my job is to sit down and take all that in context and provide you my best considered -- and listen carefully to other views as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm sure you realize the __ the intent here is to try and -- MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- prune back as much cost so that we can give the citizens -- help to give the citizens some kind of benefit from savings. It comes down to a question of confidence and unless -- unless I guess we have something to show clearly, I -- I have to take you at your word at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, can we move on, I mean, even in support of this? Because one thing I think it does show is that, you know, this is the year we cross over to a surplus. We're going to be going right along with our flow. You know, we're not that far above it. This plant you're talking about is the one that really lifts us into a surplus where I think we can for the first time relax about our Page 112 January 13, 2006 water supply. So I can't see it causing harm. Building a 20 ahead of two 10s. I mean, it's got to be cheaper. Look at the cost of inflation on everything on materials so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you -- Mr. Delony, can you tell me what a CSRWTP is? That's the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2005 that had a 12 MGD RO expansion. I know that doesn't correspond to -_ MR. DELaNY: Sir, if you'll look at -- I believe the number's eight if you'll look at your chart. Not twelve, it's eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did it have that expansion-- MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, it did. It's been on-line. It came on-line -- was it Christmas a year ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at a document that you gave me dated October 28th, 2004. It's called your updated five-year business plan. In that plan it says an CSR WTP 12 MGD RO expansion in the year 2005, is that now the eight MGD plant that's here or is it -- is this not the same document? MR. DELaNY: Sir, the expansion, the next series of expansions to the South County Water Treatment Plant is 12 MGD. It comes on-line a year from now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the 2007 that's on this document? MR. DELONY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your business plan actually showed 2005, that's why I was confused. MR. DELONY: The operating document for our discussion today obviously is the AUIR document. That business plan there, I believe that's just a typo, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the operating -- no. The operating document is any document we want to pull up and discuss and find out Page 113 January 13, 2006 from the research we do to ask the questions we want to have. And I have pulled up a lot of documents, more than what was provided __ MR. DELaNY: And I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for us today. MR. DELaNY: I certainly appreciate that, but I just want to make sure the record's clear. This is the concurrency document that we are providing the board to make a decision on with regard to the annual utilization and inventory report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The CSRWTP 20 MGD expansion, that is the 20.75 that's referred to in 2009 because that also is in your 2005 business plan? MR. DELONY: Sir, if you'll look at page 24 of your book, I tried to explain every one of those increments in terms of where they are and what they are in terms of the concurrency model. If you'll look at that page you'll see what plant, where and how much is coming on-line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I absolutely understand what you're trying to say. I've read everything you given me including stuff I received not too long ago during the summer of last year. I'm just trying to compare and understand the differences between the two and the reasons for the differences. That's all. In that prior business plan you gave me, it had these other improvements in the year 2005. They now seem to be moved off into the years on here. That still differs from the 2004 AUIR and it does differ in the 2005. MR. DELaNY: The only confusion that you would have between those two documents deals with when this would become a capacity available to the system per AUIR and when me and my staff would begin to go to work on a particular project, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've already started work on the 20 MGD? MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. Eight years, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even though it wasn't approved until Page 114 January 13, 2006 possibly this year? MR. DELaNY: Sir, it was approved within the context of our master plans by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the AUIR last year didn't approve it as a 20. It approved it as a ten. MR. DELONY: In the context of where it's going and how it's going, I have board approval on all those documents, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm just trying to correlate to the AUIR. MR. DELONY: I understand what you're trying to do, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And-- MR. DELaNY: And I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it doesn't seem to correlate very well, but I understand what you're saying. I have no more questions on potable water. Is there a recommendation from this board? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion for approval as presented. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd just like to add the caveat that if this goes with a recommendation of approval to the BCC, it goes with a caveat that the cost between the mobilization of a 10 to 20 million gallon plant and the savings over a 5-year note for the two different sized bonds that will be floated to build those plants are explained to the BCC. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. Mr. Delony said he would provide that information to all of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just make sure it's part of the record. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's just good practical sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and, Mr. Delony, you'll Page 115 January 13,2006 also -- since you're going to stagger the two, there be different costs for the two. Ten years built in two years and ten years built in ten years don't cost the same. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. Certainly we're going to look at everything you've given me direction to today, and I've explained to you my best possible recommendation has addressed your concerns. And we'll look at the economics with regard to that as well within the context of our master plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion was already made. Is there a vote? All those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody disagree? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None disagree. Fine. We'll move on to sewer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick thing, next year, Mr. Delony, could you put a web link to that map, the one that's on the wall now of the service areas? MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on to our sewer element. If you want to -- Page 116 January 13,2006 MR. DELaNY: Well, it's the same option we had on the water. I have a -- I have a presentation to make. Sewer is a little different than water in that it is not a connected system and, therefore, your concurrency has to be done on an area basis versus a district basis. And the chart that's -- that's to my right, your left over there speaks to the five areas that we break out in this concurrency document you have in front of you. One of the things that got us in trouble in years past was not understanding that we're not fully interconnected. Even though we may try to, you cannot move sewer flows over the area of this size without significant problems in either of the movement of the liquid or just the ability to move it in terms of the pipes available. So your concurrency is pretty much based on your plants that serve a very distinct area. And we have attempted to layout for the next 20 years the concurrency for sewer services in the district in five subservice areas for our wastewater customers. And that's the reason it's a little bit -- well, not a little bit, but a lot more calculation, a lot more deliberation here in terms of just how to optimize the timing of pipes, pumps and plans to achieve concurrency in that -- in these growth areas. And that's what this represents in terms of our model as well as our recommendation. So I'm prepared to discuss that in more detail or rather I can respond to your questions, Mr. Chairman. It's your decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Members of the commission, what was -- like we had before? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go straight to the questions then. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll start. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Why are the population figures from -- different from page 116? Page 117 January 13, 2006 MR. DELaNY: Well, we have a couple things different. We don't have the same water customers as we do sewer customers because of what I spoke to earlier in terms of interlocal agreements with other utilities. So those population numbers for people who are not served by our district are backed out of these numbers. Also you see a jump in some numbers because they're spread out over five charts instead of just one. First, there's two and then later on as we go through -- into the period of concurrency consideration, I actually go to five concurrency models with regards to sewer services. So you don't see the same number. You see a No.4, a district served. Randy, if you'll stand up, please, and show, you know, the districts. And we tried to do our best here to show that with the blue lines where each one of these are. And that's the reason you don't see the same numbers. MR. SCHMITT: Which ones? MR. DELaNY: Just -- just -- I want to just show that you've got the different areas there. And those parallel to what you see in your book. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: My second question is when you get down to footnotes on here, No.2 -- MR. DELaNY: What page, ma'am? COMMISSIONER CARON: Twenty-eight. MR. DELONY: All right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Populations are based on using BEBR high through 2015 and the average of BEBR high and BEBR medium from the '16 through '25. Why is there a change? MR. DELaNY: That's the same as what we do for the water as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why, though? Why is there a change? Page 118 .--_. ------.-----. January 13,2006 MR. DELaNY: And I believe that Randy spoke to some of that in the beginning when this began some time ago that with regard to our water/sewer populations -- and, Randy, I don't know if you're ready to answer that again, but the bottom line is this has proven to be a more accurate depiction of the actual experience of the district in terms of customers to be served than an average peaked or permanent population model that serves other concurrency needs. Water/sewer is a little different because of its nexus to protecting public health and providing essential services. And we've -- we have -- what we've done here is try to pick the very best model that we've got as to what the populations will be and what the needs, therefore, will put upon us to service. And so that's the reason we took that model. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is why I'm asking this question. Because as we continue to grow, it seems to me that we shouldn't suddenly be lowering the standards from what we had been doing which was BEBR high and as we continue to grow and the demand is greater, why are we going to a lesser standard? MR. COHEN: And let me expand on that. You know, earlier when I spoke with regard to the Florida Administrative Code as set forth in Rule 9J5, we have a responsibility to actually provide services for what's known as anticipated population. And if Mr. Delony obviously can demonstrate over a period of time that his anticipated population is growing beyond that BEBR high, then we're going to have to address it from that perspective as well too. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, but we're not talking about BEBR high. We're talking about averaging BEBR high with BEBR medium. And that's -- that's my question. Why are we going from what we're using now which is BEBR high to averaging high and medium? Why wouldn't -- as we continue to grow, why would we be lowering the threshold? MR. DELaNY: Well, I'll go back to the discussion I just had with Commissioner Strain earlier about picking the level of service. Page 119 January 13, 2006 Obviously, if! set it at 172 versus 185, that's less demand for infrastructure. You've got to find the standard that's reasonable and adequate. If your suggestion is that I'm -- I'm -- I'm putting it too low, that I'm using a lower population number than I should for the period 2016 to '25, I understand that. But at some stage of the game you have to make a decision just how much you want to build or can afford to build just in case. And that's -- that's -- that's the art ofthis, ma'am. I -- I believe this is the right answer as I understand and evaluate my last three years here with regard to predicting a period of, you know -- you know, twenty -- ten plus years from now. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Then why wouldn't you change that sooner? Why would you wait until 2015? MR. DELaNY: It appears that in my best -- this is my best estimate of what we're going to require is to do it exactly what's here. That between now and 2015, let's stay with the high BEBR. That's pretty -- pretty solid data in my view in terms of our past. With regard to after that, I think we do -- we provide for the average of the high and the medium. Typically you're going to -- you'll be working with the medium if you don't do that. Typically that we were using the medium before. I'm just trying to up the bar a little bit; but, again, you know, when I up the bar in terms of my assessment, then -- then we're overbuilding in someone else's concern. I've got to find the right medium. If you're suggesting and it's your recommendation I use a different standard, I could take that under consideration. But this is where we've landed with regard to our analysis through the last three years of master planning and watching it and working with the comprehensive planning department in terms of what we see happening in these five districts. I don't know if I answered your question, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before you would -- the left oblique again, you watch this year to year to year. Now, is that a Page 120 January 13, 2006 moving target as well? MR. DELaNY: Sir, actually I do it -- concurrency in the utilities business is measured three ways. The first way obviously is today's exercise looking at long-range concurrency models and then seeing if we're just in time with regard to our plans for pipes, pumps and plants. The second model is one that I look at every single day and that is looking at certificates of occupancies on the capacity I have versus the capacity promised on those cas. And I actually keep a concurrency document that -- that looks and tabulates my best understanding of where -- you know, as we eat away at this over and over, is it -- is my assumption here still valid? And then my third level of concurrency is what happens every morning and every day of every minute when someone turns on the tap and are they getting proper pressure, proper compliant water and services for wastewater. So I get pretty much feedback every minute with regard to my ability to do that and my -- my success in doing that. Did I answer your question, sir? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're saying you have real time information? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And my question really was as -- as this chart depicts, it shows years and it shows projections. And if your projections were needed to be updated, they would be updated the following year, would they not? MR. DELONY: I absolutely will be back here next year talking about this again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exactly. MR. DELaNY: And I probably will come back with a similar if not different, for sure the best guess I have at that time, my best assessment, not guess, and it may -- it could be very different from this. Not very, but might be different from this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which is -- which is what I Page 121 January 13, 2006 would expect. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. And every three years the utility performs a comprehensive master planning exercise to ensure that we don't fall behind or get too far ahead that underpins the assessments that I'm making in this report today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what -- what Commissioner Caron was relating and it tickled my mind too -- is that you reach a certain point and it seems to drop off ever so slightly maybe but it drops off. And one wonders because population's going to continue; but then one also thinks that at some point, we're going to have 1,066,000 at build-out, whenever that may occur. But when build-out occurs in terms of total population, that won't mean build-out of sewer. Because sewer plants are -- you know, we have a, I think, a forever need for additional sewer if you will. But within the scope of where you have your plants, this is your program. This is your plan? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I'm clear on that I think. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. I can promise you that the county staff spends a lot of time debating this population number internally to get it right. And I know they're even watching this deliberations of this __ of this commission over the last couple days, this commission and the previous one, a lot of discussion about what is the right population model? What does 2020 look like? And -- and at some time you have to make a decision based on the best study you have and then move forward. And as you gain better information, in other words, turn estimates into certainties, then you dial in what you can in terms of recovery or into restraint of your pre-existing plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. If! recall the conversation we had too, you indicated that you have no plans to build in the Golden Gate Estates in terms of putting sewers in unless Page 122 January 13, 2006 directed to do so. MR. DELONY: That's correct, sir. It's not the policy -- been the policy I've been told to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So population may grow, but your -- your -- your program is what is stated. MR. DELaNY: This is the service area that I've been told and have by statute to serve. The estates are not part of that service area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope I -- MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. But if there were a policy decision-- let's say, there was a policy decision to do otherwise, I'd have to respond to that as well. But that -- that -- this does not anticipate any of that. This applies existing board direction backed up with my analysis of how -- what the infrastructure needs to look like to execute that policy given the population models that were furnished to me by these good folks to my right. MR. SCHMITT: And -- and just for the record you know and understand there are other water and wastewater authorities that exist in the county, private utilities. The Board of County Commissioners is -- is Jim's water and wastewater authority and the Board of County Commissioners. There are -- there's a separate water and wastewater authority for Collier County with the private utilities. Yeah. And then -- and Jim is not allowed to compete against those or he can't go outside his boundary unless there's -- there's a policy decision to expand those boundaries. MR. DELaNY: We do it by an oral agreement. MR. SCHMITT: And then it's a -- or you do an agreement and it's a board-approved expansion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I -- what I was trying to point is that although population will continue to grow, at some point you will have achieved your purpose and you can modify a little bit. That was my understanding. Is that fair? And that's a fair statement, isn't it? Page 123 January 13, 2006 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. With the understanding of the -- in the eastern lands rural fringe where you may have villages, hamlets, townships, those will most likely contain -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They will have their own. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Package plants or other type, they'll be -- or unless, of course, they approach the county and ask to be included and the boundaries are expanded. MR. DELONY: The -- I guess the last thing is, is that -- and I think this goes more to your answer, ma'am, is for this period of concurrency evaluation, we're looking out to 2015. As a -- as a -- as a utility I've got to look much further than that interior window because of that eight-year cycle. So you see a lot of my data going out to 2020, 2025 because you can't -- there's -- you just can't cut it off, you know, there's a continuum. And -- and so the point that I've been trying to make is that this is what we know today. And as we know more we make it better. And we vet it every time with the board with regard to those changes. Left a bleacher -- I guess, Commissioner Murray, absolutely, and that's what you pay me to do. You don't pay me to do it once and forget it about it, five years come back and tell you what I'm doing. That's not -- that's not my job. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though you're showing us these macro areas. Within these service areas are there any smaller areas you're having difficulty keeping up with development? Are you able to provide adequate water and sewage to all areas within these service areas? MR. DELONY: The -- what we have within the context of what you see here, not all these areas are currently being served. Right now we're active in terms of service. If you would, George, walk up to the Page 124 January 13,2006 wall mount and show him specifically. We're serving customers within the existing -- up here in the area here, George, if you would just point out the north one, please. We have existing customers, of course, in the northern part of the county, and the central part of the county. Those areas there are where our existing customer bases are. As we move through this time of concurrency, we will start beginning to provide customer services in the area where Mr. Yilmaz has his pointer. And also to the north and the northeast and we're looking at potential services in the north -- in the east central. So right now those are plants which are within the existing service. I have no concurrency problems with regard to servicing any existing customers or potential customers north and south. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. DELaNY: But I -- I've got to get those plants on line. Best guess here when to -- to stay in that mode and answer the question you just asked me in the affirmative. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. Done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your wastewater treatment plant, do you have a permitted capacity on some of your documents, not this particular one? Is the constructed capacity the same as permitted capacity? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. And I would like Dr. Yilmaz to speak to that for just a moment if I may so there's clear understanding maybe the ying and the yang of water versus wastewater when we speak in terms of reliability. Dr. Yilmaz. DR. YILMAZ: Thank you. For the record, George Yilmaz, Wastewater Department Director. The answer is as Mr. Delony indicated no significant difference. In wastewater when we talk about constructive capacity, that's the capacity we're anticipating to get Page 125 January 13,2006 waste water flow and treat it into IQ water. So let me talk about constructive capacity. That's what we're permitted for and that's what we can go as high as depending on the flows and operational conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So unlike water, you don't have a reliable capacity? DR. YILMAZ: Our constructive capacity includes design reliability due to the fact that in wastewater systems reliability is much more easily defined up front; therefore, it can be incorporated into design with certainty. In the water site, there are more uncertainties and variables that we need to overcome, no different than structural design. We can design something like columns of a building to a perfection, but we have to have additional security for unforeseen forces that we have not seen. So, therefore, it's all about how best engineers can predict variability and uncertainty and design for reliable systems in accordance with that vision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your -- your systems when you refer to constructed capacity, permitted capacity, reliable capacity, it's all the same? DR. YILMAZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to change your website. DR. YILMAZ: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your north treatment plant, last year you had 22.3 MGD. This year you've got 18.3 on this, but I believe what you've done is you've got a new plant area? Is that -- I mean, they're new to this AUIR. You're going with a NEWRRF. Is that true? You've got four service areas. You had two in AUIR for 2004. MR. DELaNY: Within this -- within this window of consideration what goes out to 2015, there'll be four areas as anticipated by population and demand that I'll have to be providing wastewater services. Page 126 January 13, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You have two related to the north, whether it's north or northeast. And you have two related to the south, I think, entitled south and southeast. Okay. In the north plant, in this AUIR you're showing 18.3 and the northeast plant you're showing another four within the 2015 -- another eight with a 2015 time frame. That adds about four MGD to the overall capacity that was going to be -- that was in the 2004 AUIR. How did you come about that? MR. DELONY: Well, they're not interconnected systems, sir. I -- I -- I think -- I hope I answered that earlier by saying you have to be concurrent within an area instead of a system concurrency like you do with the water system. Ifwe open up the northeast, four MGD is the right answer with regard to the population to be served in the time to be considered just like we did the expansion. They are not one for one. I can't put the two together. I can't move capacity from the plant that we have off of Goodlette Road out to Orange Tree. You aren't able to interconnect to that means of wastewater services unlike water services that are fully integrated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you do have inter -- you do have some interconnection between your plants; right? MR. DELONY: The only interaction is very minimal, and it's -- and it's -- and it only deals with one or two million gallons at best. It is not able to move huge amounts of water. And it's primarily there for mechanical reliability or for system enhancements with regard to our ability to move water around the system as we would have problems within the plants. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One of my -- my notations show that the connectability equates to three to four MGD. But I guess it's not that much, huh? MR. DELaNY: It is what it is. Is we have an interconnect from north to south right now. The one million gallons one way and about two plus the other way in terms of the hydrologic -- the Page 127 January 13, 2006 hydrodynamics of the piping system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those don't enter -- those do or do not inter -- will be interconnected to the new plants that you're putting in? MR. DELONY: We have -- we have a line going to the northeast. I anticipate the ability to move something less than a million gallons but, again, that is not -- that is not a concurrency issue in my view. That's a -- more of a system or operability issue. I cannot move those flows consistently in my view and keep up with the demand for sewage -- with sewage within those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the volume of the storage in the miles of pipes that we have in the ground? MR. DELaNY: We found through the storm, you know, just to answer the question in terms of operation, I had about a day to a day and a half of storage within the pipes. But we don't operate wastewater compliance with regard to what's stored in the pipes. As it's delivered to the collection system, we intend to take it to the plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it can be taken advantage of if need be? MR. DELONY: I don't -- no. I do not agree with that point, sir. I do not believe it can be taken advantage of in terms of an operational protocol; however, it's been darn useful when we lose power from FP &L. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your south plant you had a 2.0 MGD addition in 2012. It was removed from this year's program AUIR. It looks like it was moved to the southeast plant and doubled to 4.0. Obviously it's probably not sensible to build a 2.0 plant so you're building a 4.0 plant. Is that logical? MR. DELaNY: I don't know. I believe when you saw that number, that was -- that was -- that was -- last year we looked at this and we -- and we didn't have this breakout by area. The 2 MGD that you see there was actually to go to the southeast plant and we were Page 128 January 13, 2006 combining those areas. This is a much -- this is where we're going in terms of concurrency management. This is the first year we've had a five-area look. We had a two-area look last year. And we probably at that time because it was wintering that window should have had a three-area look. This is a much better way of me ensuring to you concurrency within areas to be served by the wastewater customer -- wastewater district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your levels of service vary in different parts of the county. Is anybody -- is there a reason for that? MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir, absolutely. It's the difference in terms of the types of customers you have within the area. In the northeast you've got a lot of commercial enterprises, a lot of high organics, a lot of flow because of the nature of our customer load there. In the south, much more residential and you see a difference there both in the organic loading as well as the flows that we have. So it's a function of the area. You know, another thing that we're trying to do is I don't want one service standard for the entire water/sewer district, but a service standard that speaks to the customer base within those areas. So we make sure that the number is the right number, not just some journalized number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that level of service standard is gallons per day -- MR. DELONY: Per person. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- per resident -- per person? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. Just like the water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were able to have different levels of service standards in different parts of the county based on the type of use up in that particular part of the county, couldn't you likewise have different levels of standard for different population in different parts of the county? Meaning along the coastal area you have a lot more people that only frequent this county on a part-time basis. On a Page 129 January 13, 2006 level of service standard, is it different there than it would be in the Golden Gate area for example? MR. DELONY: The -- the way we derive that is based on experience flow. And all the variables that you spoke to have been taken in account in deriving these -- these levels of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these are actual measurements? MR. DELONY: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no questions for sewer. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- I would recommend that as -- as often, I don't have any exceptions that I can think of. As offered I would recommend that this go forward to the county commissioners as an acceptable AUIR with recommendations as made by staff. MR. ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Mr. Murray and seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Any comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one. Solid waste. MR. DELaNY: Let me introduce this if! might, Commissioner Strain. Concurrency for solid waste is measured two ways. It's Page 130 January 13,2006 measured in a large footprint in terms of what we have in terms of developable or expandable or buildable airspace within our existing landfill, how much we got there based to the demand. And then there's a second smaller concurrency, you know, smaller footprint test of how much lined capacity, in other words, constructed capacity in -- with liner left as we consume it through the period of consideration. So we're confronted with making sure we have enough airspace in general for the period of consideration and that we have enough construction in place in terms of the liner to accept the municipal solid waste from our -- from our franchised area. Now the population we use is a permanent population for the -- for the county. I think that's consistent, Randy, with the other members of the county team as we look at concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's modified to weighted? MR. DELONY: Excuse me, it's weighted. Excuse me, weighted. To ensure that we look at the population served as best we can and the population to be served. And I know there's some debate about what is that right number. I want to make sure I'm clear as this is -- this is the number we're using in this model today. And the concurrency that we're drawing is off that population base. So you've got the number of people to be served current and projected. And then from that you look at what is the curbside generation rate per capita. Now, that's where it becomes a little bit -- a little bit guessy for us because our generation rate per capita at the curbside has been -- is going down because of our recycling and a diversion. We're doing a great job. And so one of the things I want to continue to look at is to make sure I got that number right as we look at success in diverting and recycling and not burying our municipal solid waste in Collier County. With that being said, you still have to project forward for concurrency. Therefore, you see from the -- from the charts what are our tons for capital disposal rate starting in '94 and then going out through the period of consideration. You can see that, Page 131 January 13,2006 for example, in '05 our generation is .75 tons per capita. This is on page -- I believe we're on page -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thirty-nine. MR. DELaNY: Nine? COMMISSIONER CARON: Thirty-nine. MR. DELONY: Thirty-nine. That's right. And I think that's a pretty good number for that year. But I don't know if it's a good enough number for me to project it forward and measure concurrency yet. We have made great strides in diverting and converting our throwaway mentality to one of conservation. But as a solid waste administrator, I'm not ready yet to say we've won that battle. I'd like to see a couple more years before I make a recommendation to you and the board as to what the level of service or demand would be for airspace and for lined airspace. So, therefore, our recommendation is to stay at .9 generation rate for the period of consideration with the proviso that we think it's going to get better. So whatever you see here today in terms of our concurrency prediction, I believe very well could be back here next year and the years to come if we continue on the stride that we're on to have even more airspace than what we currently project in these models that we have in front of you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think I may have the wrong sheet then. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, me too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw your.9 was what came out of your department the first time. But then you guys came back in and reduced it to .82. MR. DELaNY: Excuse me. Have I got the wrong page? I apologize. Thank you, John. Thank you, Bill. Thank you. Yup. I'm with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Point 82. MR. DELONY: Point 82, that's the right number. Same Page 132 January 13, 2006 argument different number. I apologize for that, folks. I know you-all are pretty frustrated with the staff on that issue. Here's the bottom line. I think that we're in good shape on solid waste in terms of airspace. As we stand now given the period of consideration, I believe we're going to get better with regard to our conserving that with our -- just within the last 100 days mandatory -- not mandatory, but rather our residential recycling program, the yellow tops. We've seen a significant increase in participation at the residential level in recycling. I've got the numbers here, and I'm going to put them on the wire here next week in terms of what that evidence is. But, for example, comparing I believe it was November of this year versus November last year, 77 percent increase in total tons taken out of the system in recyclables this year from the residential side. So all the -- that's all good stuff. I mean, that tells you that we're on the right track. That the numbers you here -- see here in terms of concurrency consideration are good. And that we think we're going to continue to do better with the kinds of things the board is directing us to do with regard to conserving airspace. And that's my matter of introduction for this. I know you probably want that, but I wanted to provide that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the panel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The concern I had last year was the lead time to do a new solid or new -- a new dump, I guess. It's moved from 22 to -- to I guess 28 now. Why is that? In other words, when the dump would be at capacity or the landfill. Excuse me. MR. DELONY: Just what I said earlier, that -- if I could, is that we're getting less things to bury because of our diversion and our recycling. And, therefore, we're conserving that airspace further out in Page 133 January 13,2006 space -- in time in terms of where we reach a point of making another decision about how to handle municipal solid waste in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how long -- I mean, how long would it take to get another landfill? What would you have to do? And in fairness to the future community, is that something we should be looking for now so that they know where that would be? Obviously you're going to hit zero. I mean, I'm more comfortable than last year because you moved it six years, but ultimately it's going to run out, I guess, unless you think technically something's going to happen to stop that. And should we be setting some place aside for that? MR. DELONY: The board has the policy that there'll be no more new landfills in Collier County. I believe that policy was put in motion in the year 2000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. DELONY: That was the board -- last board direction and policy with regard to new landfills in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's not an option anyway? MR. DELONY: It has not been a policy direction from the board to pursue after 2000 a new landfill in Collier County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. DELaNY: But rather we have looked at ways to optimize our existing capacity. And that's the direction the board's taken ever since that day since then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a couple of things. Page 39 and -- and I reference here, how -- how have the population projections changed the -- the affected -- the useful life plan of the -- of the -- of this? Projection of population against that life, your numbers are pretty good, but we've have had recent updates. Now these -- so, in other words, we're real time with this as well? Page 134 January 13,2006 MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's -- that's all I wanted to know. MR. DELaNY: I believe you got these -- these -- let's put this up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I got the supercedure (phonetic) page if that's what you're referencing. MR. DELONY: And if! might, Commissioner Murray, is exactly what you said. These represent my best assessment of the useful landfill space in terms of years given the generation rates I described earlier and the population projections that we speak to in terms of our weighted population. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. MR. DELONY: Now, I will tell you that if we need to stay strong on reducing the amount that comes to curbside as a community, I mean, we have got to stay where we are and better in terms of encouraging utilization of recycling as opposed to throw it into the green bin. And we're -- and that -- and I think that the 1 October launch date of over 92,000 recycling carts out there in the community today has been a big step forward in that. Other decisions that deal with types of materials that are received at the scale and whether they go into the hill or are diverted to other places is another critical decision that's been made and stayed hard on ever since that decision was made. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You -- you've done a very good job, I think, of taking old cells and pulling the stuff out of them and renewing that area. Is it possible at some later time to take these cells that you're now being much more careful about and -- and work that again, let it -- let decay have been sufficient to create more space? MR. DELaNY: You know, that's the $60,000 -- $60 billion question for the solid waste in America. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 135 January 13,2006 MR. DELaNY: I'm going to be frank with you about it. You know, that -- that is something that we have looked at a couple times over the last five years to see if technology would provide us a way to mine those assets as renewable resources and then take that and turn it economically into a re-use or to conserve and reutilize. You know, the perfect system is I get it at the toll house and it goes back into the system as a totally renewable piece of energy as opposed to something we bury. That's the perfect system. We're in between that right now. The perfected system that -- you know, what goes in, goes out and never goes in the ground and something short of that in terms of what we're doing today. We know that every community in America is facing the same concern that we are. Where are we going to put this stuff 20, 30, 40 years from now? There's a great deal of movement in the market particularly as the price of energy continues to escalate as to how economically viable alternatives are to bury. We're in the business of checking those out. We're in the business of evaluating those, and we will apply those on a recommended basis to the board to -- to extend this landfill life. And that was the direction essentially the board gave us when they said no more new landfills. But what's the alternatives out there and continue to find those alternatives in diversion, recycling and then ultimately, you know, the opportunity if -- if we're able to do it economically and from a permit standpoint protecting the environment some type of reuse or renewal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if -- if I understand then you're in a be vigilant mode but you don't have a directive from the board to seek alternatives for the long-term? MR. DELONY: Absolutely not. Absolutely. Sir, I may have miss -- the board has told me, Mr. Delony -- (Multiple voices.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- for the record. MR. DELaNY: -- Mr. Delony, get out there and see what you Page 136 January 13,2006 can do about this problem. And that's the reason you saw the mandatory commercial recycling initiative that was put before the board here about -- about a year and a half ago. That's the reason you're seeing the recycling carts to divert the municipal solid waste away from the hill at the residential level. That's the reason you see the resourcing of -- of -- of the outreach and -- and the other efforts we make to education the public. You know, it's the other way around. The board is pushing me hard to find alternatives and put in place alternatives to burying at the landfill. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So then at some point in the future and several AUIRs forward, we're going to be listening to somebody telling us about what they're going to do in those years when the cells are all filled? MR. DELONY: And I think this -- this particular concurrency model you have in front of me is excellent just to tell you when that needs to occur. Because those decision points is when you're -- you've got to make that decision because you're running out of space are clearly outlined in this concurrency model. You know, the fall dead date is clearly in front of you here when either you're going to have to do something different to what you're doing now. Now, what we -- what we've been able to do through the efforts of the last five years is to drive down that -- that -- that number that at the curb, that amount at the curb. At some point does that reach a finite and then you're back into another alternative. So that's the direction we've received by the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the other aspect of it in my mind at least is that while you do have a drop dead date in terms of what you can project to final use, what you don't know is depending upon which technology you employ, what your lead times are to achieve that. So you've got -- you've got a crystal ball situation sitting out there eight to ten years from now or ten, twelve years or whatever. MR. DELONY: This board -- this board-- Page 13 7 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have you tackled that? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, we have. This board's been very supportive of looking at it. We've -- three years ago, we looked at some alternative technologies that looked at some reuse. Didn't work out. Wasn't economic. Wasn't promotable. But, you know, just as I said earlier, you know, time is -- this is all moving forward and we're not alone in this arena. This is a national concern. And so I -- I -- I feel like we don't have our backs against the wall yet and we're vigilant to not to get there. That -- that magic bullet hasn't arrived yet, though, with regard to taking directly from the curb and putting it back into reuse and not going through a landfill in the process. We just have not been able to find that yet, but the staff has been empowered by the board to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Congratulations. Goodjob. MR. DELONY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, we're going to take a break this time when the court reporter's new refreshing -- refreshment -- or replacement comes in. Refreshing. We're not ready. I have a series of questions to ask so and, first, I want to find out about why we do a two-year and why we do a ten-year. And to follow up something -- I'm not going to be able to paraphrase your words exactly, so I need to decipher what I mean. Something about a -- this document will tell us when we need to start looking possibly for new landfills and how those -- how we find those -- how this document tells us that. So could you -- MR. DELONY: Did you -- are we going to take the break now or I misunderstood? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. When the new court reporter shows up to switch. Page 13 8 January 13, 2006 MR. DELONY: Would you put those up there, Dan? Have you got these up? Well, the decision points are on your charts. There is a point there if you look there on page -- help me here team. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start with the two years-- MR. DELONY: Yeah, two year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and we'll focus on that one. MR. DELaNY: Yeah. Just have the two year up there. Look at the -- look at the dot there you can see in FY'26 I've got two years left to close the landfill. And over a period of time that would be the drop-dead date in terms if we don't have something by 2026, we're out of airspace with our current height and configuration. So there's your drop-dead space before -- you've got two years left at 2026. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a time period though that it takes to permit a landfill and a process and go through the routine. So if we were to try to understand from this chart when we needed to start, how far -- what would I do, backup from 2026? MR. DELONY: No, sir. You'd go to the next chart, the ten-year chart, which talks to the large footprint. And it shows you that in 18 -- 19 -- FY' 18 and' 19 I have ten years of capacity remaining with regard to the large footprint that I can put two years worth of liner or any liner in. So that's -- that's -- that's the current at the projected utilization rate, that is the tons at the curb and the population I have, that's what I've got left to develop to get out, as you said, 2026. That's -- that's not a drop-dead date, but that's -- that's a strong signal that you're now beginning to get inside is your concurrency model with regard to having that ten years of more permittable airspace in the landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if -- again, I need your help to read this. If! were to be reading this then at 2018, say, we need to start permitting a new landfill. Is that what this reads? That's what this says? Page 139 January 13,2006 MR. DELONY: It says that you've got ten years of -- of capacity remaining in your existing landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How long does it take to permit a new landfill? MR. DELaNY: Woe, it could up to -- it could take as long as it takes, because to be frank with you, there hasn't been a new one in a long time in the state of Florida. So the answer to that question from the dais would be a difficult one if you want me to do when I don't have the experience of anyone in Florida to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in order to make sure this community has a landfill on-line when it needs it, would you -- how would you know, then, when you need to start looking at that possibility of permitting a new landfill? MR. DELONY: The absolute truth to that question is without policy direction to find a new landfill and to -- and I'm looking at alternatives to that, I don't have a direction to answer that question right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you were to say to the Board of County Commissioners from everything I have it's going to take us 15 years to find a landfill, we're going to lose our landfill in 2018, we needed to start looking for a new landfill three years ago, I think you'd get their attention and probably reaction. And that's kind of where I'm leading is how will they know when to give you that direction if somebody doesn't tell them that they need to start thinking about it? And I'm wondering who's looking at that? MR. DELONY: I'm looking at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DELaNY: That's my responsibility and responsibility at the board direction. I have a policy direction, though, that I'm not to consider no new landfills. Which means I have to do the things me and Commissioner Murray spoke to: either diversion, recycling or if necessary look at haul-out as an alternative to a new landfill in Collier Page 140 January 13, 2006 County. And that's where the board direction has left me at this stage of the game. With regard to knowing when we're to run out of airspace, the chart's in front of you as best I can describe it given the population and utilization factors that I described earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, knowing when we're going to run out of airspace is a valuable piece of information. It seems that along with that we need to know how far in advance of running out of airspace we need to start looking for alternatives on a permanent basis which is what I would assume somebody would want to recommend to the BCC when that milestone hits. I'm trying to figure out how to find that -- what that milestone is. Is it ten years backed up, fifteen years backed up or you just don't have an answer for that? Is that what that boils down to? MR. DELaNY: I think I was pretty clear, Commissioner, that the board has told me that we're not going to put new landfills in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then -- MR. DELaNY: I mean, I have clear record that's tell -- directs me that there will be no new landfills in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DELONY: And so with regard to then what's next -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. DELONY: -- is what's here. And what I've said and what we've done subsequent to that decision in terms of our diversion and our recycling and other areas to reduce the demand on the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your two-year capacity as it's shown now seems to have a deficit or deficiency of tonnage capabilities in the 20 -- well, originally it was 2026. Now, it's 2027, negative 181,251; is that correct? MR. DELaNY: That's the dead -- as we understand the current model of population forecast and the generation rates that are in your -- that are in your charts, that's where the math takes us. Page 141 January 13, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that is derived from a multiplier of the population and the capital disposal rate? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In 2003 AUIR the capital disposal rate was 1.22? MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2004 it was 1.24. And in the first version of this AUIR it was .90 until the population statistic changed. And when it changed it remained .90 for a week or so. Then we were issued a new document that -- with the new population statistic changed, it affected the end column. The .90 dropped to .82. Are you aware of all these changes? MR. DELaNY: Yes, I am. I'm aware of every one. You have some notes in your -- in your -- of explanation. The -- the way we get the disposal rate that you have is to look back. Originally we looked back five years of history. And then we took what that five-year history gave us and disposal per capita and then we projected that forward. With all the changes that we've had in our -- in our flow, in our management of the flow particularly with the recycling issues, you know, the last three are more indicative of what I think the future are -- is versus the last five. And so if you look at the notes of explanation, that's how you get the variance and generation rate, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've -- I've read all those. I was wondering what has the tonnage reduction been per month because of our new recycling effort? MR. DELaNY: Well, I don't have -- I told you. I will bring that out. I've only -- I'm in my 90th day, almost 100 days of that effort. I'm going to put a report to the board here in the next week or two that will outline, you know, what the success has been. And I spoke earlier that for example in the month of December, I have numbers that I haven't had a chance to really spend a lot of time on up till now that Page 142 January 13,2006 says we're at 77 percent increase in recycling what we were a year ago in the month of December at the residential level which is significant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you must have felt confident enough to know that we could drop the per capita rate from 1.24.82? MR. DELaNY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what gave you that confidence? MR. DELaNY: I just described it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What amount of tonnage on a per month basis then have we reduced going to the landfill? MR. DELaNY: I don't know. Do we have that number here? That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many -- MR. DELONY: Sir-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- tons per month have we -- have we reduced going to the landfill due to the recycling program? MR. DELONY: Sir, I don't have that number with me today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was in the paper this morning. October was 2,216 tons and November was 3,067 tons. Based on that, if you were to take the 3,067 and multiply it times 12, you'd be roughly 36,000 tons. When you go from 1.24 on a population of 381,171, that would be 472,652 annual tons buried in the landfill. Now, if you reduce that to .82 which has been done, you end up with 312,560 for a difference of 160,000 tons. I'm just wondering how you got the 160,000 tons iftoday's newspaper showed a monthly benefit of 3,067 tons per month which is only 36,000 tons a year, not 160,000 tons. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. I understand your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DELaNY: I'm not prepared to answer that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if we can drop this number to .82, we can drop it to .50 or .32. Why don't we just keep dropping it, I mean... Page 143 January 13,2006 MR. DELONY: Well, I'd love to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DELONY: My -- my -- my intent, the direction that I've been given by the board is to do exactly that in terms of our -- our __ our real program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get a reason what that __ how that number's generated, and that's what I don't seem to be able to tell you at this time. MR. DELONY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to take your population base of381,171 which is the new weighted population base that changed from the permanent, you'd have an expiration date on the two-year line capacity of 2024 instead of2027. I don't know how that effects things. I don't know how you back up to see if you -- that causes you more problems or not in regards to when you need to start looking for a new landfill. But if you did that on the ten-year capacity, you'd be out of capacity in your ten years around 2016, a mere ten years from now. And I had heard that it takes at least ten years to permit a landfill. And I just was wondering if all these numbers need to be looked at to figure out when we need to address, even though we're not allowed to do any landfills in Collier County, but we still need an alternative if our landfill is maximized out. And that was the reasoning of this questioning. MR. DELaNY: And I certainly appreciate going through it with you. The key of it is, is that the existing policy of the Board of County Commissioners is there will be no new landfills in Collier County. They have empowered me to say, okay, what's next? And the what next in terms of current assets that we have in our existing landfill are depicted in front of you gentlemen and ladies today. In terms of our utilization projecting those with the variables of trans __ of population looking 12, 15 years out in the future and what people's throwaway habits are going to be 12 to 15 years in the future, that's Page 144 January 13,2006 where we're at. The nuances of a new landfill, sir, I'll leave that to you to discuss with the board. And -- and I think I've answered your question as best I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree. You probably have. I just puzzled on how you use the .82 over any other number is still not clear in my mind and I'm -- so I guess we'll have to leave it at that. MR. SCHMITT: I mean, if -- Mark, if you're using information just recently gathered, realize that, of course, you're looking at a heavy month in December certainly because of the holidays, but also probably having to do with the impact of debris from a hurricane. So I don't know -- MR. DELONY: I just have to be careful if! might, Joe-- MR. SCHMITT: If you're extrapolating information, that probably was an anomaly. MR. DELaNY: Well, I don't know if it's an anomaly or not. I look at three and five years' worth of generation and derive a number. I looked at the last three years what the generation's been on population that's given and known. I look at what the generation was five years over the five-year period versus three. And I look at those two numbers and I try to do my very best not to over or underestimate what's going to be in the future. But I can't ignore the fact that the trend is to go down. The trend will go down I believe. I believe this county's buying into recycling. The county's buying into reuse to a level that I feel confident that this generation rate is an accurate understanding as we sit here today of what our needs and our ability to supply to those needs. The good news is we'll be back here next year having the same discussion. And so we're -- so we're -- so we can get this either too right or too wrong with regard to what we -- what we know. I feel very comfortable with what the variables are on the table to put this in front of you as the best understanding of what the capacities remain in airspace and lined airspace in terms of going forward to 2026. Page 145 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we were to use the ten-year program and the -- say, the worst-case scenario numbers were to be applied in regards to the .90 versus .82 and that we run out often-year capacity in the year 2016, does that mean that we still have two-year capacities left for another ten years? MR. DELaNY: It means exactly what you said. One chart overlays the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DELaNY: Okay. So we're out to 2026 if you're asking about how much I could put in the landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the next question I have is what you don't know how to answer but I want to state it because it's the one that bothers me -- is we don't know what we're going to do at the year 2026 and we don't know how far we have to back up from that year in order to accomplish what we're going to do. Meaning it could be a new landfill -- well, it won't be a new landfill by what you've just said. But if they change their mind and it is, the time frames to get that accomplished is what concerns me. MR. DELaNY: Right. Yeah. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The point was -- MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: -- that the landfill would not be in Collier County. That's fine. But that doesn't mean there won't be a landfill for Collier County out of Collier County. MR. DELONY: Certainly if you don't have one here, then you haul it some place else. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's what I'm saying. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And the answer is the fact that we're not going to have a landfill in Collier County, that's fine. Page 146 January 13, 2006 But that doesn't mean Collier County won't have a landfill and I think it's going to be that kind out of Collier County. MR. DELaNY: The -- that was the direction of the board of the year 2000, sir. And the idea was to not necessarily just have a haul-out strategy alone. The idea was look at an integrated strategy of reuse and diversion because, as you know, if we begin to haul out of county, our cost of doing business in terms of our collection services is going to go up significantly. One reason why we enjoy the -- excuse me. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you don't want landfills, you're going to take that given and expect to have to pay more money to do it. Too many states are doing that. In fact, states are doing that. MR. DELaNY: We enjoy some of the best solid waste rates in the state at the highest -- at some of the most significant highest level of service in the state. I mean, it's -- it's a good price that we charge in terms of comparison to our neighbors statewide and in some cases even nationwide. And one of the real strong reasons other than some real dedicated professional management by staff and help from the board and people like yourself is that we have -- we own our own landfill. There's no question about that. That airspace out there was purchased years and years and years ago when this county was not what it is today. So we're enjoying that today in terms of our rates and our services and so on. Once that resource is gone and there is not a viable alternative as we've discussed earlier, then you're kind of left where to. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: With one choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The -- all of the municipalities in Collier County use our landfill? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it's all fee based? MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's no-- Page 147 January 13, 2006 MR. DELONY: But, actually, Marco, for example, is we pick up their -- we do provide them residential service in Marco and -- and also in Everglades City as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So their way of reimbursing us is by the fees that they're charged for the service? MR. DELaNY: It's a cash-and-carry business for everyone involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's unlike drainage, they do participate in this program? MR. DELaNY: Yes, sir. Everyone in my business functions that we have were enterprised with regard to -- we've charged what it cost us to provide the service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions from the board before we go to the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know there's some people here from the public. Bob, did you want to speak on solid waste? MR. KRASOWSKI: Please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do. I got to ask you to limit your time as briefly as possible. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I have a lot to say. This is a big issue. I've been involved in this since 1985. You might want to extend my time if you want to hear all the comments I have, but let me start at the beginning and you can decide what you want or don't want to hear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Normally we allow three minutes. Start out at five and I'd like to try to get you to wrap it up just shortly after that time period. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. And -- and I appreciate that. I know sometimes I drift on my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We all do. MR. KRASOWSKI: And I'm doing it right now, so let's get to Page 148 January 13,2006 the point. The Board of County Commissioners has identified a no new landfill in Collier County as a policy. That's not a state policy. If we -- if the community decided they wanted a landfill here at some future date and time, a landfill could be placed in Collier County. I think the last time a landfill was built was '90 -- '92 in Hendry County. Okay. I have this if somebody could help me put this. I thought we'd put this on. Let me put it the right way. My name's Bob Krasowski. I'm with the Zero Waste Collier County group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name for the court reporter? MR. KRASOWSKI: K-r-a-s-o-w-s-k-i. Okay. And I'm -- I'm with the Zero Waste Collier County group. I've been at this with them since 2001 on Earth Day. Prior to this I've been involved in anti-incineration efforts, fights, if you would. That started in 1985. Then there was another push for an incinerator in 2000 when the landfill -- newly elected County Commission met on top of the landfill which is indicated on your charts. Today we don't -- we're not looking at the budget or items and such. So I -- I would just like to -- to primarily say that what -- the things you have touched on, the reduction in the per capita generation of waste includes all the waste from what I understand in Collier County. So as different variables, construction rates and things like that change, this will go down. I -- we -- and you won't hear this from the county government representatives, but we were very much instrumental in advancing the residential recycling changes and think that we can improve this rate by giving people the larger garbage can for recyclables than that other one for their garbage. It's just obvious that there's more recyclables in the waste stream than there is garbage. We were involved with the nonresidential business recycling effort. And it was actually our strategy of multiple items that was Page 149 January 13,2006 adopted by the Board of Commissioner. And now at the school -- in the school district, we, the Zero Waste Collier County group has worked with the school district now for the past two and a half years and we're getting very frustrated with this. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but we identified how they could divert 20 percent of their waste from the landfill into recycling. And actually an RFP went out for a recycling contractor that has actually started up in doing that. The school system is the largest provider of garbage to the landfill or at least -- well, they probably still are. But when you understand they have all these kids eating lunch and they have all of the teachers in the various locations around town, that 20 percent will __ will make a difference and drop the -- the rate of materials going to the landfill. Also we've identified how the school system could save $10,000 a month on -- on changing the procedures. And that -- that was two years ago. What I -- what I would just like to point out that when we reduce the rate of waste going to the landfill, we stretch out every one of these scenarios as far as how long the landfill can -- can continue. So I strongly suggest that we focus on doing that. What I'd like to get from the county is an analysis of what the value of that landfill is from 2028 and beyond. Because I think we should know that number and see how much it is worth to us to extend the life of that landfill on those terms so we can see what we might invest up front to accomplish that. Now, this schematic I put on -- on the board here represents what we presented as a strategy for waste handling in Collier County in June of 2001. For those of you who might not be familiar with what was going on at that time, the county had hired a consultant, Malcolm Pierney and they were present at the top of the landfill event in 2000. And they had come back with the solution to all our problems with an array of incinerators and pyrolysis facilities which are incinerators. Page 150 January 13, 2006 Okay. And that was the option, bum the stuff. Build an incinerator. That's still somewhat of a -- a concern and threat primarily because at the state level there's been a great effort to reduce the permitting requirements of incineration, mandate that people who want to look at new landfills consider incineration and then allow that if -- and this is in state law if you want to research it, it just passed last year -- and allow that if an incinerator in a community becomes threatened with a problem with financial viability, that their recycling program which first used to be required to be in place now only has to be in place on paper. If that recycling -- if that incinerator has a problem with the financial viability will then the -- the recycling program can be eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I got to ask you to get a to a point of wrapping it up now. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to be aware that this is an AUIR meeting. MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you have statements more relative to something we can react to in regards specifically AUIR, they might be more effective then let -- let -- take a one-minute wrap-up if you could. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, you know, it's -- I'm here today because this is part of a process, and I think this is a good introductory level. So I'd like to explain our experience, my experience in regards to this issue and just say that what has been presented by the staff represents the -- their position and the consultants that have been hired. And the consultants are very much landfill/incinerator oriented. We, the Zero Waste Collier County group come at this at a different perspective. What I would like you to do is support our efforts. What I would like to see is a one or two dollar per turn charge Page 151 January 13, 2006 on the tipping fee and then that money transferred to community organizations like us to take that and do independent research aside from their consultants so that we can look at what might be done to further enhance the minimization of materials going into the landfill. And then look at that money being spent as -- in comparison to at the end of the line there, how much further we're extending the life of the landfill. The Zero Waste -- and I'll end with this in this context -- the Zero Waste Collier County group is part of a national, international effort that opposes incineration. And this is something you have to watch out for, you know, and also we want to eliminate landfills. Zero Waste throughout the whole thing or darn close. So thanks for your attention to my comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Is there any other member of the public that needs to speak on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Comments from the board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask you a question, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In looking at the -- you did an analysis of what the loading you feel really is. Do you have any concern that maybe this landfill will hit zero in less than 20 years? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes, less than 20 years I certainly do. And, in fact, if the -- if the capital rate is not as low as predicted and based on comments I saw in the latest news article, it didn't seem to be, then we could have a problem much quicker than we're now assuming. Because you're looking at ten years out and then another ten years after that for a two-year -- three to two-year line capacity which puts us in 2026 which is barely 20 years from now. I know Page 152 January 13, 2006 from environmental prospects it lakes a long time not only to find a landfill -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to purchase it, to environmentally permit it, to go through -- I mean, all the agencies you got to go through and the facilities that have got to be built and maintained there as well. So it is a concern to me, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And even though Mr. Delony said we don't have that option, the point is the next commission may choose that option. And it's not fair to the community to surprise them with a landfill either. They should know exactly where it's going to go, so what I'd like to do -- can I make a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make a motion to approve as presented with the caveat that the commission starts to consider the fact that we don't have an endless use of this landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A motion's been made and seconded. Further discussion. I have one comment. I certainly would think it would be very important to use the most relevant data that you have and look at that newspaper article. I don't know where it originated from. I don't know who in your department or in somebody's department gave them the numbers. Whatever number's viable whether it's the ones from that newspaper article or whether it's another number that you have, you left last year at 2004 AUIR with a capital rate of 1.24. So let's look at that as a starting rate. And then with your conversion as simply as I just showed it, if you can do 3,000 tons a month less, that's 36,000 a year. You can't lower your per capita rate from 1.24 to .82 because that's far, far in excess of 36,000 tons. But see what it is. And if it is lower, that's great. But I think that information would be valuable to tell the BCC. And that's the Page 153 January 13,2006 only thing I'd like to add is -- MR. DELONY: Commissioner Strain, I don't know if I'm going to get the last word on this, but I would like to make one comment now. What you're looking at is the entire waste stream. And I don't have the article that you're referring to in front of me, but I believe it spoke strictly to the residential component of that waste stream. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- MR. DELONY: The generation rate you see in front of you talks to the generation rate for the entire waste stream which is much larger than that of just the recyclables we receive at curbside from our residential customers, a significant contribution to our thing. And then beyond that diversion I look exactly what's going into the hill. I know to the even each what pound goes into the hill. That's a requirement of permit. So I'm looking at the end of all those numbers of what goes in the hill looking back over the last three years or the last five years as historical benchmark, looking in the context as our current integrated solid waste strategy and then projecting forward what I would believe is the most probably generation rate for the waste stream in Collier County. And I will look hard at what you're suggesting, sir, but I just make sure I represent to you what you're seeing in front of you here in context of a concurrency document that we call AUIR. And -- and -- and we know there's a lot of policy and a lot of concerns and a lot of things that go into that, but in the end it comes down to a number. What's going in the hill and what's not versus what we pick up. And that's what I'm trying to predict. And in time the utilization of that airspace, so I can tell you when or if we have to get -- we have to find an alternative, go higher, what it is we have to do to accommodate to solid waste needs in Collier County. That's -- that's my job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my suggestion is simply that you drop the multiplier from 1.24 to .82. That equates to 160,000 tons -- Page 154 January 13, 2006 MR. DELONY: A year, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- check your figures and see if that is, in fact, more or less than what you saved with all the programs you got in place from the last AUIR. And if it's more, then give us the benefit of the doubt if it feels it's justified. If it's less, then change the number back again. MR. DELONY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I'm suggesting you do. MR. DELONY: And absolutely I will, sir. I promise you I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that I have no other comments. Does anybody else have a comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but I do accept what you said as part of the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does the second accept it? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. All those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's opposed. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Delony. MR. DELONY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's been challenging to say the least. MR. DELaNY: I -- I thought that's what I could say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, you're second. Page 155 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I think the folks on TV enjoyed it. It was better than the afternoon soaps. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: By the way, why don't you two guys get together and have a show every day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the way we're going to proceed. I don't know if law enforcement and jail has been notified. If they have not and they're not in the audience -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what I'd like to do before they're heard is move libraries and library books up because those folks are in the audience as part of the parks and rec team. And so if law enforcement and the jail division is listening today, we'd like to consider putting them after libraries and books which shouldn't be too much of a delay assuming we even get to that point today. MR. SCHMITT: I don't see anybody here from-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. So-- MR. SCHMITT: We'll make sure we get in touch with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, if they're not here and can't answer questions, I don't know how we can resolve our issues with them so... And with that we will continue until the court reporter shows up and then we will be taking a break. And whenever that is, I'm sorry, we'll just have to interrupt and go from there. And, Ms. Ramsey, it's yours. MS. RAMSEY: Well, I thought the way that I would start off this morning -- Marla Ramsey. I'm Public Services Administrator. I apologize for that. I thought the way that I'd start off is just talking about a couple of the changes that we've made. And I'll start with the recreational facilities. Last year's AUIR had a per capita cost of $240. And you will notice that this year we are recommending a $270 per capita standard for a level of service. The reason for doing that is that -- that Page 156 January 13,2006 as we update our impact fees, we also have gotten into the habit of updating our level of service to keep up with some inflation and the cost of putting facilities into our inventory. And the way that we've arrived at that basically $30 increase is that we went to the annual building cost index which is done by the engineering news records. We had last updated our facility cost in 2001 on this sheet. And so according to the engineering news records, there was a 1 percent -- and this is a national. This is not a local. This is a national number. But the cost for construction in 2002 went up 1 percent. It went up 1.4 percent in 2003. It went up 7.8 percent in 2004. And so far in 2005 through September when we started this process it had gone up 2.8 percent. Which is a total increase of 13 percent which comes out to basically the $40 difference that you see in the per capita. I should ask if -- if you want to take them section by section in that regard or if you would like me to continue then into the changes into the community element or how you would wish me to proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the panel doesn't object, I would like to take each section. Now, we'll vote on it as a package probably. It's all one element, but you have three separate sections, if I'm not mistaken: recreational facilities, community parks and regional parks. And it might be easier just to ask questions on each piece. Is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's proceed that way. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. Very good. The other changes that we made as -- as you know across the board is that we've gone to a weighted population. And so the numbers that you see here reflect a weighted countywide population on this particular element. As we get into another, you'll see where it's only in the unincorporated area. But this particular one is countywide facilities. Page 157 January 13, 2006 Our improvements over the next five years, we're looking at about $25 million. And you will see that we have a shortfall out in the __ about two -- about $2.8 million shortfall. And -- and let me explain why we haven't adjusted our five-year plan. Our five-year plan is done -- an update annually during the budget process. Since that update has been done, we've come in with the recommendation to go to a weighted. Our five-year plan was done on permanent basis, permanent population basis. And until we get into the next five-year cycle update, if we stick with the weighted as being recommended, then we will update our five-year plan to reflect that population number. We have not adjusted it in this process yet. And with that I think those are the changes. Oh, I should have one more change, that we are in the process of doing an impact fee update as we speak. I did receive that on Friday as a draft. So we will be taking it to the board, I believe, in last board meeting in February with a recommendation to increase the impact fees for parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on just the recreational facilities, the first five or six pages of this package up to page 44 through page 46. Are there questions from the commissioners at this point? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I -- I think you -- you said you went up $40. I think you really went up $30. You made -- MS. RAMSEY: Yes, that's correct, $30. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just to be clear. I'm -- I'm now working from notes that I made when I went through this so forgive me. Required inventory, let's see -- MS. RAMSEY: Are you on a specific page? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I -- it's page 44, but I don't know that I want to go that deep because I -- some of these things I've qualified further since the time I wrote these. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. Page 158 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me -- let me just start out by asking, what are the -- explain the impact fees for existing debt service, the bonds and loans and where do they come from? Was it the north regional? MS. RAMSEY: It's -- it's north regional, and there are some other bonds in there for other facilities that we have purchased that are still on bonds. And I believe that not in -- there is -- the parking garage is underneath a bond issue. And the North Naples Regional Park has both construction and land purchase underneath the bond issue. And I think there's still a little remaining, just a few dollars remaining from the Sugden purchase yet in that bond. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And on that same page, what are the refurbishments for 3,400,000? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. If you turn to page 53 on the very bottom. This is new this year to put in some of the elements that we feel are starting to get aged in our parks. And we're starting to look at how we're going to make improvements to that. And in -- in the bottom of that sheet in the yellow, there's a little yellow column on the bottom of that page 53. It talks about the refurbishments. And in -- we have general -- we have general journalations (phonetic), for example, neighbor -- in our parks system there are playgrounds. They have about a ten-year life span on them. And so we're now in the rotation of replacing those playgrounds that were put on about 12 years or so ago. We're in the rotation of replacing them. We also find that in some of our aged parks like East Naples, for example, the split -- split rail fences and some of the pathways and the __ even the sod itself and the garbage cans and whatnot are aged. The fences around the tennis courts and the ball fields, they all need to be __ to be upgraded. So those are general improvements that we look at as well as then some -- some facility elements like picnic pavilions and -- and things like with roofs and such. So that's what that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would be problematic in Page 159 January 13, 2006 other words? You would look at it at a -- at a piece and say this needs -- all these components need to be replaced? MS. RAMSEY: The -- well, yes, or we might look at it by function. Playgrounds, for example, which parks -- which parks need to have playgrounds replaced. And we're doing two a year now until we catch back up on it then. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you're just down to the ground and start all over again? MS. RAMSEY: Down to the ground and start all over again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Again, so that does qualify properly that. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. One had to do with weighted. Okay. My question on page 34. What caused the surplus of 16,927,820 to become a deficiency of 4,840? That would be page 34. That doesn't make sense. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Forty-four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Forty-four maybe. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Forty-four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I was blind when I was doing that. MS. RAMSEY: If you could ask me that question one more time, I'm not sure that I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to be sure I find it myself. Okay? I'm not sure it's on 44. Let's pass on that for the moment if we could, please. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- once again it's referencing page 34. I'm going to -- okay. Here. Where are the soccer fields that are in the existing inventory? It's page 55 and 56. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. Where are they located, in what parks? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Page 160 January 13,2006 MS. RAMSEY: Okay. You start on page 55. If you go across the top about three-quarter's of the way through it talks about football/soccer. You have a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have it actually. That was a question answered for myself. I apologize. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm not going to take anymore time because I -- my questions are a little too complex for me to get to you correctly. Maybe I can buy some time. MS. RAMSEY: Either that or we can do that offline if you wish to have a meeting with me and have a discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other members got any questions right now? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't, no. You go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Currently the LDC capital inventory rate for your department for recreational facilities is what? MS. RAMSEY: MyLDC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. According to the LDC you're at __ you're at 240 for capital -- per capita inventory. You've got 270. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have to change the other documents before you can utilize 270? You're going up $30 -- MS. RAMSEY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- per capita. I'm just wondering if you can do that before the documents are changed? MS. RAMSEY: I believe that -- well, I'd have to turn that over to the planning to ask them that specific question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or the county attorney. MS. RAMSEY: Or the county attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She hasn't answered a question all day. Page 161 January 13,2006 She's dying to say something. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Absolutely. Thank you. I think that we will need to do that LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then prior to the LDC amendment, can she go from 240 to 270, that would be my question? Which is no. So it's -- MR. COHEN: Can I -- can I weigh in first a little bit? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or whoever has an answer. MR. COHEN: Obviously, as part of the AUIR we're going to amend the capital improvements element as well too. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. MR. COHEN: And that figure would be reflected in the capital improvements element of the comp plan. And the LDC implements the comp plan -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's right. MR. COHEN: -- so a subsequent change should probably occur after that transpires. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's right. That's what -- yes. It would have -- I thought that's what I said that it would have to be changed in the LDC and also in the comprehensive plan once the board accepts this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the process of changing is really the acceptance of the AUIR process; is that right? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm coming from. Your facility available inventory value stayed about the same. It went up a little bit since '04 about $400,000? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the value per capita goes up, wouldn't the inventory value go up more than that, I mean, on the same kind of ratio or -- I'm just wondering how 400,000 was a nice round number it went up by, but -- Page 162 January 13,2006 MS. RAMSEY: Well, I -- that number really was reflected off of the chart. Let's see what page that chart is on for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got a chart on page 45. The first line shows a facility plan that is $400,000. So I'm assuming -- MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. And that came off of page 53. If you look on page 53, the -- the 400,000 is the new dollars that was added to our -- our inventory for fiscal year 2004/2005. But you'll notice if you go to page 55, 56 -- actually, it's 56. Because on the very bottom each year we update our cost per facility on the -- as you see value per facility the third -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see it. MS. RAMSEY: -- row from the bottom. We update that annually to reflect the cost that we are receiving locally. For example, if we know a soccer field that we just put in costs us a certain dollar amount, then we update this line in order to reflect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that affect the available inventory value? MS. RAMSEY: It -- it should reflect it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The sheet I have isn't long enough. Apparently it doesn't have all the totals on it. MS. RAMSEY: You're right. I think there is maybe a column missing in here. I think there's -- is there two columns missing on this, Randy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe that's why I couldn't figure it out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. I couldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have a break here soon. Could you look at that question; and when we get done with break, we'll come back and revisit it. I don't want to -- MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I believe -- I believe there's two columns missing on this sheet. I think there's another -- MR. SCHMITT: Page 48 are you on? Page 163 January 13,2006 MS. RAMSEY: Forty-five. MR. SCHMITT: Forty-five. MS. RAMSEY: Forty-five. We can have that conversation with one, but mine I think is missing two columns. MR. COHEN: What I'll do in the interim is I'll have somebody e-mail it to me and bring it back on up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on and we'll get back to those other questions. Your proposed CIE, last year you had 8,650,000. This year you're up to 25,150,000. And I understand the footnote, 3.4 is refurbishments; but that's still quite a jump in your CIE. And what that has done is -- you had a surplus last year of 10 million. Now, you've got a deficit too. What is the -- what is going in to that additional money in CIE? I mean, I know it's in your table, but maybe you can simplify it. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you pull up that -- MS. RAMSEY: Back to the -- we'll go back to the table and take a look. Basically we have added into that that Vanderbilt parking garage. It was an $8 million amount in there for that parking garage. We're just coming on here now in February. That's probably the biggest jump. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That explains it. The value per capita, you went back in 2004 to 2005. In the '03 we had 297 for the value per capita. Then in '04 we used it at 293. And then '05 to '06 was 282 in '04. Now, we're coming in at a different value. How do you -- how do those occur? How do you get to those values? MS. RAMSEY: Are you talking about the available inventory or are you talking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 45. MS. RAMSEY: Forty-five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The value per capita. What drives that Page 164 January 13, 2006 value? Because I thought the value per capita was the 270 that you started with on the front page. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. What -- what this is reflecting is the number available -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Surplus? MS. RAMSEY: -- surplus versus the population that we have. And then that gives you your value per capita. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Anything? Bob, did you have any further follow-up questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I realized where my confusion was. Page-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 34 that I was referring to was from '04. That was the '04 AUIR. All right. And my questions were based on that. And I'm just going to read out what I'd written here. The $400,000 increase that shows up in '05, what is it and -- and is it being built? And that's that $400,000 from when you look at page 45. It's the top item, 2004 to '05 facilities planned and capital improvement. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. It was built. It's the Sabal Palm Elementary School. We built two soccer fields and two Little League fields and lights on the basketball court and upgrades to the irrigation system at the elementary school. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the other one was a -- a question was, what caused the surplus -- again referencing last year's __ caused the surplus of 16,927,000? However, listening to Mark, I think he covered it prior with his question. MS. RAMSEY: With the parking garage. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Same -- same area. And that was it for me on that particular point. Just as a one -- one piece, the activities that are -- these are county -- all of the county recreation facilities. The plans that you had put in place last year for things like Page 165 January 13, 2006 the skate park and the rest of it, those are -- are going to remain, aren't they? I realize they're in the charts -- MS. RAMSEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that I visualize to you. But you have no plans, have you, to change any of those things? MS. RAMSEY: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: I will say that as trends change with the usage of our community, trends do change. And one of the things that we're seeing as a trend -- and I'll just use it as an example, the shuffle board. Shuffle board is not as popular as it once used to be in Collier County. But Bocce ball is becoming a very popular. And we have in, like, Golden Gate turned one shuffle board court into a Bocce ball court in order to service that need. So when you see, you know, a reference from now is probably going to reference shuffle board, slash, Bocce ball courts so we can capture that particular trend that's going on in Collier County. So that worth is still there, but it might be used for something -- something different at that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Concern was expressed to me -- and this may not be the right venue -- but a concern was expressed that with the limited number of hours of availability because of part-time staff, the potential usage was going to drop. And the result of that would be a self-fulfilling prophesy. You see we don't need any more because it's not well attended. And-- MS. RAMSEY: Never. That -- that is not a true statement. As a matter of fact, direction is given to the staff. They have a budget that they receive on annual -- on an annual basis. And we'll use East Naples Community Park as an example. They get a certain dollar amount in order to program that facility. And if for some reason they need to add ten hours to a skate park, they have the funds. They have the staffing. They can allocate staffing funds to meet the needs of the community to stay within their budget. Page 166 January 13, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good answer. I like that answer. Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on recreational facilities before we move to community parks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We can move on to community parks, Marla. MS. RAMSEY: Again, in this particular one, one of the -- there's two things that I want to talk a little bit about here and one is, of course, that we've gone to a weighted population versus a permanent population. And in this particular situation, we are using an unincorporated population number. And on the bottom of page 48, it explains in some detail how they mathematically achieve that. They, being the planning people. And we also in this particular one have gotten a little aggressive in -- in the purchase of lands, continued updating our inventory based upon what we feel is going to be the impact of the Golden Gate Estates area and the amount of facilities that we're going to have in that area. And given the fact that land is becoming very scarce, and what is available is in two- to five-acre parcels, it's going to take us awhile to put together a fairly good-sized park. And so we have put in our plan probably a little bit aggressive because we're staying way above our need to date. But we do think that we need to get ahead of it to make sure that we stay in concurrence with our -- our level of service. So those are the two things I really have in this particular area. There is one small typo which doesn't affect any figures on page 48 on the top where it talks about park acres required .0012882 is the number. And that same number then would reflect down where it actually just rolled it here. Underneath that it says, park acres required per capita 0013 would reflect 1.2882. I don't believe it affects any of Page 167 January 13, 2006 the -- and that's on page 48 again. It doesn't affect any of the figures. It's just a typographical error in the title. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Commissioners, are there any questions? Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just at the top, unless I missed it and you said it, but last year we had 485 available inventory and this year __ of acres and now we have 453. We lost 30-some acres somewhere along the way between last year and this year. MS. RAMSEY: In the community park side we -- we do lose acres periodically in our park system. We -- we lost nine acres to transportation. We lost seven acres to -- on Golden Gate High School so they could put in a turtle habitat. I think those are the two major ones that I see. And in the community park land I have 142-acre deficit from the regional park side due to losing the road Jane's Scenic Drive. When they were doing the restoration to the Everglades, we lost 142 acres in that area. So we do periodically lose lands to -- to help with utility wells or road right-of-ways or other agencies so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russell, is that the only question you had? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, I guess so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any others? COMMISSIONER TUFF: The number switched from the last time we got this to the second time we got this. We're at -- we have the proposed -- I have my notes from the last time. I don't have them for this time, so I'll just be quiet and let it go. I'll figure it out as I sit here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. Marla, the biggest thing that bothers me in this whole thing is the rise in value from 87,000 per acre last year to 200,000 an acre this year. MS. RAMSEY: Yup. Yup. That-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you provide me with an explanation of how you got to that 200,000? Page 168 January 13,2006 MS. RAMSEY: I'm going to give you my version of it. If you want real detail, I'll turn it over to Amy. But we -- we reflect the impact fee study in our numbers. The last numbers that you had was a reflection of our impact fee study three years ago which was about $87,000. This year in our impact fee study there was -- appraisal was done on 58 parcels in the general area of where our community parks and regional parks are located. And the average number for that was $200,000 per acre. That -- that probably isn't even enough to be honest with you. We just purchased a .16 acre down by Bayview for 285. And, of course, we purchased the Caribbean Garden for over 400,000 an acre. So there's a wide range of prices and lands depending on where you purchase. But that number came off the impact fee study based upon the appraisal that the consultant had done for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did that Fleishmann or Jungle Larry's you said you purchased -- that was purchased with a separate bond issue __ well, a separate vote from the citizens or was that out of park money? MS. RAMSEY: No. It -- it -- but it is part of our inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know. But the purchase itself didn't come off of your budget. It came off a separate taxing issue, didn't it? MS. RAMSEY: It came off a referendum, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's not going to show up as an effect on your budget in here other than the cost to do whatever work you've got to do there as far as operating it? MS. RAMSEY: No. As a matter of fact, that is included already in our inventory underneath the regional park lands. You'll notice -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw it. MS. RAMSEY: -- that I -- I put in 129 acres, and I put a -- I put a total amount against it, but I put ad valorem taxes as the revenue Page 169 January 13,2006 source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's get back to this 200,000 an acre. Maybe then -- I was wondering why Amy was moved to the front from the back. So she must be anticipating this. If she could explain to me what they did to get to 200,000 an acre any more than you have. I don't know ifthere's more of an explanation necessary. That's just a lot of money for -- for regional park land. And you used it for regional as well as community. And I know I wish residential property I lived on was worth that much money right now so... MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I mean, it's kind of an average of -- of semi coastal versus estate lands. And it is based upon -- and I can read it for you. One of the things that they reference here is they do say, To reflect the extremely rapid rate of land appreciation currently being experienced in Collier County, these recent sale prices were inflated by 5 to 14 percent per month depending on the area on which they were to approximate the current land costs. So land is definitely accelerating much faster than our impact fees have in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this is going to -- I know I'm going to have more questions on this. But I get started on a routine, Ms. Ford, is your -- I thought your replacement was going to come around 2:30. What's -- what's the status there? Because in get started on a line of questioning, I'm not going to want to stop. So what would you like to do? Would you like to take a break now? We still have to take another break when she gets here; is that right? Okay. Why don't we take a break now for 15 minutes and then we'll try to focus from there on out. Okay. Thank you. Be back here at three o'clock. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will still continue with the meeting. Mr. Schiffer's moved. MR. SCHMITT: Other than the precipitation, not outside, but inside. Page 170 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know this was a predictable outcome. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The court reporter's replacement still has not come. When she comes, we'll take a quick few minute transition period, I guess. And so what I'll have to do is go start into another discussion on this $200,000 per acre. And I think the easiest way for me to show the commission what I've come up with and ask Marla and Amy questions about it is to come over to the podium, and I'll use the presentation table and show you the documents I've found. And then maybe you can respond if you know how. And I'm not saying -- you may -- you may not have a response because this maybe not something you're involved with. Mr. Adelstein, if you could handle the chair. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The chair recognizes Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope so. I'm the only one in the room with a beard so. Oh, that's easy. You've got a little day growth there. In looking at the $200,000 per acre, there are some documents that led to more how that came about. My concern was if you look at our cover sheet on our AUIR, $23 million in needed ad valorem-- additional monies is attributed to the parks category. That's about one-third of the total additional need that's shown. Now, how do I get this thing to work? Here I've been here all this time and I don't know how to make it work. You notice the top line. This is from the impact fee study that was used to generate the impact fee requirements, four parts, which is in our AUIR. And that's -- the top line is where the $200,000 came from. There's a -- there's a footnote on that table. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Move it up. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a footnote on the table that references the land use study. And I just recently, thanks to Amy's Page 171 January 13, 2006 department, was able to get a copy of that land use study. And in that study it lays out what they looked at to come up with a value for acreage for regional and community parks. It stated June 24th, 2005, and it's done by Coastal Engineering Consultants. I don't even know where their address is, but in there they use a series of sites in Collier County. Eight of them to be exact. And in those eight sites, they produced evaluations based on the properties they looked at. And through this they came to a -- what I had heard earlier explained as an average to come to the $200,000 per acre. I'm not sure it's an average, but it's -- this was definitely used to get to that point. Now, one of those -- three of the areas in here are pretty high. Marco Island at 1.1 million per acre on average price. Southwest Naples at 3.1 million per acre. And North Naples at 3.5 million per acre. So I went into the body of the document to try to find out where they could have found land like that because it's land I wish I had bought when I moved here 30 years ago. Unfortunately, then I did not. One of the areas is Southwest Naples. If you notice that's the Port Royal area in the area of Old Naples area. The comparables from that area are right here. And those comparables show some lots that they used to show an acre per acre basis. And if you notice the second -- first one down, it's acreage price of 6.9 million per acre. That's a lot in Port Royal. I know we're not going to have any more community parks in Port Royal nor are we going to have regional parks in Port Royal. And maybe this is a lot that shouldn't have been used. If you notice No.3, it's even more. Number 3 in the document that I was provided, which I'm sure is the one that Amy has, are back-to-back lots on Keewaydin Island with a value of327,869. Yet in this table, the value per acre is almost 7 million, almost 8 million. And it's totaled up as an average in the bottom as part of the way they calculated the lots that they reviewed. I'm sure that of these lots, we're not going to be looking at lots for Page 172 January 13,2006 community or regional parks in Port Royal. And I really think that one as well as whatever this Lot No.3 was with almost an $8 million acreage price would be one we wouldn't be purchasing for regional or community parks. The last one on here was 3.3 million per acre and it was in Old Naples. It was off 20th Street in Old Naples closer to the water. It's another one I doubt if we'd be looking at for purchasing an area for parks either regional or community. And maybe if -- if we looked at properties that were more consistent to where we put these parks logically today, the pricing wouldn't be 200,000 an acre. Because if you look at regional parks, for example, it used to be 36,000 an acre. And today's documents are requesting 200,000. If you go into another location it was Location No.5 and actually it's up near, I believe, where Ms. Caron is up in her neck of the woods. It's in Northwest Naples. And actually it included areas along Vanderbilt Beach. Three of the references are under Commissioner Frank Halas's street. And they are at 4.5 million per acre, 3.1 per acre and 2.4 million per acre. Another one on that same area was -- they had The Moorings in that same area at 5 million per acre. And they have other homes on Vanderbilt Lagoon at almost -- one is at 4.7 million per acre and the other is 2.7 million per acre. This is not adjusted for time. This is what the sale price dictated. My issue in all of this is if we're going to raise parks recreational acreage to purchase, it ought to be on more properties relative to the areas that we purchase these in. And maybe this appraisal isn't one that we would want to use to come up with that number of 200,000. I am still mystified as to how they got 200,000 out of these numbers. Because honestly with these numbers, it could even have been higher. But nothing I found puts it together that way. Now, if you drop the three highest areas, Marco Island, I doubt if we'll be purchasing any parks for Marco Island. They have the ability Page 173 January 13,2006 as a municipality to purchase their own. Port Royal and the Old Naples and Vanderbilt Beach area, if you drop those high-end acreages out, then you get down to a much more realistic number in your acreages that you would need to purchase parks. Now, I know that we may not be able to purchase park land everywhere in the county, but it averages out. We might end up buying a lot of parks out in the rural fringe and stewardship area and Golden Gate that are not 200,000 an acre. And for those smaller piecemeal parks that we can only get -- I think Marla mentioned to me there may be a piece across from Vanderbilt Beach that we might be able to pick up. That's just a small piece of acreage. It's not that one that would be averaged in, I think, over the $200,000 total that's here. That's what I wanted to show you that I couldn't do so quickly from the podium. So I'll leave it at that point. I'll ask for questions when I get up there. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Could I ask, how did they get onto the list? MS. RAMSEY: Well, let me show you this one page again. And I'm guessing at this because I have not sat into the meetings, but I'm just -- I'm going to show you. I think you showed this particular graphic field. And I believe that the one that -- that those areas that you were talking about is that $4 million beach element. Because the board did give us direction during this last fiscal year to look to -- if we can find some pieces of property where we can either get beach access or get rest room facilities especially along Vanderbilt because we have a number of access areas. If we're able to get a lot across the street where we could put a restroom in. Or if we could maybe go down to Keywayden and get a piece of property or if we can find a beach access -- beach -- I'm sorry -- boat access area, you know, what -- how are we going to fund that because we really don't have the funding in our impact fees to do that. And I think that's why you see three levels in -- in this particular chart: $4 million for beach access Page 174 January 13, 2006 land, $1.4 million for boat access lands and the $200,000 for other regional park lands or community park lands which are inland. I think that's -- that's why you see this huge difference in it. And in this particular case, we picked the lowest of that. We didn't pick the 4 million. We didn't pick the 1.4 million. We just picked the $200,000 per acre price for this documentation. And that's the only thing that I can explain why there's such a wide range. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Marla -- and, Marla, looking at this and I doubt if anybody had -- I don't know who instructed this particular program; but when I came in, I would have assumed you'd use whatever number they recommended with it on a sound basis. But in looking at the comparables they used, I don't think we're ever going to build a park of any type within the City of Naples in the Port Royal community. MS. RAMSEY: No. I don't -- I don't believe. Our indication is that we're not looking to do that. I think that's probably where they found some recent sales that they could use as comparisons, you know, for -- for acreages. I know that in the -- in the area underneath in this section right in here, it reference two things that we purchased recently. And that was a 4.8 million for the Goodland property and 4.7 million or something to that effect for the 1.69 acres at Barefoot. I mean, the last piece of property that we bought was 1.69 acres at Barefoot in the preserve area. And it was -- it was over 4.5 million for that piece of property. And they've -- they've used that -- those two numbers to get to the access -- boat access number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand that. And if they did use those for facilities for beach parking and boating, that's fine. But then they shouldn't be used as well to -- to work up the price for the parks in the outlying areas. In fact, if you were to take out the Marco Island, the Southwest Naples area and the Northwest Naples area meaning the Vanderbilt Lagoon area, you would find your acreage Page 175 January 13,2006 price gets down to around 150,000 or less based on the other comparables -- comparables that are still in there. Anything's more reasonable than using, I think, Port Royal. And I don't know of anybody that's going to be buying land in either The Moorings, Vanderbilt Lagoon or anyplace like that. And I'm a little -- I think that you -- I think what -- we're doing the citizens a disservice by using comparables from areas that we really would never expect to find or buy property in. There's no boat ramp facilities that could go in The Moorings or Port Royal or places like that. Now, maybe someone needs to suggest that this study be done differently or maybe staff needs to define what pieces of it are really applicable to the areas that you're looking at and use those acreage counts to come up with an acreage cost that might be more realistic for where you're looking instead of areas like Port Royal. That's a suggestion that I'm just making to you as a -- as a comment. Mr. Murray, did -- did you have something else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I'm just waving to Mr. Davis -- Mike Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. I didn't even see him. With that I'll try to move on past the acreage for now. I do have some other acreage issues as we come up, not so much in the costing but in the count. In your community parks, and I probably need to ask this in reference to both parks. Unfortunately, I don't want to jump ahead, but it seems to fit both and we could save time. We have parks like Wiggins Pass State Park and we have Collier Seminole State Park, parks like that that are extremely popular. Wiggins Pass a lot of parking spaces and boat ramps and everything. Are those included in either one of your park categories? MS. RAMSEY: No, they're not and I can explain why they're not. Average -- federal state average for land per capita is ten acres per thousand population. And if you look at our two numbers, if you Page 176 January 13, 2006 add them together, they're somewhere less than the five acres per. And the reason that we have done that is because there are state lands in Collier County. And we -- we recognize them and realize that we do not need to achieve that ten-acre per thousand level of service because there are other facilities that are accommodating that. So that's why you see a lesser level of service in Collier County than you would probably see in other communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 1.2882 acres per 1,000 population and the 2.9412 acres per 1,000 population that you use are already taken into consideration that all of -- that the state and federal parks are there? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. Because of our level of service is less than you would see in other communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does it equate to the acreage of those other parks? I mean, I understand you drop them out. But say you just eliminate the use of those other parks if they were small acreage or large acreage, would it make a difference in that computation? I'm not sure I'm saying it right. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have -- if we had, say, four twenty acre parks state owned and they weren't included in here, would the number be different in those acreage per 1,000 population if we only had one twenty acre park that wasn't included in here versus the four? MS. RAMSEY: If -- if we had -- if we had included three and-- and not the fourth one or if we only had one park in our -- in our community instead of four? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only one park instead of four. MS. RAMSEY: You would probably see a higher level of service needed on the county side to provide for the recreational elements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your level-- your level of service does take into account state and federal parks? Page 177 January 13,2006 MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. And this level of service was adopted way back, I think, in the 1980s -- '82. Murdo has got the historian here, so he probably could come up to that. But when we did the bond issue and came up with the -- the level of service, that's when they were put into effect. And -- and I have done just in the last two months a check of our level of service versus Florida's outdoor recreational level of service. And their level of service is ten acres per thousand and ours is less than the five as I indicated. So they -- they -- if you added in the acreage that is in the state, we're -- we're kind of different than most communities because we have the Everglades National Park here. And although that is a recreational element, you can't build soccer fields or ball fields or tennis courts or various other elements on that. So -- so we -- we've kind of taken a middle of the road on it knowing that we need to have so many facilities and what the acres of a soccer field is, for example, how many soccer fields we think we need to have in our community to meet the current needs and then how many acres of buildable land that we need. And -- and when appropriate, we add in some of those recreational elements. For example, we added 129, the Caribbean Zoo into that because the zoo is -- is now -- the land under that is owned by the community. And it is a recreational element that is being preserved for the community. So we consider that a regional park, in essence. And then the rest of it is going to be water quality and pathways and canoeing so that's -- that also is a regional. And regional can be either active or passive. Beaches or pathways or large complexes like North Collier because they -- they attract people from a long distance. Where a community park serves a community, the Vineyards community. The Veterans Park is the North Naples community, et cetera. And the whole system has numbers of different kinds of parks in it. And our level of service is trying to accommodate all of that. And our trending as I talked to early -- earlier, we also look at participation, numbers of people that Page 178 January 13,2006 are utilizing the trends that are -- that were seen, the culture of our community. And from that we try and then determine what our need is and then we try to match those acreages to that. And so this level seems to work for us. It keeps us -- it keeps us pretty even with our land-use needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you -- are you aware that a lot of the subdivisions that are coming up through PUD process, deeded ones especially, they have a lot of parks inside them? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're very well furnished. Generally, from my experience from the people that live within those communities, they really like attending their parks. It gives them a security and concessions and other things they like. And they don't wander out to many -- at least any of them that I know to the community parks or regional parks except on a very rare occasion. Yet they're counted in your population statistic as having an impact on the regional and community. Are we taking some -- are we somewhere taking into consideration the park acreages and the facilities within gated subdivisions and things like that? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Well, yes. To address that, if you'll look at the very end of these -- these last two columns on here is where I've taken -- you can see the -- can you give me a visualizer? Oh, I don't have a visualizer. How come I can't see it. Excuse me just one second. All right. This is probably better for you. If you notice on the -- on the one side we have the listing of the various types of facilities that we -- we have on a menu so to speak. These are -- these are the types of activities that have been -- been placed inside our community in our regional parks. And off to the end of this I have listed the Florida Outdoor Recreation Guideline that was printed in 2000 and their level of service. And we'll -- we'll take, you know, baseball. Little League, for example, they recommend a level of service of one field per thirty thousand people. Our level of service Page 179 January 13,2006 that we have here is a one to forty thousand. And we're fairly consistent as we go through except for maybe in multi-use pathways. Boat ramps is highlighted because it will never meet that -- that requirement that they have there. And we use this as a guideline to try and determine whether we're staying current with the need along with the population that we have. And so I show that to you just so you see that there are some other guidelines besides what we do here in Collier County. And then from that we then know what our population is, what we have in our current inventory, what we have planned in our five-year plan, whether we have a surplus or a deficit in that area. And that helps us to plan future parks out. And then each one of those has an acreage that's associated with it. For example, a softball field is about a five acre -- you need about five acres to put a ball field out there with parking and rest room facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe I missed the understanding of it. Is -- how did you take into consideration those parks within these gated communities? MS. RAMSEY: Right. If you -- if you don't -- go down and look at tennis courts, for example. We have a ratio right now that says that we're at one to seven. But you notice that it says that we need to have 64 tennis courts in our -- in our inventory. We aren't putting in that many tennis courts currently because we know that the gated communities are putting in tennis courts. So one of the things that we're looking at, we don't have a full inventory of every tennis court in Collier County nor the number of, for example, pools. And if you notice our -- our ratio for pools -- for pools is one to one hundred ten thousand people. Where the ratio for the state is one to fifty thousand. Well, every one of those gated communities puts in a pool. They put in, you know, a little community building. They put in tennis courts for the most part. So our standards are a little different in some of those specific Page 180 January 13, 2006 things that we know that they put in. And even though it looks like we're at a deficit, we know that there's -- there's more than that in our community that's being utilized by our -- our public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see-- MS. RAMSEY: Now, one of -- one of the things that we're looking and I gave direction on a couple months ago, I guess, to staff to try and find an intern that we could bring on staff that could actually go on and pull together an inventory for us, because we think it's a very time consuming but a very interesting project for a college student to -- to determine how many tennis courts are in Collier County, how many pools we have that are -- are recreational use, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your tennis courts, for example, with a population of 450,000 which we're not at. We're at the 364,879 based on this AUIR. You need 52. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Current inventory is 43. You're nine off. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the 364, though, includes all the gated communities in Collier County. One gated community alone that I know of has 23 tennis courts or is building 23 tennis courts. Your tennis courts, for example, I don't think you can apply that way. I think you need to look at the population that would use the tennis court which -- courts -- which may be those populations outside of the gated communities that have tennis courts. MS. RAMSEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you separate it out that way then calculate the population you really need it for, you may find you have sufficient or don't need quite as many as you're predicting you use over the next five years in this AUIR, and that's where I'm trying to go with this. MS. RAMSEY: Right. Except the only other thing -- the other Page 181 January 13,2006 -- the other element in that is our current usage. And so if we know that our -- and tennis courts are used from, you know, basically eight o'clock in the morning till -- till noon and from about five until nine. And our courts are booked. And so when we see that our courts are booked, then we realize we need to add another court or two to our inventory. If we found that we weren't getting usage on those courts, that's another indicator then that tennis is not being -- is already being served in the community and we don't need to continue that particular element. We also do it off of what we call life cycling. We do programming analysis every two years. That gives us an idea what the high trends are and what the low trends are and we eliminate the low trends and accelerate the -- the high trends. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would there be a way for you to realize the amount of park land that is within gated communities so that you could at least have it out here as an applicable usage for some of the -- some of the population? MS. RAMSEY: Well, the problem with that is -- is that most of our facilities will have some auxiliary type activities like tennis courts, racquetball court, I mean, but they're in small number. The things that we find in the -- in the gated communities that are not being served are indoor -- you know, indoor recreational elements, like, basketball, et cetera, soccer fields, softball fields, you know, the baseball elements, the large sporting facility. Even if they are a gated community, they do come out into our facilities and use that. And currently right now our biggest program is soccer and then in football and an emergence of Lacrosse, some field hockey. And every one of those takes the same facility, a football/soccer field. And our inventory currently is -- is stressed. And even when we open up the North Collier, our inventory is going to be stressed in those areas. So we need -- we need to continue to be able to purchase lands that provide us buildable areas where we can put those larger Page 182 January 13, 2006 recreational elements. And I believe that the plan that I have here kind of takes us out about ten years in our acreaging. You know, when we look at the -- the number of acres that we're talking about, the -- where do we have that here, 100 and -- 240 acres I think it is in our inventory. That will take us about ten years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my point is not that we don't need parks. I just want to make sure that the need is justified through the population. You're using population as the statistics. MS. RAMSEY: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you are-- MS. RAMSEY: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I want to make sure that that statistic is the right one to use. And, obviously, apparently you're using it with other statistics as well that include more need than the population alone might do. MS. RAMSEY: Along with that $270 per capita that we -- we talked about just previous and adding those all together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. I want to just ask a question. Do you intend to remove the eight properties that Mark stated from your list? MS. RAMSEY: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The -- the properties that Mark was bringing up, I think they were eight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The properties along Port Royal, The Moorings, Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, places that are impractical to be used for valuations of park property that may not be materialized there. I think that's what you're trying -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. Are you -- are you going to remove those from the figures that you're going to adjust -- adjust? MS. RAMSEY: Well, I'm not going to personally remove them, Page 183 January 13,2006 but I do believe that -- that Amy is going to have a conversation with the consultant on that to determine what their rationale on that is in more detail. Because the documentation that Mark brought forward -- actually, I haven't even seen that one. I only have the draft report. I don't have the actual report that you -- you showed us. So I'm at a loss at that particular one. He got it before me. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The question is obviously in my mind, those figures are well above the cost of a normal acre that you're going to use to support that. MS. RAMSEY: Right. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I don't think we should get along with these type of numbers and just throw them in because obviously you're talking about sometimes four to five times as much money here as you would be able to buy them at a normal rate. MS. RAMSEY: Well, I'm going to ask the consultant how he came to the $200,000 nexus that we're using here. To determine whether he truly did use those, I feel he used them in the $4 million element and didn't use them in -- in the 200,000. But if Mark feels that that would be a different ratio, I'm going to ask them to relook at their figures and see how they came up with that and -- and ask them to explain that to us in a little more detail so we will be better able to answer your questions in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's where my questioning started when I asked you how you got the 200,000. Everybody pointed to the impact fee study -- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the park land study. I can't figure out the connection. And that's why I asked you. And you-all say it came from that land study, that's why I showed everybody that-- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the land study had some questions that I still can't figure out. And I think they need to be resolved before Page 184 January 13, 2006 you use 200,000 an acre so... MS. RAMSEY: I think that's a very good point and we definitely will ask the consultant to give us that information so as we move forward we will either be able to support that or not. MR. COHEN: Mr. Strain, might I also add on this issue will be vetted as part of the impact fee presentation -- MS. RAMSEY: Correct. MR. COHEN: -- to the Board of County Commissioners in March. And not only that, you'll revisit this when it comes back in the form of the capital improvements element. So you get a second bite of the apple with respect to this. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can't approve it at the 200,000 figure now. I mean, ifthere's nothing going to be done, in my mind I can't approve $200,000 for this type of purchase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we get to the point of making a recommendation, we can -- certainly can form a recommendation that -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that will take it somewhere and go from there. On the community park land summary sheet that you've provided, Commissioner Tuff started touching on it. In 2004 we had 485.1 acres of community available inventory. Now we have 453. That's a 30 -- what, 32-acre loss. I know you explained some of the acres. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's assume that -- that loss is -- it is what it is, and there's pieces lost over various time from growth -- examples like you provided. The required inventory that you have down below to the next five-year period is 535. MS. RAMSEY: Which page are you on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 47. Page 185 January 13, 2006 MS. RAMSEY: Forty-seven. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That means between the 453 and the 535, there's 82.4 acres needed. Now, you're calling for 187. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 100 acres more. How do you reason that? How does that come into play? MS. RAMSEY: Supply and demand. That's all -- that's all I can say is that currently there are no large tracks left. We tried to hook up with schools as they're going in. As a matter of fact, what I have -- we have been somewhat aggressive in purchasing lands to this point. We do have 60 acres undeveloped down in the Manatee area. We have 110 acres out on -- in the Golden Gate Estates area. We feel that as we move forward and we're looking at our horizon study or the east of 951 study, the amount of lands there and in Immokalee that we are going to need in the future as we grow. Whether it's 750,000 or -- or 1 million people here in Collier County, we're going to need to keep up with that level. And so we're suggesting that we start to look at those lands today rather than waiting for five years or ten years out when they'll be either more expensive or nonexistence. And that's our recommendation as a staff as we look to try and get the lands in the inventory while we still can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we can get them in for less than 200,000, it would make it a lot more palatable. MS. RAMSEY: Well, I would -- I would hope that as we went out that -- that we have a little buffer there and that we are able to find some lands that are much less than that. Although they are starting to creep in that direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other thing that's happened is we've been able to get developments to cooperate with providing lands in certain instances. Does your department review the PUDs and documents that come through? Page 186 January 13,2006 MS. RAMSEY: Yes, we do. And one of the things that -- that we are having some issues with is we talk about playgrounds. If you notice my playground number here is just offby 16. And -- and we don't count -- we haven't counted each one of them that are currently in our PUDs, but that's what I want the intern to do as well. But we have been asking developers to put playgrounds into their -- every single PUD that's come through our area, we have asked for two things: sidewalks on the front and inside their communities as well as a playground within their community. To that degree we've been very successful in providing that. Even though it's not a requirement, they have to have some kind of recreational open space. They can choose other elements, but they've been very receptive to adding that playground in. Because as we move forward, we do not put neighborhood parks in our -- and that's why you don't see a neighborhood park element here in this even that is a segment of our system. Neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks because we require those PUDs to put in those neighborhood parks. And those -- those facilities that you talked about earlier with the little pool and the -- and the playground and a basketball court and a tennis court, we look at that as being their neighborhood park. And we are only providing neighborhood parks currently in older neighborhoods. Like along Oaks Boulevard we're doing one right now. We've done two or three in the Golden Gate area, Golden Gate City area, Willoughby Acres, et cetera, in the older areas that didn't have that in place prior to. And the goal would be that you would have a neighborhood park according to this statistic. Every quarter of a mile you would have a park site. That's -- that's the dream amount. We won't receive that, but that's why there's not a neighborhood park in our inventory is we -- we really look to those PUDs to pick -- to pick up that particular element. And then that's why when you were kind of talking about adding that into our inventory, it's really a separate standard that we currently Page 187 January 13, 2006 aren't including in our level-of-service requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the purpose for adding it in is simply to show that the population that is served by other means other than just the couple that are shown here. Another thing that I think would be handier to do -- I don't disagree that the property along the beach if available is going to be a higher price than inland. But if it's specifically for a beach purpose and you can separate out regional park land, community park land and even neighborhood parks to a point, why couldn't you have a separate AUIR facility summary form for beach parks? And then for that amount of beach park that the commission feels it needs to be established, they can separately address it at that value and not weight the entire county with that horrendous value strictly for a beach parking or beach facilities. Is that something that could feasibly be looked at? MS. RAMSEY: We looked at that two years ago in 2003. If you looked at the history, we tried to separate out into what we considered a beach level of service. It went down basically in flames because it was going to be very difficult to maintain that level of services. Our community continues to grow. There's probably some other creative ways of looking at that level of service. We looked at it as parking spaces at that point in time. But as we move forward, we might want to relook at that, but we have taken that to the Board of County Commissioners. And at this point, we don't have that policy direction. We have lumped that into kind of our TDC impact fee element; and through our beach and boat access plan that we have our master plan, we do have direction to seek out those lands. We have not been very successful at that. And we do have a small pot of money from TDC that we can utilize and try and leverage that and some bonding capability to make it happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When that occurred in 2003, and if you recall I pointed it out at last year's AUIR -- MS. RAMSEY: Yup. Page 188 January 13, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it was my understanding it was established and done based on the responses I got for a -- for a creation of an impact fee to address beach parking and beach needs, beach facility, beach access needs. I'm not saying use it to create a new impact fee. I'm simply saying use it as a new element with -- not necessarily -- element might be the wrong word because this whole book's an element, but use it as new category of parks to show the need separately than the need of the other parks so that your acreage price of your other parks isn't so horrendously influenced by that of beach access -- beach areas. MS. RAMSEY: And that -- and definitely I agree we need to look at that. And, again, I want the consultant to look at that to see if it truly did inflate the 200,000 acreage by putting the beach access stuff into that. And -- and I definitely will get you that answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And why don't we take a -- is it appropriate, Ms. Ford, we'll take a five-minute break so she can switch over? Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) Page 189 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have a mike? Thank you, MR. SCHMITT. Before we go further into discussion, one thing that has come up is we're not going to get through this this afternoon. The Category B facilities actually have some more intense questioning than the first ones have had, so I can't see them getting done quickly. What is the preference for this commission to continue this meeting and how long tonight do you want to go? I'm open for as long as you all want to stay here. There is some concern about another date because this is being pushed to get to the BCC quickly. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How is Tuesday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a Tuesday afternoon date starting at one o'clock as a possibility. If that is something that this board would like to entertain, that's fine. But we still have to make sure that -- we still have got to have a cutoff date for today. And so I'll open it up for discussion. What would you guys like to do? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: First of all, I would like to know if there is a Tuesday available. Meaning not to him but to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can be here Tuesday. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I can be here Tuesday. MR. SCHMITT: The first thing I'm checking is the 17th. COMMISSIONER TUFF: What? He said the 18th, not the 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the 17th. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Seventeenth. MR. SCHMITT: If we do it the 18th it would have to be out at Horseshoe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can be here up 'til around 2:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On which day? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the 17th. Page 190 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an hour and a half. We can't start until 1 :00. MR. SCHMITT: This room will not be available until one o'clock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, please, guys. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tuesday, Wednesday, I can't do. Thursday we're here so I can stay later on Thursday. Friday I can do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a schedule. I'll just change it if I have to but it doesn't appear to do any good for Tuesday because we don't have a quorum. On Wednesday it doesn't look like we have a quorum either. So that leaves Thursday afternoon after our regular meeting. We have six or seven agenda items, some of them may go quick, they are boat docks. MR. SCHMITT: I know you have Rock Ridge PUD. MS. STUDENT: I-75, Alligator Alley and Sandalwood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, if we could look at -- and Joe, would Thursday afternoon still fit into the schedule that you need to meet? MR. SCHMITT: If you defer to Thursday I need to change the board meeting. I have no option because I will not have time to compile changes, summarize your -- basically, I need to get the information to the Board so they have time to review it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, the Category B facilities, there are a lot of issues there that need to be discussed, so I would think there would be changes as a result of discussion from -- on those Category B facilities. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did we rule out Monday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Monday is a holiday. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Joe, would the Board see it in two sittings too or would they see it -- MR. SCHMITT: I suspect not. I would -- what the Board has done in the past, we have gone right through this, and unless certainly Page 191 January 13,2006 they have issues but it -- right now it's planned to be a special meeting and we're looking at -- it's scheduled at 9:00, scheduled from 9:00 to noon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On what day is it scheduled? MR. SCHMITT: The 25th of January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, guys, if you don't get it in on Tuesday or Wednesday that means you have to defer the BCC hearing, right? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. And that's something that is going to be between the chair of this planning commission and the BCC chair because I am fixed on the 25th for the Board meeting, and I need guidance from the -- from my boss and from the manager and basically from the chair as to whether or not that meeting will move agam. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, how late can we go today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's Friday night. As far as I'm concerned we can go to midnight, but I'm not sure anybody else is going to be in agreement with that. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, I could stay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'd stay until midnight? Okay, we've got two for midnight. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would do that too, if you need to. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll stay until 9:00. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Are you sure we didn't have a quorum for Wednesday? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I would be available Wednesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would be available Wednesday. Russ would be available Wednesday. What about you two? Page 192 January 13, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we're back to four. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not -- I don't think you can count on anybody that's not here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You do have a new board member you could pull out of the woods that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would like to do, fellows, let's just try moving forward and see if we can start picking up the pace on this. I know it's my fault. I'll do the best I can to ask the questions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You can't change your style, you've got to do this properly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Faster. Maybe, with the board's permission let's just keep going on until later this evening -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And see where we get. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In about another couple of hours we'll talk about it again, we'll give Lynn a break and we'll decide what to do about dinner; and if we work through dinner, it's okay with me but it may not be okay with everybody, so we'll have to proceed. Let's just keep going at this point. I was working on the community parks. I'm finished my questioning but let me follow up with any of the members that haven't. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Marla, I just, checking on a couple of things. You know it goes back to that $200,000 an acre thing. And we are less 32 acres over the prior year and I don't recall whether or not those are acres that were sold or what happened to them. Were they sold? MS. RAMSEY: Some have been sold and -- all of them have been sold. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you happen to know Page 193 January 13, 2006 whether they sold at anywhere near $200,000 an acre? MS. RAMSEY: Oh, no. Oh, no. These were sold probably about 35,000 an acre. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that was the old number, the old price, as it were. MS. RAMSEY: Well, actually, I can't tell you what the Randall transportation one went to because transportation actually bought that off of the Golden Gate Land Trust. I'm not sure what they paid for that one but the school board paid about 35,000 for it. I lost the other one in inventory without reimbursement because it was in inventory but it wasn't -- it was a gift to us, not a purchase. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you know on the revenue side with the airport park dedication, that was seven acres at 200 grand, that's fourteen -- one million four. MS. RAMSEY: But that actually comes in as a lease. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a lease. MS. RAMSEY: That's a lease that we're doing there so we look at that as a wash, so to speak. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wouldn't have expected -- are dedications typically leases? MS. RAMSEY: It's a 20-year with the airport authority out there, just in case, if things start to boom in the Immokalee area they want to be able to pull that seven acres back from us. So it is a lease that's in our inventory during that period of time that we have a lease for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we're valuing it at, that's at 200 grand. MS. RAMSEY: We're valuing it at -- all of them are valued at 200 grand because that's the number that we have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be the end of my question but just this last comment. That has kind of proved to be something important to us, I suspect. Page 194 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ramsey -- MS. RAMSEY: We acknowledge that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you mentioned that some of this acreage was sold that we find is different from '04 to '05. Where has the revenue stream from that gone, because I don't see it on there -- is it on this chart somewhere, the summary form? MS. RAMSEY: No, it's not on the revenue element here but if it was an impact fee element it went back into our reserves. And as I've explained in the Randall property that was a gift, that was a donation to us, and when the -- transportation bought that off the Golden Gate Land Trust, that money actually went to the Golden Gate Land Trust, not to us. So there was no revenue stream there to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're talking about 32 acres, so we don't know how much of it was moved to other departments, that actually the revenue didn't go back into the land trust. MS. RAMSEY: It -- yes, it did go into the land trust. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All of it, all 32 acres? MS. RAMSEY: No, not 32 acres of that, it's probably ten or so acres of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other 20 acres or 22 or whatever it is that was sold, where would the revenue have gone from that? MS. RAMSEY: Went into impact fees, because that's how we buy our land. Not all of it has been sold, some of it is still sitting in limbo. It's hard to explain, but the school board only owes me a few acres of land that -- they've paid me a few acres of land and we're working on some land swaps, better location for us, better location for them and so -- we've got a few that aren't on this list because I don't have an actual place for them. But they are sitting in reserve for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said it goes back into the impact fee. What does that mean? I mean you have an impact fee anticipated, 12 million eight oh eight. Is that less already the amount Page 195 January 13,2006 of revenues generated from any acreages that are missing between '04 and'05? MS. RAMSEY: It goes into a reserve fund. The impact fee element here is based, $12 million as our future. There is a revenue, there is usually a reserve that follows until you finish a project and then if you have any savings or whatnot it will continue to roll into that impact fee fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why do you put revenues generated from sale of parks property into an impact fee fund? Why wouldn't you -- I don't understand why it would go into that fund. I'm a little puzzled because impact fee funds are generated from impact fees. MS. RAMSEY: But it was purchased from impact fees. I don't know, maybe the attorney can help with this element of it, but if it was purchased with impact fees, if there is an issue that I have to reimburse that impact then I have to go buy some additional land to make up that difference, so it wouldn't go into an ad valorem, that would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. You didn't say it was purchased with impact fees. So all of these 32 acres then were purchased with impact fees. MS. RAMSEY: Some of them are donated, and the donated one I didn't get anything for, remember, I got no cash for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sold it for nothing? MS. RAMSEY: The Golden Gate Land Trust donated us 47 acres. Transportation needed ten acres in order to do Immokalee Road. They went to Golden Gate Land Trust and said we would like to buy 10 acres of it because it's truly not our land, it had been dedicated as being put into reserve for the parks and recreation department. Golden Gate Land Trust sold 10 acres of that land to transportation, which means I had to remove that 10 acres from my inventory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let me ask this, maybe this January 13, 2006 will simplify it. Any lands that generate revenue on a sale, if it's not going to back into a donated party like the trust fund that gave it to you, it's either going to be impact fee lands generated from the purchase by the purchase of impact fees, and if that's the case it goes back into the impact fee account. If that's not the case and it's from an ad valorem, it goes into the -- it's shown as a revenue to the ad valorem. MS. RAMSEY: That's my understanding, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm trying to go. And lastly -- I know Mr. Adelstein has got a question -- but if you died, who would know about this deal you've got cooking with the school board? MS. RAMSEY: The school board knows it. Murdo knows it. It's documented. They owe us three acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that show somewhere in this AUIR? MS. RAMSEY: It doesn't show in this AUIR. It doesn't show here that it's removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's about 3 acres, we're talking $600,000. MS. RAMSEY: We could but it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My point exactly. Mr. Adelstein, you have a -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do. You sold this property for approximately $38,000 and it goes into different places. Starting next year are you going to sell it for $200,000? MS. RAMSEY: We do it off of appraisal. We buy off appraisal and would sell it off appraisal. And normally my sales are internal. My sales are normally only to, like, a utility so they can put in a well, transportation because they needed a road right-of-way. Rarely do -- I don't even know of anytime that we've sold it to anybody other than a government entity. Page 197 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But the point is last year you sold it for what the value was, $38,000. MS. RAMSEY: The appraised value, that's correct. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Appraised value. I was questioning whether you were going to use the appraised value if you're using the $200,000 in this next coming year. MS. RAMSEY: We would use appraised value every time we do a purchase. Depending on one appraisal or two appraisals, depending on the cost of the lands. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But it would not necessarily be $200,000. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if! understand here, I'm looking at revenues, it says impact fees anticipated, you've defined that. MS. RAMSEY: Uh-huh. And that's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Defined the airport park, and we have other revenues of zero, and I don't see any indication here that we carry an account for impact fees or any increase to impact fees as a result of transactions. Shouldn't we do that? Shouldn't we reflect the amount of money that is like a carryover? MS. RAMSEY: If it's not dedicated. Most of my impact fees are dedicated for some project already. These dollars that you see on this spreadsheet back here, they are already dedicated in this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'm referring to sales, I'm referring to those transactions where there's -- MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, there's very few of those, there's few of those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So -- okay. MS. RAMSEY: It's just -- it's in the revenue for impact fees. It's not separate. Page 198 January 13, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. But the reason I asked that question is because you clearly said that the 12.808 was anticipated. That's all future. And the other monies -- MS. RAMSEY: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that were returned to the impact fee account I just wonder wouldn't it be good to put whatever it is that you derived in that kind of revenue or income to be shown. Because, obviously, ifthere is a shortfall you're going to be looking to make it up in millage or some other form, in your case impact fees. MS. RAMSEY: It couldn't -- and maybe isn't on this particular one because it's already been utilized and allocated to something else, so there isn't another revenue stream. I mean, we have an impact fee stream with an, you know -- anticipated for a CIE and you have some reserves that will roll forward that can be utilized for the projects that are already on the five-year plan, they're already dedicated that way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand you and I don't think there is anything going on that's wrong, it's just that it would be from an accounting point of view it seems reasonable to have all of the pieces. Maybe this is not the right document for that. MS. RAMSEY: This is basically a planning tool. This is an accounting sheet. This is more of a planning tool. It gives you a rough number at whatever point in time we've wrote it in our best guess of what we think our impact fees are going to be. Again, remember we are going to take this impact fee forward into February, 1st of March, so this doesn't reflect any increase in it either. This is what we anticipated based upon our current -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're only looking forward. MS. RAMSEY: -- impact fees, on the current approved impact fee structure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Marla, just to cut to the Page 199 January 13, 2006 chase here, could you walk me down the trail that winds up where you need 23-plus million ad valorem. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. On this particular one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, first of all, is that number only Category A or does that include some Category B? MS. RAMSEY: No. Everything in parks is a Category A. This sheet is only community park lands, and it's based on the projection of 187 acres that we're looking to purchase times $200,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Show me what page I'm at agam. MS. RAMSEY: Well, on 47 you'll see the expenditure revenue lines. On Page 48 you'll see the acreages, we've got them in 60-acre increments. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm safe from accounting hall of fame so walk me through. On Page 47 -- MS. RAMSEY: On 47? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- which line is it that we're carrying? MS. RAMSEY: If you look at the proposed '06 to '10 expenditure dollars of $37 million, we then have our anticipated revenue impact fees of 12. We have the value of the airport park, which is part of that 180 acres of seven acres, so we reduced that out of that, which leaves us 14 million on that particular element. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So if you -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Why don't you bracket it? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So all of that is community park lands. MS. RAMSEY: Community park lands, 187 acres proposed in the next five years, and then 60 acres in the next five years, for the total of 247 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so worst case situation if Page 200 January 13,2006 you don't get the impact fees you are requesting; correct? MS. RAMSEY: Ifwe didn't get impact fees we would hope to adjust the timing, for one. You know, we aren't in a shortfall in community park lands at this moment to take us into a moratorium, so if we needed to we could bump back a year. But again, we're still looking, because we think land is going to be short in coming, that we should be aggressive in purchase. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And on 49 is the chart showing how you are merging those purchases and over the five-year period? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. The blue line is population standard and then our community park requirements per population. And then you see we're above the line, so we got a little closer to 2015. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Marla, your use, in between 2000 and 2005 you had an average annual grant funding of $520,000. That's a revenue source. Do you have that anywhere in here? MS. RAMSEY: That is a construction element, and I know they are using the impact fee as an annual element. They are very rare to come by, sometimes we get lucky. I don't like to put the grants in there, but they do, because there's no guarantee over the next five years I'm going to receive the same amount or the level that I have in the past. They use historical data in order to generate that, and if we do, it is included in the 270 per capita, that's where we get it from. But there's no guarantee that we have it and I have no grant in right now for -- at this point in time we will be submitting a grant for the Caribbean Garden coming in May, but at this point in time there is no grant even on the books. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any annual beach access funding from the TDC credits? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. We get the $2 million that puts into a Page 201 January 13,2006 fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does that show up on here? MS. RAMSEY: Some of it is regional in nature, if you go to regional park. I don't know if you want to skip to that one now or not but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could show me where that is on regional park. MS. RAMSEY: It's under 50. And I already placed it in regional park lands, the number of acres of lands that we think, that we have an eyeball on that we would like to get in the next five years that we think is a realistic purchase, is the 1.25 acres over by Wiggins Pass. And we've allocated $400,000 because that's $200,000 times, basically, 2 acres to TDC funding. It's under revenues, the last line item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see it. According to the impact fee analysis, annual beach access funding is $2 million. You are not going to use all of the funding? MS. RAMSEY: No. I have to payoff -- the Vanderbilt parking garage comes out of that 2 million as well as additional dollars to maintain and keep up facilities at the beaches as well as some clean-up at those beaches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the parking garage is an expenditure, shouldn't you show this as a revenue source for its full value? You're only showing $400,000 of TDC funds in the regional. That means you are missing 1.6 somewhere. MS. RAMSEY: Well, because it's not all-- it doesn't all go toward land purchase. On this particular piece of paper that we're looking at for regional park lands, it's just land purchases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I missed it on recreational facilities then. MS. RAMSEY: And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where would it be on recreational Page 202 January 13, 2006 facilities? I mean, it's got to be one or the other, right? MS. RAMSEY: It's not on the facilities even-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. RAMSEY: -- but, yes, we probably need to place that on there in order to help offset the $15 million debt. I'll have them look at that, talk with budget on that. There probably is some funding, about a half a million dollars a year of TDC funding that goes onto that debt service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your impact fee analysis said there was 2 million a year -- whatever it comes out to, it should be shown somewhere is what I'm trying to say. MS. RAMSEY: It's 2 million a year, but a lot of it's done for refurbishment and not for growth related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got 3.4 million in refurbishment expenses, then it should come off that. MS. RAMSEY: It only can come off of it if it's beach related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then as long as someone uses all they can, that's what I'm getting at. Show it where you can. MS. RAMSEY: Not only that, though, but we also do want to squirrel, is the word I like to use, squirrel away because our purchases in beaches are extremely expensive, and when we get into the shuttling of the -- if we can get to the shuttle from the Bayview to the Keewaydin, we have a dock to build, we have a boat to buy, we've got, you know, some other elements that are associated with that. So we do need a fairly large pot of dollars so we don't have to finance that project as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why wouldn't you just show a reserve fund then? MS. RAMSEY: In the TDC it would, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can move on to the regional parks if that satisfies the rest of the board. Anybody have any questions before I start mine? Page 203 January 13, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll move on. First of all let's -- we've already discussed the acres thing -- MS. RAMSEY: Yup, we got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep going past that. Last year we had 904 acres in 2004. This year we've got 993. So we've picked up about 90 acres in regional parks. I thought I heard earlier in your response to Mr. Tuffs questions that we lost 140 acres, so -- MS. RAMSEY: Over a period of time, yes, we have. If you look at the sheet on Page 54. We actually -- we use this sheet not only for the AUIR but we use this for our own memory bank, if you will. This one is one that we developed back in 2002 and we keep adding to it, we keep the '02 number on the top so we can have some historical data of what has happened with the lands. If you notice at the top that in 9/30/02 we have so many acres community park lands, so many acres of regional park lands as our base, and then as you go off each year, it will either increase or it will decrease depending on what happens to us during that particular year. And so, in '03/'04 is when we actually lost the 142 acres for the scenic drive. And in '04 we added.8 acres down in Bayview, basically nine lots that we purchased. And we received a 90-acre lake out at Orangetree as part of negotiations with Mr. Paul on his PUD, planned unit development. And you can see that in '05 we've looked at, we would like to get that Gulf Shore Drive quarter-acre lot if we can; looking at the 3-acre purchase down at, in Goodland, the Margood parcel; and the 129 acres of the Caribbean zoo have been added to that inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: The only thing -- the weighted population -- and you probably said this and I wasn't paying attention maybe -- but in the 2002 it said we needed 1,016 acres for inventory, Page 204 January 13, 2006 required inventory, and then last year's said in the year 2009 we'll need 1,121, and we needed another 200,200 acres for the next year. So I'm wondering, did that -- MS. RAMSEY: Are you talking from '04 to 'OS? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes, just looking at what was required from '02 to the fifth year and now it's -- and then now it's gone up again another 200 acres from last year to this year. MS. RAMSEY: Well, it was permanent population last year and this year it's weighted. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So that formula to get to that number, did that change also? MS. RAMSEY: No. That formula would be population times your level of service. It would be the same. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So that 200 extra acres is just some weighted -- MS. RAMSEY: Just become weighted from permanent; that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Required inventory under regional parks this year is 1325. The available inventory is 993.9. That's a difference of 331, which is a need that we're short. Proposal is 837. That's about 500 acres more proposed to purchase over the next five years than the need requires. Again, I understand your philosophy on that but I want to make sure everybody understands if you were to use your acreage cost for the 331 acres that are needed, you would end up spending a hundred million dollars less in tax funds. So-- MS. RAMSEY: Let me help with that, though, before we go down that road -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MS. RAMSEY: -- because during the restoration for the Everglades, Collier County gave up the roads out there; and as part of that exchange, South Florida Water Management has been required to Page 205 January 13,2006 give us 640 acres that can be utilized for A TV elements, and that land is due by October of '06. So that 640 acres is included in this 837 that you see on this list and it will be, you know, basically given to Collier County, that 640 acres. And so we've given ourselves, basically, a credit on this sheet of 128 million, because that's times $200,000 per acre. So we're not actually buying that piece of property; it just happens to come in, a large amount of that is coming in, hopefully, by the end of this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you propose CIE be 640 acres instead of 837 because the 640 is double what you're needing. MS. RAMSEY: Well, because that particular element is being utilized specifically for one recreational area and when we look at our various properties -- let me get to the right sheet, excuse me just a second. You can see if you look at the '04/'05 on our weighted year on a deficit of 44 acres. Weare including in there the 640 acres which we hope we're going to receive by October of this next year. And if we don't, then we will be in a larger deficit as we move forward with this. So what we have looked at is some other properties that the county currently has in inventory to give us a buffer, and that would be the 54 acres of the fairgrounds for one out there. There is 9 acres of Rookery Bay property that we have included in there that we're working with Rookery Bay for a joint use, land owned by Rookery Bay but recreationally being provided by Collier County Parks and Recreation. And then the real purchase that we have is Bayview. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I met with Gary Lytton yesterday because I have been working on that same site not knowing you were. He doesn't know you are either. MS. RAMSEY: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I told him-- MS. RAMSEY: -- I've been working with his staff. Page 206 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was there with the civic association yesterday. I pointed out to Gary that this -- he said he doesn't know why it's here, he's been trying to work something out with Collier County but he says Collier County has been unresponsive. MS. RAMSEY: Well, no, that's not true. It's a little more complicated than that, and I don't really want to discuss it on the dais, but our goal is to try and have an interlocal agreement with Rookery Bay by June of this year that's going to encompass Shell Island Road, that particular parcel that we're talking about now as well as something over at Keewaydin. And I have met with Mr. Lytton about four times on this project, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to break the news to you but I don't think it's as far along as you think it is, and I would highly recommend that somebody from your department contact him and move forward quickly because there is a strong urge from that sector of the county to see that park happen. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have been trying to figure out a way to do it but there's been no -- honestly -- MS. RAMSEY: We've been in the planning stage even with WilsonMiller and they have put out the plan, and I know that Rookery Bay is a little concerned about how advanced that particular plan is and they might want to scale that down, but we've committed to giving them maintenance on that facility, cutting the grass, emptying the garage, cleaning the restroom facilities and doing interpretive out of that particular site, so I'm not sure why he's not in that particular loop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WilsonMiller plan's in my vehicle. I've used it to estimate. I've also produced a phasing plan for that particular park, none of which I understand your department has been involved with or contributed to the discussions on. I specifically brought it up for discussion yesterday with Mr. Page 207 January 13,2006 Lytton and there was absolutely, from his point of view, nothing in the works with the county although he says he's been trying. So I don't know, but maybe at some point, since I am involved in this, after this meeting you could have your contact contact me so we can try to figure out how to move forward. I'm trying to see that go forward. It's a very valuable site, a good kayaking site. It would be very advantageous to the community because there is not another one like it. Anyway, this certainly is a different perspective than I heard yesterday. Back on regional issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While you are flipping pages there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wasn't that 640 acres the one that was supposed to be made available in April? MS. RAMSEY: My understanding is October of'06. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the ATV site, correct? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was a slip date. It may slip agam. MS. RAMSEY: Yes, there are issues there that I have to deal with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a pollution issue there, right? MS. RAMSEY: -- that I have in my inventory. But there are issues, that's correct, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your five year capital improvements plan you dropped two tennis courts in Pelican Bay. Why did you do that? MS. RAMSEY: Only because we're just not ready. We don't have the -- we don't think we have the usage there yet to go forward with that particular project, and so it's being moved out a little farther Page 208 January 13, 2006 until we can bring it up. As you know we've just recently taken over that facility from the consultant that was there and we're trying to rebuild that program up, and we're going to give it a couple more years before we look at it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have improvements to Jungle Larry's Caribbean Gardens in '09 and '10, a million each year; it's phasing in of a regional park. And on the summary sheet you've got revenues from 129-acre Caribbean zoo, 25 million bucks. Out of all these, what does all of this mean in regards to the Caribbean zoo, you are not going to have any maintenance costs or modifications -- MS. RAMSEY: This has nothing to do with operations, this is capital. The first page we're talking about for regional is just purchase of regional park lands, and the sheet you are looking at on the back is actually related to the $270 per capita facility costs, the development of them, two separate areas, and there is no operation in this document whatsoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the 25 million on the summary page represent? It's under revenue. MS. RAMSEY: Which summary page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 50. MS. RAMSEY: Page 50 -- which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 50. It says ad valorem 129-acre Caribbean zoo, 25 million eight hundred. Where does that number come from? MS. RAMSEY: That's 129 acres times 200,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that the one we just paid 40 million for? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we lost 15 million already on paper? MS. RAMSEY: This document is based upon units per 200,000 and that's how we've reflected that. Page 209 January 13, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or the 200,000 is low. MS. RAMSEY: Two hundred thousand is low because it's 400 and some. I'm sorry, can't have it both ways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it 129 acres for the zoo, is that how much the county is going to retain or does that include the wetlands and the Gordon River water quality park -- MS. RAMSEY: It's all of that. No, not the Gordon River quality park. This is on the south side of the Golden Gate Parkway and it's 129 acres that we purchased of 166 acres available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How much did they actually pay for it? MS. RAMSEY: 42 million, somewhere in that area, yes -- about 42 million I think it was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like I said earlier, that $200,000 figure is going to have a problem. MS. RAMSEY: Well, it's -- either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We bid ourselves up. Page 54, this is your park lands acquisition summary? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The following pages after that, if you turn to Page 56 you'll see a number in red at the bottom of the fourth column: 1486. That seems to be the total acreage; is that correct? MS. RAMSEY: That's total acres of all of the park lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. If you go back to Page 54, your starting acres, if you add those two together it's 1504. The difference is land that you've lost due to various reasons; is that fair -- MS. RAMSEY: No, because the starting land here is back at '02. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I know. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In '02 we had more land than we do--sMS. RAMSEY: That's correct. Page 210 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in '05. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But on Pages 47 and Page 50, if you take the totals from those two pages of park and regional you end up with 1447. Now, all these numbers are different. If you turn to Page 47 -- MS. RAMSEY: I spent a lot of time looking at all these numbers and they added up when I did them. We spent hours doing this to make sure, right down to the tenth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind redoing it now. You add Page 47 and Page 50 and the numbers I'd be getting would be 453.1. MS. RAMSEY: Excuse me, just slow down a little bit, then I'll be able to follow, okay. So Page 47. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 47,453.1. MS. RAMSEY: That was available as of 9/30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Add that to Page 50, 993.9. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My calculator says -- it certainly ain't me, I would make a mistake -- it's 1447. Now-- MS. RAMSEY: Wait, I know why there is a difference-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, that's what I'm trying to find out. MS. RAMSEY: -- because in here is neighborhood parks. Neighborhood parks are not part of this AUI inventory but they are part of our inventory as parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the neighborhood parks show up on the 55 and 56 sheets. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they are not part of the AUIR-- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to help us offset our level of service. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, they are not. Page 211 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why? MS. RAMSEY: Because we don't have a level of service for neighborhood parks and we're trying to get the developers to pick up that level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couldn't you include those as their acreage in community parks or one of the others because you have small community parks. I mean, you are talking about -- MS. RAMSEY: The neighborhood parks have never been part of our policy until about maybe six years ago when some neighborhood associations came to the Board and asked if they could get a neighborhood park put into their neighborhood. It's never been the policy of the Board of County Commissioners to provide that service. That was changed and we put together a neighborhood park policy. And when an association would like to have a park they come through a process through parks and recreation advisory board all the way up through the Board of County Commissioners and the funding is provided from an ad valorem basis, but it is not part of our AUI level of service inventory report. It is a part of our inventory as a park system but not part of something that is mandated that we maintain in order to keep current with the state recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barefoot Beach State Park, I think it's Barefoot Reserve. MS. RAMSEY: We have two there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Barefoot Preserve, I'm sorry. MS. RAMSEY: We have Barefoot access and Barefoot Preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have state beach Barefoot 186. In that case you did include a state park, right? MS. RAMSEY: We manage that. The county-owned portion is the first number of 159 and the state-owned portion of the Lely Barefoot Preserve is the other amount. So it's about 300 and some Page 212 January 13,2006 acres there total, and we separated them in this particular one. But we manage that as part of our park system. It's actually managed by Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then is that included in your inventory? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. But not the state lands that are managed by state entities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now it's not ownership that dictates whether it's going to be in your inventory to manage, then. MS. RAMSEY: Oh, no, it's management. And so are the school properties. We have lease agreements on that as we do with, you know, like, airport authority and the various school areas. Those leases that where we manage that land and have a long-term lease of 20 to 40 years on those pieces of property are part of our inventory because we have made improvements on those sites with Collier County impact fee dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe lease them and they are in our inventory how do we justify showing a $200,000 value per acre? MS. RAMSEY: Ifwe had to go out and purchase that piece of property then we have made a better deal for the county, but it is part of that whole inventory. I mean, it's very complicated if you want to separate out all of the various nuances that we have here. And so we try -- this is a planning document and we're trying to use this as a planning document not necessarily as, you know, an auditing system, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know -- MS. RAMSEY: I understand your frustration there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your impact fee report dated September 19th, 2005, Pages 14 and 15 total up for a total of park acreage for 1106.01. Again, that's a different number than the others. I'm just wondering why that one has got less acreage shown. MS. RAMSEY: I don't have a copy of that document with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 213 January 13,2006 MS. RAMSEY: But-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says total community regional parks 1087. Then it shows total of boat and beach access 7294. And you add those two together and you end up with 1160. I'm just wondering why the impact fee study shows we have so much less park acreage than the various numbers that we're talked about in this AUIR. MS. RAMSEY: Then, again, it will not count the neighborhood parks in that facility in that count as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, you didn't count them in the total of the community and regional parks which was 1447, so that still leaves you about 300 units off. Maybe there is an explanation for it but -- I would certainly like to hear it. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fascinated by the lease thing and the -- on the impact fees, do you capitalize against that, the leases because they are 20 year leases? MS. RAMSEY: I'm not sure-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you -- I realize the impact fees are on population, so that's fine. What I'm trying to get at is -- MS. RAMSEY: They're on units, residential units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Residential units. What I'm getting at is you install the capital elements, the playgrounds or whatever else. MS. RAMSEY: That's right, we-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They become part of the realty. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you retain ownership and maintenance? MS. RAMSEY: We maintain maintenance of all those facilities. Ownership is by the school district. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As a normal capital item it Page 214 January 13,2006 becomes the ownership of the real estate, and yet we value that for the acreage. MS. RAMSEY: We do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wow. Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: If! had to pull those out we would really be hurting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that at some point you would want to balance the impact fee acreage somehow to the AUIR acreage since they are both based on a level of service. One uses -- one actually establishes it. I don't know -- I can't explain the discrepancy. I thought maybe you could, but if can't -- Amy, you're popping up, does that mean you can? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson for the record. I missed what page you're on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fourteen -- well, on the impact study, Page 14 provides the total community and regional park total at the bottom of the page, 1087, and on Page 15 total boat and beach access is 7294. If there is something missing I'm just trying to figure out what it is. MS. PATTERSON: Because the impact fee study is lower than the actual acreage showing in the AUIR? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. Because ifthere are any of these facilities contemplated in the AUIR, any things that are being considered as inventory but are still with that service, those would not be included in the impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if any are? MS. PATTERSON: I don't know but I can do a comparison. But those are two things right away that I can tell you that would show up in the AUIR and would not show up on the impact fee study because we don't take into account -- in impact fee studies you don't take into Page 215 January 13, 2006 account things that we don't own, which would be leased things, and you can't include things on the impact fee inventory that aren't paid for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do we take the level of service that's established by the impact fee study and apply it to the AUIR requirements if the two don't go together, if one isn't dependent on the other? MS. PATTERSON: They are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are but they aren't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is wild. MS. PATTERSON: They are. But I know that is a terrible, terrible answer, they are but they aren't. It's not -- everything in the impact fee study can't always be put exactly into the AUIR, there are other requirements that they have for parks. It's the same thing as the lease or when you get into EMS we're going to go through this too with the leased stations and the level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we are, by the way. MS. PATTERSON: I knew that was coming. But there are these differences. And so our goal wasn't to make the AUIR duplicative of the impact fee study but to be sure that there wasn't something that absolutely contradicted the impact fee study. If the impact fee level of service is being utilized in the AUIR, that's fine, but I can -- I guess to answer the question, and rather than running around in circles here, is to compare what things aren't in the impact fee study that are in the AUIR and then that will be the answer to your question of why and how does that factor into level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. PATTERSON: So if! can do that then I could probably answer your question better than guessing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you said the word, how does that factor into the level of service because the level of service that you are using is driven by the impact fee, which is a different value that drives Page 216 January 13,2006 it. So if there is a correction needed then maybe you have a weighted level of service that needs to be applied then if that's -- if you've got so much acreage in your impact fee study that generates a level of service need, you take that level of service need and you apply it to the AUIR, but the AUIR doesn't use the same ability to count acreage that the impact fee study does, you are going to have a -- you are going to need a change to come out with the same conclusion on your level of service, otherwise you are going to be generating something either too much or too less. MS. PATTERSON: I understand what you are saying but I think rather than guessing I think I'm better figuring out what the difference is first and then we can get the answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're going to resolve this one today but maybe you could come back to us. MS. PATTERSON: I can, absolutely. But let me -- I think comparing the inventories first would be the first way to get to the answer and then we can discuss the level of service issue after that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Amy, would you happen to know whether or not those leased parcels that the school has, whether or not impact fees by the school are applicable to those owned parcels? MS. PATTERSON: Impact fees? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would the school district apply impact fees against those parcels of land that are under lease to the county? MS. PATTERSON: If the school district used their impact fees for them -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: -- to purchase the land? I have no way of knowing for sure what they used to purchase that land, and they potentially could have. And lease is very tricky when you're talking Page 217 January 13,2006 about impact fees. If you are talking about a lease ofland or a facility, and this is where when you are talking about facilities versus land, you have to be very careful because we may own a facility sitting on leased land and so that's -- when you're getting into inventory land issues you have to be very careful with our impact fees. And this is one of those -- again, we're going to talk about this with EMS, whether we own the building sitting on leased land, do we own a portion of the land. We went through this in a pretty great level of detail when we were developing the parks impact fee study to be sure if we're paying with impact fee dollars for capital facilities. Just because we don't own the land doesn't mean that there is not a dollar amount associated to those improvements, but equally so we can't charge the residents for a land value that we didn't pay for. So it's a very -- you know, it's a -- you have to draw the line real carefully. And I can tell you that there were many conversations making sure that we were just right on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was wondering about who values the land and whether it's done more than once. MS. PATTERSON: If the school board paid for it, however they paid for it, then they received the value of the land. If we paid for the improvements and owned them, then we received the value of the improvements less the land. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I caught was, is that -- and maybe not all of the leases -- that the lease provides us with the responsibility of maintenance but they own the improvements. Didn't I hear you correctly? MS. RAMSEY: No, we own the improvements. If for some reason we decide that we aren't going to have a relationship with Sabal Palm Elementary School anymore, we will take the light poles and everything out of that facility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I misheard you then. I thought you to say that they owned the improvements. Once it goes into the Page 218 January 13,2006 real estate, ordinarily the improvements go with it but -- okay, that clarifies that for me at least. MS. RAMSEY: In the way that we look at the level of service, you know, honestly, those last two columns over there I'm assuming are there because the state requires them, but when we look at our level of service, our level of service is the number of acres per thousand. What the value of that land is and whether we actually bought it or whether we lease it has really nothing to do with the AUIR and the level of service that we're providing. Weare providing facilities on leased lands because it's more economical for our community because they are shared facilities. They are already bought with public dollars and we are enhancing them so that we can use them at night, so the public can go out and use soccer and baseball and everything else that's associated with that. But our level of service is based on acres. There's really not -- I know that there is a tie-in there about how much we're going to purchase them for but this isn't really even a true indicator of what our worth is. I mean, it's $200,000 times however many acres we have. It's truly not an appraised value of how much we have in our inventory and, you know, we've never really done that, we've never been asked to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where the trouble comes in is that when you multiply, whether it's leased or whatever, acreage by $200,000, you are asking for an increase in ad valorem taxes to 23 million bucks because of the calculations in this document. And all we're trying to do is find a way around that -- MS. RAMSEY: Every time that we've done a lease, though, we have not put that in here. You can see if you're looking at the revenue that, underneath the fairgrounds, for example, we have given it a credit, but it's already in our inventory. But we have to put a dollar amount up against it because it's up here in our acreage and the Page 219 January 13,2006 acreage on the top says 837 acres times 200,000 comes to a certain dollar amount. What we do then is we back that out underneath the revenue that says we had 54 acres of the fairgrounds times 200,000, that takes it out and it zeros it out from the expense in the top. So we're only -- we're only looking at our future purchases on this particular page, not on anything that would be leased or is already in inventory or purchased by another department that we're using. For example, you know, we had the Gordon River water quality park in, I mean that -- it would be on the inventory -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. MS. RAMSEY: -- as a recreational element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're kind of back where we started from then. The difference between the impact fees and the AUIR then is not leased lands because leased lands don't factor into the AUIR so therefore it's got to be some other explanation that you're going to come back to us with. MS. RAMSEY: The leased lands do factor into the AUIR, they don't factor into the impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: They are two separate documents and they are not alike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the 99-- MS. RAMSEY: The relationship is there but it's not -- they are not alike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the 900 -- well, why use 900? Of the 1447, 1,447 acres, are any of that leased lands? MS. RAMSEY: Of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: You can go right down the sheet that I have on the back, Page 55 and 56 and you will see it will say school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will? Page 220 January 13,2006 MS. RAMSEY: If! can find you one here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Immokalee High School, one acre on Page 2 and Naples Park Elementary,S acres, so there are 6 acres. That's the only two I see. MS. RAMSEY: Pinecrest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pinecrest is .5, so we have six and a half acres. MS. RAMSEY: Well, you've got Sabal Palm Elementary School and you've got Aaron Lutz. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much are those? MS. RAMSEY: I'm sorry, not Aaron Lutz, Avalon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Naples Park Elementary is five. MS. RAMSEY: Do you have them there? You got Naples Park Elementary School. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. You've got Osceola, which is actually Sabal Palm now. Let me fix that, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's all right here, Marla, why don't you tell me real quick how many acres of the missing acres between the impact fees and the 1447 in the regional and community parks is leased, because it looks like it's less than ten. That's not even going to come close to solving the issue. That's what I'm asking you to come back to us with, basically. MS. RAMSEY: That's the difference between there -- she says the North Naples regional park is on my inventory but not on the impact fee study because it isn't opened yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was purchased, though, right? MS. RAMSEY: It was purchased. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And impact fee study was done September 19th, 2005. It's not apparently then up to date, it's only a few months? MS. RAMSEY: It's not open. They won't count it unless it's Page 221 January 13,2006 been open and in our inventory as a -- MS. PATTERSON: It's also bonded. So the bond issue has to-- I'm sorry, Amy Patterson again for the record. Because there is the bond, an outstanding bond that's serviced on this park, that changes the way that it can be added into the inventory. And in subsequent updates as more of the bond is paid off it will then be added onto the inventory. But you can't improve your level of service with impact fees and then increase your impact fees to make people pay again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the North Naples regional park we're talking about? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. That's 200 and some odd acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two-hundred and seven point seven four is in the inventory, is in the total on Page 14 of the impact fee study, right? MS. PATTERSON: I don't have it on my inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's the impact fee study you gave me. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. That solves it. That gets rid of that answer for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would prefer that you all don't give me answers off the cuff and that you took some time to study this and came back with an answer. MS. RAMSEY: Let me see if I can actually understand. You want me to compare this inventory against that impact fee to determine acreage; is that what you are asking me to do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have an impact fee study dated September, 2005, which is fairly recent. MS. RAMSEY: Right. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to know why that has a different total of acreage than the AUIR that you presented to us today with the Pages 47 and 50 totals. MS. RAMSEY: All right. We'll determine that for you. But Page 222 January 13, 2006 again, the two documents are not related to one another so, I mean -- they're not related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tell us how they are not in detail if you could by acres. MS. RAMSEY: We will get that information to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would help us a lot I think. I don't have any more questions of parks at this point and I don't feel comfortable moving this one forward. I don't know what the rest of this board feels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a comment just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marla, again, it's going back to you requesting ad valorem taxes, so much taxes, aren't you, when you look at what we're required to have, and this plan is we have to make sure that we have enough parks, and then what you want to go out and get in the next four years, you are getting a lot more than we need, correct? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I understand the logic that it's cheaper now than later. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I guess as a board that we -- are we supposed to support that? MS. RAMSEY: You can make any recommendation that you wish to the Board of County Commissioners. You can say you don't like the 200,000 and you want us to reduce it. You can -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the 200,000, that's what you are putting for the value of the existing and that's what you are putting for the value of the new. So if you make it 300,000 it's just what you need for taxes. But, I guess, why are you going out, other than the logic that it's smarter to do, and buying so much more park lands than we need to Page 223 January 13, 2006 meet the AUIR? MS. RAMSEY: That's the only reason is that it's supply and demand. And we know what the cost -- and in the areas that we're looking, it's going to take a long time to piece together those pieces of properties. Just to pick up the North Collier regional park took us two years to do that and we were able to find one through a trust and we pieced together a number of parcels in order to come up with that. But as you move forward in going out finding larger pieces of property that you can put together where there are not homes already built out there it's going to be very difficult, and the longer you wait the harder it's going to become. So we recommend that we go out and try to get those lands in our inventory for what we think we're going to need and we do them sooner than later. If you think it's too aggressive then you can make a recommendation to counter that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Was there a formula though that was used? MS. RAMSEY: This is the formula. It's 2.9 acres for regional park and 1.2882 for community parks and you take it times your population in the areas where you think they are coming and that's how you buy. COMMISSIONER CARON: But not in going after more than what is actually needed here. MS. RAMSEY: We're looking out a number of years. I mean, the number that we have been looking at is close to a million in population. Now this doesn't address that. A million in population in this community is over 2000 acres, I think, just in regional lands and about 900 acres in community. It's aggressive. Will we ever get to a million, I don't know. We're still working with those numbers. What we've done is like the next ten years, that's where we've been looking so far. Page 224 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I would like to see the figures that you used to justify the $200,000 before I can go forward with this. You have to have some formula, you have to have some way of showing how it got to $200,000, what lots you used or what you did. I certainly want to see it. MS. RAMSEY: It came off of the impact fee and it was done through an appraisal by the consultant that's doing the impact fee and that whole thing is going to be vetted with the Board of County Commissioners. That's where that number came from. It came from appraisal prices through the impact fee study. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If you have it -- ifthey have that I would like to see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have got it. If we want to get it copied MS. RAMSEY: We showed it already today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was showing you. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But there were six or seven of those that didn't belong on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But she's saying that's what came in, that's what they are using. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: They may have come in that way but they shouldn't be. We're not talking about an $8 million lot, see, in that project. MS. RAMSEY: Sir, again, there are three levels on that, and we as staff don't believe that they took the beaches and they used that to purchase the community park land and averaged that out. We believe that the $4 million that they are recommending is what it's going to cost to buy acres for beaches, and the million four for boat access are all related to where they looked for those numbers. And we do not believe the 200,000 has anything to do with those along the coast. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You don't believe -- I just Page 225 January 13,2006 want to be right about it. I would like to see the figures they used before I go on to vote this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think where we've basically left this today is that you are going to come back and explain to us how the 200,000 acres came out, based on our earlier conversation, the 200,000 acres. MS. RAMSEY: I have that on the list, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the other items we've discussed. MS. RAMSEY: The only other item that I have right now is you want to know the difference between acreage between the impact fee and the number of acres we have in our inventory and what they are. COMMISSIONER CARON: Adding the TDC. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the TDC values. MS. RAMSEY: And the TDC, yes. Those are the three that I see. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's just go back to what I was talking about. Is it wise for us with some of the stuff we hear about in the state and everything to put so much extra land in the AUIR? I mean, is it smarter for us to show just what we need and go out and buy just what we need or is it smart to show that we're going to plan to buy all this excess park? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we're getting to is what Jim DeLony has referenced earlier. He went back to the Board with a reconsideration of some of the 2005 AUIRs to get his plants on line as he has done. You could do the same thing. If you found a good purchase you could go back to the Board and say, this is outside what we previously talked about, and then they could make that cohesive decision then based on the revenues they had available then rather than committing to it now. And I think maybe that's what we're looking for and we'll Page 226 January 13,2006 come up to that after we come back and get more information. MS. RAMSEY: And I said you can recommend anything that you wish to recommend to the Board on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The commission can give you the money to buy all the parks in the world. My concern is, is it wise for us to show that excess in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, that excess that you are asking to purchase early is $116 million in the next five years and that's a huge, huge hit. MS. RAMSEY: Assuming that it all comes in at $200,000 an acre, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions from this board? Mr. Murray, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I was just being reactive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I just wanted to clarify something for the record and I wanted to be kind of clearer since we talked about it the first time we met. Ms. Ramsey and nobody is really advocating an increase in ad valorem taxes. When you see some of these items that are on there you'll see the terminology that's worded additional revenues required or level of service reductions that may have to transpire. You'll also see some notes in there about impact fees possibly being adjusted. So we recognize that there maybe have to be a very definitive policy direction forwarded by the Board of County Commissioners, one with respect to looking at possibly increasing impact fees, two, possibly reducing levels of service if additional monies are not available, and three, the possibility of, if they need to consider looking for additional revenues, other sources. So there is no advocacy whatsoever with respect to increasing ad valorem taxes. I want to be clear on the record about that. Page 227 January 13, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just going off your presentation sheet, Randy. I understand what you are saying. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point we're not going to move forward on parks. Why don't we take a IS-minute break for the court reporter and then resume. And we'll at that time decide first thing how long we're going into the evening. Is that okay with this gang? Okay. Let's take a 15 minute break. Thank you. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to try to resume here. And the next item is going to be the libraries and library books. But before we go into that we have a whole bunch of people that need to know what we're going to do here tonight. Again, it's how long we all want to stay at this and how numb we'll get if we stay too long. I'm game. I just had some more coffee so I'm up and running, high octane. What's the status of the rest of you? And then if we want to go late we have to figure out if it's even possible. Mr. Adelstein, is there a limitation to your time? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. Six-thirty I can get here but I have to leave about 9:00, 10:00-ish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I have no limitations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, Brad? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark, one thing about the presenter, this is the first one that has to come back, parks and recreation? So we'll do that, what, next Thursday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be next Thursday afternoon. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Won't that mess up-- MR. SCHMIDT: Well, that again, gets to what you want to do. This room is available Tuesday but you do not have a quorum for Page 228 January 13, 2006 Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it looks like. I mean, again, Mr. Murray can't make it and Mr. Tuff can't make it so there's no quorum. MR. SCHMITT: Wednesday I do not have a room available. I could find one, but the conference room out at Horseshoe is not available. That has already been booked by the productivity committee, and this room is not available, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have a quorum on Wednesday because of Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Adelstein so that still doesn't help us. So it looks like it's Thursday, and we'll go late Thursday with this issue. And I will talk to the chairman of the BCC and see if he'll consider allowing us some more time. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to need some guidance from my boss in regards to -- because that -- unless of course they want to live with not getting any corrections, then they will not -- well, what is the 25th, that is -- the 25th is Wednesday. And if you are talking the 19th, I'm into a situation that puts them in a trick because of -- so that, their meeting is going to have a change and that's going to be an issue that the chair is going to have to discuss that with the manager. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What corrections are there up until now, Randy? What is that you have -- MR. SCHMITT: I have information charts to be redone by transportation which I will not get until probably Wednesday. We have the other additions. Mr. DeLony has to do his analysis or at least a recommendation to the Board based on your 20 million gallons per day capacity versus two tens, so he has that analysis. And you've got -- well, we have had numerous counts. MR. COHEN: And the issue of solid waste, the end of the year capacity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, wouldn't there be an executive summary in addition to what they have or would you Page 229 January 13,2006 change what they have in their book? MR. COHEN: I would revise the executive -- two things I have to do. One, the executive summary that you have in your books would be revised to reflect some different changes. Two, there would be a summary page of planning commission recommendations that would follow that. And then after that all the changes that you recommended would be reflected in the documents themselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, we have consistently given the BCC our best work. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't see why we should change that now. If they decide they don't want our best work, we've given it the best we can, and I would be very disappointed if that's their decision. But I think right now we need to proceed and we need to keep our head high and do the best work we possibly can and make a best product we can to a point where they decide they don't want it anymore. So I'm all for next Thursday afternoon. We'll have a quorum. The people will be here. We'll go into it for as long as we can finish it. Today, tonight, depending on this board's time frame, there are only three elements we can review further tonight: Library, EMS, and government buildings; is that correct, MR. SCHMITT? MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. That's what we have. We can have avai1ab1es (sic) to meet your needs. We have heard nothing from the sheriffs staff other than the chief is not available and his accountant. MR. COHEN: His assistant has not responded back in terms of availability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe can get through these three items tonight then that leaves us just the jails, law enforcement, and a re-review of the parks. And that we should be able to do next Page 230 January 13,2006 Thursday afternoon. MR. SCHMITT: And the re-review of the parks -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thursday night until we got it done with. MR. SCHMITT: -- based on the impact fee analysis or based on CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think she needs to answer the questions. MR. SCHMITT: Marla clear on -- I just need to make sure Marla is clear on what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She is. MR. COHEN: Wasn't that unclear, you want a justification for the $200,000 per acre, which is actually a reflection of the study by the land use expert that did the appraisal, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. RAMSEY: I have three items that I'm looking to do: The $200,000, TDC funding, and putting that debt service into that line item, and then the difference between AUIR inventory and the inventory that we have on Page 55 through 56. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. That's where we're at. I think we can move through that quickly. So I see us being able to finish up next Thursday. I want to move forward tonight. The court reporter can stay until? THE COURT REPORTER: Seven-thirty, 8:00 latest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven-thirty or 8:00. Our goal will be to leave by 7:30 or 8:00 or quarter of 8:00. Well, quarter of 8:00 the tapes run out, so between 7:30 and quarter of 8:00 we'll have to stop. We'll do as much as we can between now and then. That fair with everybody? Okay. Let's move forward with libraries. By the way, I'll tell you what, you know it's hard to pick on a librarian so we're going to be very careful here. Page 231 January 13,2006 MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, library director. Library impact fees pay for new books and new libraries needed due to population growth. The current rate of impact fee is $180.87 per thousand square foot of residential construction. It has been based on construction costs per square foot of $199.27 and the cost per book of $25. The five-year revenue estimate in this AUIR are based on the current impact fee rate and the current ad valorem book budget. Ad valorem funds are used to purchase replacement books, not growth books. The construction expenses, however, are based on the estimated current construction cost of $316.67 per square foot. The cost of a book remains at $25. The library expects an updated impact fee study shortly and we anticipate an increased rate that will cover the shortfalls noted in this AUIR study. You have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yes. Members of the panel, do you have to any questions to start with? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I know I had one. COMMISSIONER CARON: You can start. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. MATTHES: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: In your purchase of books, is it a fixed price to -- from this area -- who do you buy books from? MS. MATTHES: Whoever will sell them to us for the least cost. Generally we go through book jobbers who sell books from many different publishers and we negotiate prices for the books, a discount price based on the amount of money we anticipate spending with the vendor. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So you're basically saying Page 232 January 13, 2006 they don't cost $25 all the time. MS. MATTHES: Some cost $5, some cost $10, some cost $25, some cost $75, some cost $150. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Do you do the same thing with books on tape? MS. MATTHES: Yes. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What price do you normally get for those? MS. MATTHES: Books on tape, I think, are about $50 per volume, audio books. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: See, that's something -- I happen to have my own library. I've got over 900 of them. I haven't spent $50 for any of them. MS. MATTHES: Do you buy abridged audios? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Mostly not, but I have bought abridged and have -- MS. MATTHES: Unabridged. What we generally buy are unabridged because that's what people like better. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have both ways. MS. MATTHES: We buy them with the ability to replace the audio cassette tape that goes bad in that unit for the life of the unit. So we have a few additions that you don't. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I just wanted to understand how that happened because I have been doing this long enough to know that that's a very high price, but not if you're going to be able to MS. MATTHES: Right. We can replace each often audio cassettes in a unit free for the life of the unit. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. I understand now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff and then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I just noticed that I may have -- I thought I was missing a couple of sheets but I'm not. On the capital Page 233 January 13, 2006 funds that specify which libraries will be built shows the Golden Gate one at $7,000. There's a red line saying that was taken out and I just know that there was more originally planned and was approved by the commissioners, so if that's not there, is there a -- MS. MATTHES: I have a corrected one. I don't know what copy you have. Mine, sheet Page 81 shows addition to the Golden Gate branch of 17,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER TUFF: And that was on Page 877 MS. MATTHES: Page 81. MR. COHEN: I got it right there. MS. MATTHES: Page 87 was also updated to show 17,000 square foot addition to Golden Gate. COMMISSIONER TUFF: That must be part of the sheets that I -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Marilyn, I notice in the '04 AUIR the required inventory as of 9/30/09 that was the projected period at that time was $170,082 square feet with a value of some 37 million. In '05 we now have it to the period of2010, 148,716 square feet. That seems to be a reduction. Do you not have the '04? MS. MATTHES: What page are you -- no, I don't have '04 with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 80 I think you are on if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm on Page 80 in terms of the summary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what she has. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if you don't have the '04 that puts you at a disadvantage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have a copy, multiple-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have the '04 here. Page 234 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER TUFF: What page of'04? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What page in '04, it's got to be under Category B. I have a red tab here. Look in your summary for-- MS. MATTHES: The population projections do change annually. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. MATTHES: I would guess it has something to do with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Required inventory, and it's on Page 51 of the 2004 AUIR. And it spoke to a required inventory on 9/30/09 of 170,082 square feet at a value of 37 million. And I just wondered why we had now come to 148,716 at 46 million. MS. MATTHES: Right. I don't know. MS. RAMSEY: I don't know if! actually understand your question. I'm looking at these two sheets side by side. Are you looking under -- can you give me a year, 2009? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 2004. MS. RAMSEY: 2004. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. And it's the AUIR facility summary form. MS. RAMSEY: 2,004. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And on the 2004 it's Page 51 and it's item -- it's called -- the second item in the line, and it says required inventory 9/30/09. And that same thing is in weighted populations calculation is 148,716. Do you see that for square feet? Should I come down there? MS. RAMSEY: Where? MS. MATTHES: He's looking. He's looking at '09. MS. RAMSEY: But the populations are different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a reduction in required square footage. MS. MATTHES: Oh, I see. Actually-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you now see what I'm talking Page 235 January 13,2006 about? MS. MATTHES: I see. Actually, that 148,000 required inventory is wrong. If you look on the table for Page 81 for this year and '10 inventory should be 181,082. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. I didn't know that. Where would I find that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. MS. MATTHES: I'm looking on Page 80 of the 2005 AUIR. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. MS. MATTHES: And Mr. Murray pointed out that the required inventory on 9/30/10 says 148,716, which is a lot lower than last year's AUIR said, and he's right. If you look on the table on Page 81, the fiscal year' 1 0 shows a requirement ofa 181,082. I apologize. It's wrong. You are right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it says 148,716. MS. MATTHES: It should be 181,082, required inventory 9/30/10. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the required number should be the same as the square feet available number; is that what you're saying? MS. MATTHES: Required. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or something like that. MS. MATTHES: Oh, I'm sorry. I was wrong. MS. RAMSEY: It's correct. MS. MATTHES: I was wrong. I was looking at the square feet available. And perhaps the 2004 AUIR also listed the -- MS. RAMSEY: There is a population difference between the two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm only just trying to find out. I looked at it, I saw a difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you haven't got your question answered, have you? Page 236 January 13, 2006 MS. MATTHES: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. But I don't want to embarrass anybody if it's a typo or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a matter of embarrassing anybody. We have to get this resolved because that computes the dollar value of the required inventory, which works the bottom line to affect taxes. We have to get an answer to this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm happy with that, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm just saying that's why I keep going, Bob. You were on a good tack, we need to finish it. MS. MATTHES: Mr. Murray said that the required inventory in the 2004 AUIR for '09 was 170,000, and if you look at the table the required inventory should have been listed as 140,000. So that was where the error was. MS. RAMSEY: It was on the last year's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Was the error in 2004? MS. MATTHES: 2004, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, my gosh, I found an error from last year. All right. So what should it be? I'm going to correct last year's. MS. MATTHES: In 2004 the required square footage should be 140,143. So the 2005 AUIR as written is okay. Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that does provide an answer. Bob, did you have any other questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's see. On Page 87 I'm a little concerned. I raised this question to Mr. Cohen, having to do with the South Regional construction, and he indicated to me that that was probably modified. And the question is, it's marked as fiscal year '08 for the construction. If you look you'll see in one place it says fiscal year '07/'08 and the next place it says fiscal year '08/'09 for fiscal year -- my simple question is this, I understood that the South Regional Page 237 January 13,2006 Library would be in fiscal year '07/'08. MS. MATTHES: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as that is consistent then that was my only issue. As long as it's consistent I'm comfortable. And, Mr. Cohen, I raised that question with you, you said you had conversations on this. MR. COHEN: My comment with respect to that is that on Page 87 the fiscal year should be consistent with what is on Page 81 and should be modified accordingly to reflect where they would read FY '07/'08 where applicable. And we also had a discussion about adding a footnote with the construction of the South Regional Library also to Page 81 as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. But I'm not sure that I've seen that it's changed. And in reference to Page 81 it shows fiscal '07/'08, then it says fiscal '07/'08 for new South Regional Library. MR. COHEN: We did not modify the document since our conversation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You did not? MR. COHEN: No. Obviously, because the request was not to have additional documents sent on out to this body. So the comments were noted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you let everybody else know that I raised that question? MR. COHEN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just so everybody knows, what I found was what I thought was an inconsistency and it was verified as such and I was reassured that the South Regional Library as well as the Golden Gate will proceed for fiscal year '07/'08 and not '08/'09. And we're all in agreement with that, that's true? MS. MATTHES: Yes. MS. RAMSEY: Our goal is to have those numbers completed by December of '08, in the fiscal year '08. Page 238 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which fiscal year will construction begin, fiscal year '07/'08 or '08/'09? MS. RAMSEY: We should be completed by -- our goal is by December '08, so we'll actually be in construction for the South Regional during that period. It takes probably a good 12 months, 18 months to build that facility. MR. COHEN: Just for clarification purposes, from our standpoint we were supposed to have completion dates in the AUIR. With Golden Gate would that be finished in fiscal year '07/'08? MS. MATTHES: Yes. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. MR. COHEN: So on Page 87 it should actually reflect '07/'08 and if the South Regional is projected to be completed in December of '08, that would be FY '08/'09. MS. RAMSEY: Or fall. I mean, we're talking a couple of months difference on that particular element but it will be completed in 2008. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm comfortable. I know factually that you folks are progressing that, so I'm not uncomfortable. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just like the idea of consistency so that no one -- because when you're using the tail end of a project the slippage is inevitable. I just want to be sure we are on target and that everyone knows that. MR. COHEN: We will make the two pages consistent, and because of the requirement for financial feasibility and if we have a certain fiscal year in there I think it's probably more prudent to actually put the South Regional Library actually in the -- MS. RAMSEY: It will be in '07/'08, and I have told you before my goal is to have it done in the fall of '08. I'm telling you I definitely will have it done in the year 2008. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm comfortable. I want to make Page 239 January 13,2006 it public because of the fact that it was something there. I thought it was valid. It's agreed it was valid and-- MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- case closed. That's my questions, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? So we'll start on mine. You use a level of service standard of .33 square foot per capita? MS. MATTHES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the impact fee study that was provided to me, revised '04/'05, it says the current level of service for library buildings is .36 on Page 2. Now, does that-- MS. MATTHES: It's never been .36-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MATTHES: -- to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe Amy needs to weigh in on why the impact fee study would say the level of service is something that it is not. MS. PATTERSON: If the level of service has always been .33 then it's probably a typo in the impact fee study, but I'll double check and let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: We would not utilize a level of service that wasn't the one that they were currently utilizing unless there was a good reason for it, and I'm not aware of one for libraries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 3, Amy, they stated it a little differently. It says Collier County current level of service .36, and then it says Collier County level of service standard .33. Maybe that explains it. I don't know why they are using two different ones but MS. MATTHES: They are probably saying that we're a little bit ahead of standard. Page 240 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we're ahead and not behind. Then the unit cost that you use went up. Last year it was 217.61, this year it's 316.67 per square foot. MS. MATTHES: Yes. The 217 was based on the headquarters at Orange Blossom construction that was completed in February of 2002. And as we all know, construction costs have skyrocketed. And the 316 was based on information from the facilities management department and local architects and builders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like -- can someone -- where is that located? I didn't see it in the impact fee report. In fact, it's a different number than the impact fee report, so I'm wondering what document you relied upon to come up with that value. MS. MATTHES: Facilities management provided it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. MS. MATTHES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I would like to see how it got to where it is. So at some point is there a way to get that document? MS. RAMSEY: I believe that where that came from is during a Board of County Commissioners meeting while we were discussing the various libraries and how we were going to fund them, one of the local architects, based upon a request by the consultant who is doing the impact fee, said that he would verify the per square foot cost as where we are going in the future, that they would use that in the impact fee element rather than historical, which would have been a much lesser per square foot element. So at that dais at that time they made that square footage element that's utilized in the impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a fellow stands up in a public meeting, says, I'm an architect and I think the price ought to be 316.67, and they accepted it? MS. RAMSEY: If it's certified. Page 241 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm a getting at, is there a document somewhere that shows how he arrived at this number? MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. I was still on the level of service issues, now catching up on this one. When the conversation started about the Golden Gate library and the possible expansion and the shortfall of revenue, as we discussed before about the shortfall with the $180 per square foot versus the actual cost of $316, one of the directions from the Board was to go out and validate what we believe our actual cost is. And part of that process was procuring architects' actual costs, and they had to -- they wrote a letter validating all of the cost components of building the library. And there is a document. If you would like it I can certainly forward it on to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you, please. MS. PATTERSON: The upcoming impact fee study is going to utilize a number that is actually a little bit higher than that in there, but as you know, that's a moving target of costs, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to see how they came up with it. MS. PATTERSON: That's no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully he's a licensed general contractor as well as an architect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean you wouldn't trust an architect for costs, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. On Page 81 we have 47,000 square feet of libraries being constructed in '07 to '08. What libraries are those? I know one is Golden Gate but that's only 17, so what's the other? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: East Naples. MS. MATTHES: South Regional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many square feet is that? MS. MATTHES: South Regional is 30,000 square foot-- Page 242 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's-- MS. MATTHES: My copy has that footnoted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's the whole-- MS. MATTHES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I need to know. Good. Thank you. Under your books, in the -- I know Amy just loves having to give me these impact fee documents. On Page 3 of the impact fee document for the library impact fee it says the county has -- this is, by the way, dated April '05 -- the county has a progressive level of service for library books. The level of service for books in FY '03/'04 is 1.60 per resident which is used as the standard in the study. The study also indicates that the county does not have any deficiencies since the amount that is the current level of service is also 1.60. Now ifthere are no deficiencies at 1.60 why are we raising it to 1.80? MS. MATTHES: Originally the level of service was raised .05 annually or .075 annually to bring it up to the level of, the average level of service for the entire State of Florida, which was at the time 2.0 books per capita. In the meantime that average for the State of Florida has dropped a little and it's closer to 1.8. And so that's why the target has moved every year and we're now at the 1.8 level and it should remain there unless the State of Florida fluctuates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, six or eight months ago when this study was done and it said that the county does not have any deficiencies with the current level of service of 1.6, is that a false statement in the impact fee document? MS. MATTHES: It was true about then, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So-- MS. MATTHES: Population changes, differences in collections, yes. Page 243 January 13, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in eight months we lost that much or we had to change our level of service by that much. MS. MATTHES: Change in level of service 1.6 to 1.675 and then 1.8, and additional population as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that to generate more need then? MS. MATTHES: Yes, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that topic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The capital improvement element says we're supposed to have 2.05 by the year 2010. No, not anymore? MS. MATTHES: That we lowered to 1.8 to match State of Florida. The 2.05 was also the State of Florida average at that time -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. MATTHES: -- that this projection was originally set up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just in the capital improvement that's on the website still has it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 83, you have new books and replacement books. Under revenues for new books you have in ad valorem funds for new and replacement books 1.7 million. MS. MATTHES: That sheet should also have been changed under revenue impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where would it -- by changed, by who, when? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. MATTHES: That was incorrect, it was typed incorrectly. It should have been, you should have gotten a changed sheet on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is -- the superseding? MS. MATTHES: Yeah, we did. Page 244 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What changed sheet are you talking about here? Is it -- MS. MATTHES: Page 83. MR. SCHMITT: Page 83 of the latest copy that we have is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Okay. I see. Okay. I don't think my question involves the change but go ahead, I'll let you -- wherever you were going, I'm not sure my question -- I hadn't finished it yet. MS. MATTHES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under new books where it says ad valorem funds for new and replacement books, it's 1.7. Under replacement books under revenues, it says ad valorem funds for new and replacement books, 2.6. You have two line items that say the same, funds for new and replacement books. MS. MATTHES: Correct. The top one should say ad valorem funds for new books because there is a shortfall in impact fees until we got the new impact fee study. And the second line should say ad valorem funds for replacement books, 2.6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there needs to be another correction to the correction. MS. MATTHES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You are asking for the 980,350 for ad valorem. Could you explain again how you are doing that? You are taking these two numbers and subtracting the 3 million, three and a half million? What is the three and a half million, again, monies you didn't receive or -- MS. MATTHES: Correct. Replacement books, impact fees pay for growth related books. Ad valorem pays for books needed to replace current books in the inventory not due to growth. For Page 245 January 13,2006 example, at a certain point we don't need Lasser's tax information for 1995, we have to replace it with 2005,2006 and so on. There is many investment books that don't have, aren't required to be kept forever because they have poor information. Same with medical books, we have to replace them. Books on any disease printed today will provide correct information, hopefully, instead of information that was ten years old or more. And so the ad valorem funds replace those kinds of books. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can understand that. But the additional revenues required, explain why there is additional revenues required, because you are given the ad valorem funds and for some reason you are subtracting the three and a half million. MS. MATTHES: It's a shortfall in replacement books. We-- generally the standard is about 4 percent loss per year per annum, and so the ad valorem funds under replacement books is the funds that we have been getting, and this year in the ad valorem budget about $700,000, and that's projected out for five years of this plan. And then I added in, we do get state aid library dollars, I added that in but we still need an additional $900,000 in replacement books. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm confused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead if you want to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, up above in new books and replacement books you derive revenue from ad valorem taxes, correct? MS . MATTHES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That goes into the library. MS. MATTHES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so I'm really confused as to why you would total those two numbers and subtract from them this number to come up with a shortfall. MS. MATTHES: The ad valorem dollar amount of two million six is five times what our current ad valorem budget for replacement Page 246 January 13,2006 books is. We need -- and the 825,000 is available from state library funds but the 4 percent of the, of the replacement funds needed in this period actually total 4,400,000 not 3,500,000. So we have a $900,000 deficit. We need additional $900,000 from ad valorem dollars for replacement books. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On that same subject I'm getting a little confused here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was hoping one of us can clear it up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The revenues, I'm looking at what you have here for revenues, you have a five-year number, right? MS. MATTHES: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then the 908,350 is a single year number? MS. MATTHES: No. That should be for five years also. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So a shortfall for five. MS. MATTHES: Five years, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That helps me, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's still not working because-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- you have revenues of thee million five and you have expenditures of three million five, so you should have zero. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, can I possibly clarify this and make this a little easier on everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sure. That would be really terrific. MR. COHEN: Okay. Pretend that asterisk is all the way down and not attached to that additional revenues required. Move it down a little bit. If you take the ad valorem funds, the $1.783 million that's up under new books and you add it to the ad valorem revenue, the $2,625,000 -- Page 247 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. COHEN: You add those two figures together, you're going to get that $4,408,350 that's set forth in the sentence with the asterisk. What's happened in the past is the county manager in the past has budgeted $700,000 a year for books. So when you multiply that five times 700,000 it comes to 3,500,000. And the request for ad valorem funds for replacement books and for new books is that 4,408,000. So if we were to stay on the current budgeting of $700,000 per year, that's where that shortage of the 908,000 is coming up. He's saying I need $908,000 to make up the deficit. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you need to make that a lot clearer for the world. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said the $700,000 was budgeted every year? MR. COHEN: Currently that's the budgeted item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But then the 908,000 is a five-year number. Shouldn't that be somewhere reflected as the single year shortfall if we're going to use a single year against the five years? MS. MATTHES: No. The 700,000 from ad valorem is part of the 3,500,000. So the 700 is our current budget from ad valorem funds. So the five-year book budget from ad valorem using that $700,000 figure is about 3,500,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus you'd add to that now the 908 divided over five years for 881 total -- MS. MATTHES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- almost each year. MS. MATTHES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I now understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You probably want to fix this up a little bit for the other folks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions involving Page 248 January 13, 2006 libraries, facilities or books? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I just want to go back to buildings for a minute. And let's just go to Page 82 and look at the chart. Does it seem like we're overserving here? Maybe we don't need every square foot of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray has got too much, we don't need 30,000. I mean, you are going to get into an issue that has been probably debated many times at the BCC and I'm not sure if -- you know, where we're going to go to help it, to be honest you. We can't build half a library. You either have to build a whole library or very little at all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Look at it this way, once it's built it doesn't have to be built a again for a long, long time. COMMISSIONER TUFF: And where those libraries are being built aren't necessarily where they are being used. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yes, exactly. And are we building them where they need to be built? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We are in the case of the South Regional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have what is going to -- and I understand your reasoning, Ms. Caron. I was going to suggest something, that if this can't be handled by the increase in impact fees then we wouldn't do -- if you raise the level of service and therefore you increase your impact fees to accommodate it, then that's fine. But if you can't raise the impact fees then I would suggest you not raise the level of service. And what that does is counterbalance everything back out again because level of service kicks it into more ad valorem need. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One of the things about this if you're talking specifically about the library in District 1, that regional library was projected for a long, long, long time and I don't know that Page 249 January 13, 2006 it would be appropriate with the number of people moving into the area, I can't imagine us not being able to muster the numbers to justify it and also the impact fees associated with that population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not suggesting we change anything. I'm just saying -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if they use impact -- the level of service is the issue now, not so much -- if we leave the numbers alone for the construction -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's covered. From what I understand there's no level of service increase for that, there is no ad valorem increase needed for the construction. Is that right, Randy, somebody? MS. MATTHES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You only have a 908,000 need for increasing ad valorem taxes and that's the result of replacement costs of books. So that's driven by the level of service standard of 1.6 to 1.8 in part. So if you get impact fee increases and you can leave the level of service at 1.8 then everything balances out. But if you don't get impact fee increases then I can't see raising the level of service and have to pay ad valorem taxes to do it, so my suggestion would be that. And if you don't get an impact fee increase, the level of service stays at 1.6. Whereas if you do get the impact fees then use the 1.8 because it comes out of the right source for funding. That's where I was going with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now I understand you and I don't have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that -- okay. Are we finished with libraries, library books? Is there a motion from this board in regards to libraries and library books? Page 250 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would offer that we take the recommendations of the recommended action to the BCC, direct staff to include the proposed capital improvement element for fiscal year '06 through '10, weighted population based on book collection editions and the facilities. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I assume though that is with the recommendation to include that the, that the level of service rise to 1.8 is only if we get an impact fee increase. And if we don't get the impact fee increase the level of service stays at 1.6. Is that an appropriate consideration? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me ask a question if! may of Amy. Is -- what precipice are we upon here teetering? Are we likely to receive our impact fees? Do you have any advance word on this? MS. PATTERSON: The increase that we're looking at in impact fees is solely based, not solely, but mainly based upon the deficit in the construction costs, us trying to build a library for $316 a square foot and only collecting an impact fee based on $180 a square foot. So I don't think that it's unreasonable. I think most people understand that with rapidly accelerating costs that you have to make adjustments. I think that, based on that, our direction has been to bring it forward, as the rest of our impact fees that are using outdated costs. So the likelihood of us coming forward and being successful with increasing the impact fee, it is the direction we've received. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'll roll the dice on that and accept your recommendation with the understanding that it's possible that we may lose. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made, there has been an addendum, it's been seconded. Page 251 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, is there a problem in the capital improvement, did you look that up to see, because it does show that -- and this is -- when this AUIR goes to 2010 they were supposed to bring the book up to 2.05. Are we going to lower that service or what are we -- MR. COHEN: I believe the policy direction was to go from 1.6 to 1.8 and stop at 1.8. So any reflection anywhere else with respect to levels of service with the books is supposed to stop at 1.8. So we'll make the corresponding changes to reflect that particular change. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the number in the capital improvement isn't correct? MR. COHEN: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This number is not correct, then, in the capital improvement element? MR. COHEN: It's correct now but it's supposed to change to 1.8. MS. RAMSEY: If you approve the AUIR as we've got it then we would make that change, just as we were talking about earlier when we go through the process updating the CIE. It's the same process. We will then change that level of service to 1.8 and stay there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're going to reduce the level to match. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll call for the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. Page 252 January 13, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, can I go ahead and clarify just for the record just to make sure that we make the requisite changes. Also, you wanted us to modify the summary sheet to clarify the $908,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That was just a clarification, I didn't need a motion on that. MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray wanted us to rectify the differences between Pages 84 and 87 to clarify the timing ofthe library. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To be consistent. MR. COHEN: We will do those, make those changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on. Thank you very much, library people, Marla. We'll now move into the EMS. We'll take a break at 6:00 and come back. Hopefully we'll-- I thought we'd probably stay until 7:00, 7:30. We're just going to do two more, EMS and government buildings, and be done with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so you are going to pass on the dinner? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm going home. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, excuse me. I thought you were going to stay until 7:30. I don't care, just tell us so we know. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You said, I thought at 5:30 you were going to go for dinner and then come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I meant a break, 15 minutes. I didn't mean -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I heard dinner, too, that's why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's if we're -- see, we're not going to stay until 9:00 because the tapes run out at quarter of 8:00. Page 253 January 13,2006 I don't care, we can -- Lindy, what would you prefer to do? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: If! have to, I can get up and leave. You still would have a quorum so that's not going to be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, did you all-- if we are going to take a dinner break we might as well not come back. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm willing to stay but I understand some of the implications for a couple of people here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought everybody understood. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. So we're just going to work through and take a IS-minute break around 6:00 and try to finish up within a short time of that. Mr. Page, thank you for waiting all day. MR. PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with emergency medical services. In fiscal year 2002 it was determined that the EMS AUIR would be based, it would move from a weighted population to a permanent population. And the way we would compensate for the seasonal call load was to put up additional units, pay overtime to existing personnel for that three- to four-month window. Over the past two, three years we've seen an increase in the amount of time it's taken us to get on scene, and this year we're coming back asking that we go back to a weighted population to, number one, be consistent with our impact fee study which is based on weighted, also to address the response time. Our goal in the county is based on a national standard of arriving on scene within nine minutes. Presently, countywide that nine minutes should be 90 percent of the time is the goal. Currently in FY '05 we only achieve that result 78 percent of the time, while the overall urban response time was basically 80 percent. When we looked at our rura11eve1 that was only right around 60, so it was significantly different between the two. So what we are suggesting to you and of course our Board is that Page 254 January 13,2006 we go back to a weighted population figure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the -- I'm assuming-- is there anything else? Now are you open for questions? MR. PAGE: I have some slides if you want to go into the response time in greater detail, but other than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if we focus on our questions we will move faster. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only basically one question. The implications have change now. We're going to take another little shot as a result of going back to the weighted for a period? That's a question, that's not a statement. MR. PAGE: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. When you went from the weighted to the permanent there was a cost associated for several months. MR. PAGE: Actually, there was a savings to the county because we were not putting on additional -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There was overtime that was applicable. MR. PAGE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that had to be an added cost someplace. But there may have been a net savings, okay. What are the implications for the change now? MR. PAGE: Well, the capital improvements, of course, you would be putting on additional units, additional personnel. However, you know, what we're looking for is to increase that on scene arrival time because we're -- there is a great concern that we're not meeting a standard that really, typically has been looked at nationwide as a standard that everyone should achieve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you achieve this, which is certainly admirable, to what extent have you calculated, and it's in here presumably, the equipment and the personnel needed, what level Page 255 January 13,2006 will that bring to you? In other words, what kind of fudge will you have in there to take you out to the out years if you are going to buy equipment? Are you going to buy it incrementally, are you going to hire incrementally? Do you see where I'm coming from? MR. PAGE: I think it's going to take us about six years to get where we need to be, and from that point forward we should be able to stabilize. But we're not trying to do it all in one year. There's just no way to do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But on an incremental basis you can nevertheless achieve your goal of 90 percent for nine minutes, you believe. MR. PAGE: Yes, at the five-year mark. You're going to see a significant increase, probably, I would say about 4 percent per year the first three years to get us closer to the 90 percent goal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I'm troubled by. I was wondering if your goal of a response time is nine minutes for 90 percent of the time, why wouldn't you want to -- and I don't mean to put you on the -- but why wouldn't you want to go right away to that? Is the cost so great that it would just tumble everything? MR. PAGE: Yes, it is too much. And I'll be honest with you, the other side of that coin is that I don't believe I could get the personnel in here that quickly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On time and the equipment and the rest of it. MR. PAGE: Well, there is a shortage of paramedics statewide and we're trying to build the EMTs into that level now but I couldn't come up with 20 employees tomorrow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I understand that and I applaud your effort to try and bring us to where we need to be. That would be my single question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I might go beyond here but what Page 256 January 13,2006 seems -- in the areas that I see that we keep adding people and we have two people showing up and that, and when we see numbers this big, is this the time where you just say wait a minute, for future planning we need to combine services of fire and EMS. And I just think when you see those numbers we're duplicating everywhere -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could-- COMMISSIONER TUFF: -- we're paying twice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could say sure, this is the time to do it; but you know what? The fire departments will never let it happen. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So then you let the fire departments have it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that's the right solution either. I don't think that's a debate here at the AUIR. We're really trying to deal with a level of service we've got to deal with and how to keep that level of service. The politics of it I think we need to air for another day, honestly. Did you have any questions related to -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: No. I just see those numbers and I go, this is the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The numbers, there are some issues on the numbers we can get into here in a minute. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since essentially the growth is going to occur in new housing, right now we have a population that essentially is filling up all of the units we have, why wouldn't more of the revenues come from impact fees? You are asking for approximately 19 million from ad valorem over the next five years, why wouldn't essentially all of that be impact fee? MR. PAGE: I wish it was. Amy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, it's a good thing she showed up Page 257 January 13,2006 today, isn't it. MR. COHEN: I was getting ready to talk. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the point is that theoretically you meet the requirement now with the population now. All you're adding units for is the additional population. MR. COHEN: I think I can help with the question and Amy can -- she can join on in if necessary. When we went from permanent to weighted, from weighted to permanent back in 2002, as a result of that, certain units were not added because of the population when it shifted. Now when we're going back to weighted there is that differential between that period of time from 2002 to 2005. And if you look at Page 93, you'll see in years, fiscal years 2006/'07 and then the next four years after that Mr. Page has asked to add an additional unit every year. What's happened is in that period of time the difference between weighted and permanent was basically four units, which he needs to bring back on line, bring them back up to the standard of a weighted population and actually get to the response time that he wants to be at. And because we were at, originally at weighted, we went to permanent, now we want to go back to weighted, impact fees can't be used for it because it was based on a permanent population at that particular time so -- MR. PAGE: That's not entirely correct. Impact fees were always based on weighted, correct? MR. COHEN: I'm talking about when we went to permanent, though, that four-year period of time cost us that revenue for that period of time. MR. PAGE: Correct, we were behind then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in your explanation it's like half of the units -- you know, that makes sense for half of the units so why wouldn't the impact fees cover half of the costs? Page 258 January 13,2006 MR. PAGE: His question is how come impact fees don't cover -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: More than they are. MR. COHEN: Let me go back, and again, this is -- when you look at that line item that says additional revenues required or level of service standard reduction, that's not asking completely for ad valorem tax revenue. Ifthere's an increase in impact fees those funds can be used to offset part of that particular number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It doesn't match. In the cover letter you gave us it requests that as additional ad valorem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are going to wish you never gave us that cover letter. MR. COHEN: The Page 2 that you are looking at, basically what it says was if that number equated out to so many mills, and if you look at the statements that follow after that, it also talks about a level of service reduction being a possibility as well as revenues being required through additional sources, and one being impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. COHEN: So we're going to reword that particular page for the Board of County Commissioners to be a little bit more clear on that item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Jeff, let's start up in the level of service standard. MR. PAGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you arrive at 4.000068 per capita, do you know? Or is that something Amy might have done? MR. PAGE: I'm looking to see around, in the room, who else I can call up here. Actually that was a study done in probably the early '80s, and what they did was they took a particular zone to see where we met the response time goal. And that actually happened to be in the city. So they found at the time that the population was 15,000 and based on the response time goal at that time that's how it was calculated. So for Page 259 January 13,2006 every 15,000, one unit would be put in service and that's -- it's a study that was done by Gainesville, I think, University of Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thirteen days ago they finished a new study by Tinda1e-01iver that says current level of service, all stations per resident .000052. Now if you change that 68 to 52. Amy, you're shaking your head no, is that not true? MS. PATTERSON: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's true. Okay. So my statement so far stands. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. I'm sorry. I was shaking my head on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's certified by Amy at this point. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You've already been right once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe change the level of service to .52 as the impact fee study indicates the level of service is, how is that going to change your numbers? I imagine it would reduce them. MR. PAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there is -- your numbers are -- I know over the years they have changed, over the last two or three years in particular. I know it's because of weighted population but if we bring that weighted population more in line with the level of service consistent with the impact fee study it certainly would help the ad valorem tax need. MR. PAGE: Then I guess my question to you would be if we're not meeting the goal where we need to be right now, why would we want to go to 52? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure you're not meeting -- the level of service was established in the impact fee study as the goal. If you are telling me that's wrong, then we have another can of worms to take a look at. That impact fee study was something we based a lot of Page 260 January 13,2006 impact fees on. If that's not accurate we probably need to get that corrected. MR. PAGE: What I'm saying is ifthe impact fee study is based on what the current level of service is currently. And what I'm telling you is, is our response times aren't where we really need to be currently. Am I making sense here? Then why would I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand what you are saying, you wish your response times were better. To get there you need more stations and more personnel. MR. PAGE: And if I have that then wouldn't my level of service be higher? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would but we've got to go by what -- I mean, this study that was just done 13 days ago is no good. Who had the input in the study that came out with the conclusion that 52 was the right number instead of a higher number that you're alluding to? Amy, maybe you can help with that. MS. PATTERSON: I can help you with where the .52 came from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got the chart. MS. PATTERSON: That is the -- the actual impact, or the actual EMS level of service, that .0052, is your stations divided by the population, but that includes the leased stations. So if they, if you choose -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this is going to end up in that argument. MS. PATTERSON: The .0068 is based on the station for every 15,000 residents and that's a standard that by policy is what we're hoping to achieve. What we actually have based on stations, not to do with response time but based on stations, inventory of stations leased and owned is the .0052. There isn't a reason policywise that they can't continue to Page 261 January 13,2006 try to achieve the 68 but they have to do it with a source other than impact fees. Further, the .0052 includes stations that are leased, which means that we can't -- for the impact fees, the impact fee level of service is different even, which I'm sure you found, is different even than the 0052, the point two -- I don't have it in front of me -- and that is because when you're calculating level of service for impact fees the leased stations cannot be included. We can only calculate based on what we physically have paid for, what we own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: So there is your three, that's your three kind of points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am going to approach this from a different direction. Thank you. The next direction, let's talk about the required inventory of 30.6, the available inventory of21.5. Are those inventories made up of both leased and owned stations? MR. COHEN: Yes. MR. PAGE: As far as the units like the EMS ambulance on the road, there is that many units that are on the road 24/7. As far as stations, no, there aren't that many stations. And in other words, some stations I may have two units collocated together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, from what I can tell, based on what you've got today by the impact fee study and the document you provided to us in this AUIR and what you are proposing to do, I think you are looking at a total of 12 leased stations, including today and what is proposed, and 18 owned stations; is that right, do you know? And the reason -- where I'm going, Jeff, is that if you take the value of the collocated units and multiply it times 12 and you take the value of the new units and multiply it times 18 you come up with a little over $70 million for your required inventory, which is about 15 million less than you are showing here because of the use, the Page 262 January 13, 2006 weighting out and using the leased stations for the value of the 1840 that you state. I think what your report does is use them all at the higher value as an owned station but yet we don't own them all, we lease some of them. So if you bring this in line with your value for leasing and weigh it against the value for ownership you are going to drop your required inventory amount down to nearing 70 or 71 million and that's going to have an effect on the additional revenues required in the bottom line. And that's where I'm going with this. I mean it's -- can you come back to us with something that shows how your leased stations factor into this program more than just always saying they are all new and owned? MR. PAGE: What I can tell you is that the proposed stations coming on line, those nine, we've calculated like six we would outright own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PAGE: Three that we -- would be a blend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PAGE: But there is no guarantee that -- as we discussed there is no guarantee that I can actually make that happen. Not every fire district wants to collocate and sometimes I may have a need for putting a unit in North Naples that North Naples doesn't have a fire load that requires a station for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you planned for that in the next five years to be able to try to negotiate leases then for some reason you didn't, couldn't you always go back to the county commission and say one of the stations on our AUIR that we were going to lease we couldn't, we have to own now? And they could take it upon themselves to find the available funds knowing that this is a necessity rather than put it in the AUIR and create a tax issue that we really don't know if we need or not and then find out a way to give it back to the people. I would rather not Page 263 January 13,2006 give it to the government first. I'm thinking we ought to look at weighing the leasing and the operationa1s, the owned stations together in this document instead of just looking at them all as owned. Amy, are you trying -- did you want to say something about that? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, please. There has been a direction for us to get out of leased space, and so the direction that we've received is we're either going to own or we're going to collocate and own our portion of what we're collocating on. The days of the lease are coming to an end. And that has been my understanding. I don't know -- MR. PAGE: Yes. And part of the problem was in the beginning, going back in history here, a lot of the areas where we needed to have an EMS station there was no land available in the city, so we would collocate maybe with a fire department, in some cases maybe with the hospital, over the years we had space with them. We're certainly going to try to collocate in talks with the school board, things of that nature, to try and get some property where maybe we built an existing station there. But I guess what I'm saying is this is what we look at as a worst-case scenario. My goal would be to have joint stations, and we've been pretty successful working with the sheriff with that and certainly some of the fire districts. But there's no guarantee that that would happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that kind of throws a different light on it. I didn't know the direction was to abandon a cost saving feature like that. MR. PAGE: I don't know that a lease, that leasing a station is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a million dollars less a unit according to your document here, almost a million, 950,000. Just the opposite, 1,000,050. Your co-owned stations or collocated stations are 1.8 million and your new units are 2.8 million, so you're about a Page 264 January 13, 2006 $1 million different. MR. PAGE: But the collocated stations, we own half of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. PAGE: So I mean, that's not a lease. A lease is where I'm paying 1500 a month for two bedrooms at a North Naples fire station and that never goes away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in your new plans you are going to keep your collocated units as they are. MR. PAGE: As much as possible, yes. There is no, there is no intent to move out from a collocated station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of your nine new stations are any of them planned to be collocated? MR. PAGE: We're hoping to have at least three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now we're still back to my numbers. That means you have a total of nine and three, which is 12, collocated and 18 non-collocated. When you get done with that multiply that out using the right numbers for each type of station instead of using them all as new, you end up with a $15 million plus to the bottom line. All I'm saying is why don't we capitalize on that and use it if that's the reality that we're going to be faced with. MR. P AGE: You're talking about the available inventory currently, is that the line item, 21.5? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, the required inventory, 30.6. You are saying we need 30.6 -- MR. PAGE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You got 20 or close to 20 already and they are split up with II owned and nine collocated. Now you are going to add six more owned and three more collocated. When you put those numbers together it's going to come up, and you give them the allocation of both a collocated unit price and a new unit price, you'll end up being 15 million less than that line. Page 265 January 13, 2006 All I'm saying is if that could be done why don't we show the numbers that way and then the bottom line to the taxpayers isn't going to be 19 million, it might be considerably less than 19 million. Could you look at that? I don't want to put you on the spot now to try and do it. Could you look at that and respond to this panel with just that issue if there are no others after we get done discussing this today? That would be very helpful for me to understand that issue if you wouldn't mind. Now, based on that, is there any other questions of this panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. If you all don't mind, I would like to see that answer come back because it is a rather sizeable amount of money. If it's limited to that discussion we could get through it rather quickly next Thursday afternoon. Does that meet with the approval of this panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with you, Jeff? MR. PAGE: Unfortunately, I have a National Fire Academy class Thursday. But I will have the answer and maybe somebody else here if I'm not able to attend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. W e'lllimit it to that issue and we'll try to get past it real quick. MR. PAGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. And the last one, and Ms. Court Reporter, would you like a fifteen-minute break before we go on to the government buildings? Five-minute break. Good, let's take a five-minute break and we might be out of here earlier than we thought tonight. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to start now on the final one for this evening, and it will be the government buildings. Page 266 January 13, 2006 (Mr. Adelstein is not present.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move forward. MR. HOVELL: Good evening. For the record, I'm Ron Hovell, principal project manager in the facilities management department. And if you'll bear with me I'm kind of used to doing this on a monthly basis for the coastal advisory committee and I usually do it on the computer. Here we go, I think. Oh, good. I just wanted to give you some quick background on this category. This is the second year that this functional area is being reported in the AUIR. This is my first year doing it. I joined the department just about a year ago, a year and a couple months ago. And I, much like you, would tend to look back to last year and wonder what happened. When I first got assigned this task that's the same process I went through. And one of the things we learned is that last year the level of service was based on 1.9 square foot per weighted resident, is the way it was reported in the AUIR. But what I found when I read through the impact fee study, because initially I understood that this had to match the impact fee study, was if you read that it usually says the 1.9 square foot was per functional resident. And it went on to say, I think it was on the next page, that to make it simpler on county staff who would have a hard time keeping up with the functional resident population, that if we were to want to use a level of service based on weighted population, the recommendation was actually 1.7 square feet. So you notice in your package that's the way the slides are presented, although we'll get into some other details in a minute that kind of bring that into question. Just some other comparison points, the required inventory a year ago when we were reporting five years out we said we would need 806,884 square feet with the lower level of service. This year, also with the population changes and whatnot, now five years out we're saying we need -- or at that same point in time, September 30th, 2009, we need 737,441 square feet. Page 267 January 13,2006 Again, just comparing last year, we said in the five year capital improvement plan we needed $84.6 million total. This year we're saying we need 52. Last year we said we needed $69.9 million of some other funding source. This year we're saying we need 30.2. The level of service standard. When the impact fee study was done, I believe it was adopted in 2003, there was an existing deficit. We already had a number of functions that were out in leased space. Matter of fact, it was about 10 percent of our functions were in leased space. And there are some issues related to operational costs versus capital costs and whatnot and, you know, unlike a lot of other functional areas that may have been up here in front of you today, I think most people are in a, in the business of providing a service and the facilities are the place that they launch that service from. I'm in a little bit different situation. We're sort of the cats and dogs of this presentation. My office, we provide the facilities for other functions to do their business. So we support not only other county staff such as the transportation department or the facilities department, what have you, but we also support all of the other constitutional officers that don't already have a separate impact fee, such as the law enforcement impact fee for the sheriff or the jail impact fee for the correctional facilities requirement. So things like judges, state attorney, public defender, public health, supervisor of elections, tax collector, we're the ones that provide the facilities for all those folks. And all those functional areas are captured in the inventory and therefore the requirements behind the slides that you're going to see today. So when we talk about level of service, the 1.7 square foot per capita weighted population, yes, that's what the impact fee study said we had at that snapshot in time when they did that study about two or so years ago. I think if you were to look at the total functional requirements we had at the time, including leased space though, it Page 268 January 13, 2006 actually worked out that what we really were providing, albeit somewhat from leased space, perhaps 10 percent from leased space, was about 1.9. So, interestingly enough, when you look at the charts -- I'm going to jump to those here real quick. This is the chart that is based on using a 1.9 square foot level of service, and you'll notice -- and I -- this was, you know, me being new to it, perhaps, but if you look at FY '02, interestingly enough the required square footage, which is driven by population, and the square footage available superimpose themselves at that particular point in time. And so I somewhat naively thought that, oh, well, that must be because when we did the impact fee study and you do all of the math, you divide our current assets by the current population, and of course those two numbers should match. So when I first got into this and I was told that the level of, the level of service was 1.9 and that chart looked the way it did, I thought, oh, good, I'm done. We're there. Oh, well. This is what it looks like. Same data but at a different level of service. And now you see that in essence, because of the way all the math was done and the rounding off -- I mean, let's face it, 1.7 square foot per population when you're talking 300 to 500,000 people, if you round off, you know, the next digit after that seven -- like, I think if you go back to the study and actually look at the math, it was actually 1.74 something something something something, that rounding error comes out to about 30,000 square feet worth of building. So I don't know if that accounts for it or not but you see now that this would make it appear that in '02 and '03 and even in '04 we had more buildings than we needed to provide that level of service. So I just find that an interesting observation as we go through the rest of this discussion. So with all that in mind I'll just get into here is the list of proposed projects. You can see on Page 103 in your packets we went Page 269 January 13, 2006 through all the math, we looked at what the proposed projects are, what their funding sources are, what our revenue stream is, et cetera. And if you look at Page 103, and I hope that I can make this point without losing you here, but we're showing $39,050,000 as the required payments just for the projects. There is another $19 million worth of debt service, therefore we need a total of $58.7 million. You go down to revenues, we're only getting about 14.2 in impact fees. The other revenues another 14.2, almost all of which is to pay for specific projects that are on this list that's on the screen in front of you that other functional areas are willing to pay for. So the cat-ops facility, they have got their funding stream. The CDES second floor addition and garage I believe is Fund 113, and they are willing to pay for that. So when you back those numbers out, this plan is really only asking for $26 million for government buildings. And yet when you get down to the bottom there we're $30 million short. And the point I wanted to make there is you could zero out every one ofthese projects and we'd still be $4 million short because we've already bonded beyond what our current impact fee revenues will support. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've bonded beyond, that would seem to me an asset. MR. HOVELL: Our debt service on the bonds -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. HOVELL: -- we now have to repay exceed the revenues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now I understand. That was my question that I was going to pose, though. The year to open, would you explain that to me? That's the moment in time that the project is approved and design begins or what does that mean? MR. HOVELL: I'm sorry. Say that again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Year to open on your proposed projects payable. MR. HOVELL: Okay. The reason I wanted to point that out, Page 270 January 13,2006 and actually in your package on Page 106 it kind of goes hand in hand with this whole thing. In years past there was a fair amount of discussion about if we provide $40 million for building in fiscal year '08, some people thought that meant in '08 was when the year -- that was the year to open, whereas other people thought that meant, no, that's the year that we are going to provide the money, and because it takes a year or two to build the building it will be a year or two later before you see it. And so to make it clear this year, in your package, Page 106 shows all these projects and it shows what year we want them to start, we're proposing to have the design money, what year we're proposing to have the construction money and then what year the facility would be done and the doors would be open. So this year to open means that's the year that we would actually have beneficial use of the building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When would the impact fees be applicable to those, the year you open it, design or the incremental or what? MR. HOVELL: The year that you fund it is the capital improvement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So when you encumber the funds. Would that be on approval? MR. HOVELL: The year that you budget the funds I think is really it. For instance, as the proposal shows, if we, the tax collector north office, we're showing 2007 for the design money and 2008 for the construction money, and then it would open in 2009. So if for instance -- here is a better example, the health and public services building shows 2008 design, 2009 construction but it doesn't open until 20 II. And I'm not sure if that crosses, is that right on the cusp or is that right outside of that five-year window. But the money is in the five-year window so we're showing it as a, as part of the five-year. Page 271 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's reasonable. MR. HOVELL: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. HOVELL: Anyway, I think that was all of the remarks I wanted to make. I'll open it up to your questions. I'm sure there is a fair amount. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You made the comment, I think it was in passing, but that it appeared that we had more buildings than we needed. What was the truth? MR. HOVELL: I was looking back in time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. MR. HOVELL: This one right here. Well, I think if you, you know, when you say what is the truth, we had a master plan approved -- I say we, my department long before I got there -- back in 1997, 1998 the Board approved a master plan which predominantly related to this what we call the courthouse complex. And it showed that over a 20-year period we were going to be building something like 900,000 square feet of space to accommodate all the various pieces of growth around here. And if you were to analyze the plan, the master plan against where we are today we're over a hundred thousand square feet short. And if you want evidence of that go visit the public defender or the state attorney or come to some of the county staff offices -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have and I understand. MR. HOVELL: -- and they are sitting on each other's laps. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was based on slippage from not getting the projects. MR. HOVELL: Right. And some of the slippage, I mean, you maybe thinking that the courthouse annex will solve all of that but the master plan shows the courthouse annex, the next couple floors of Building H, the public health building and then further down the road a new BCC building, the what we call Building S and Building Rare Page 272 January 13,2006 all part of that master plan to ultimately accommodate the anticipated growth of those various functions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And those have been adjusted upward relative to need from the original master plan. MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure how much adjusting we've done to that original master plan. I will tell you that we're planning on getting an update to the master plan in the next window. I know we tend to say in next year's AUIR, but I think the timing is going to work out such that we're actually going to be presenting the 2006 AUIR maybe over the summer or by September or something like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We've been hearing April. MR. HOVELL: Well, yes, exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I was trying to get a bead on is the number of employees, the number of organizations, as it were, has increased from the master plan. And I guess what I'm looking for is, with what your shortfall is against what the increased numbers are, are we going to be okay with this projection now, are we well on our way to satisfaction of the master plan finally? MR. HOVELL: There is, there is one chart in your package, I believe it's this one based on 1.78 square feet. And one of the reasons we think it's worth at least discussing from a policy point of view is what is the right level of service. This chart certainly implies that all of the plans we've laid out would appear to have us overbuilt even now and yet the opposite is the truth. Whereas if we look at the 1.9 per square foot chart it shows a much more balanced approach and I would offer that perhaps one of the policy directions behind that is we've been under direction for a number of years now to get everybody out of leased space. I think there was a point in time maybe two or three years ago where we were spending a million dollars a year in lease costs. So this plan reflects getting everybody out of leased space. And it's, the red line, the square feet available based on this plan Page 273 January 13, 2006 is the same on both charts. It's the blue line that -- the square foot required based on the population that changes so it looks much -- I keep pushing the wrong button -- it looks much different at the 1.7 level. I think it's worth discussion that even though perhaps incorrectly a year ago or two years ago, whenever it was adopted, that 1.9 seems to have been what was chosen as the level of service, but I think it turns out that even though it may have been coincidence that that might actually be the appropriate level of service even though the impact fee study, because you can only count owned facilities, shows that it came out to 1.7, the math came out to 1.7. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Y es. You noted on the other chart that the community development would not be covered, the community development addition would not be covered by impact fees. MR. HOVELL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why is that? You think of any department that would be the one -- MR. SCHMITT: It's an enterprise fund and that building on Horseshoe Drive and the expansion and parking lot were all built with the development services fees as an enterprise fund activity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so will their addition? MR. SCHMITT: The addition will. Now the non -- the non-113, which are non-building department functions, pay rent back into, well, into the budget they pay assessed rent in that to pay down the bonding on that building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: So it is not an impact fee funded type of activity. It is strictly a -- it's a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You pay for it yourself. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Basically it's an enterprise fund similar to Page 274 January 13,2006 utilities. Utilities, you don't see anything on this chart for utilities because again it's, if they need an office building that's part of the enterprise fund activity, it's not part of the general revenue type activities in the county. Now one could argue that it could be the other way but that's kind of how that building was built, and just to keep things clean that's the way we will continue. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a -- are you finished? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a note here to myself, and maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a project for security changes to buildings. I know that some security changes should be manifesting. Am I in error in that? MR. SCHMITT: Those are all 0 and M type of activities, not __ those are budgetary issues, not capital -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They are not capital -- MR. SCHMITT: They are operating and maintenance type activities. Operating budget, not capital. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's interesting. I would have thought that would have been capital. MR. HOVELL: It also doesn't provide additional square footage, which is the main point behind this functional analysis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because it's a facility, it's a physical structure. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any more? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with Page 103, the unit costs. How did you come to that number, 413.35? MR. HOVELL: Sorry, I'm looking at Page 103 but I'm -- the unit cost I show is 318.95. Do I have the wrong page? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute. No, you're right, that Page 275 January 13,2006 was revised. MR. HOVELL: That's what I thought. But anyway, nevertheless -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still want to know-- MR. HOVELL: -- regardless of the number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me rephrase my question. MR. HOVELL: There you go. Regardless of the number, where that number comes from is from Page 106. When you take the total cost of the capital improvement plan and divide it by the square footage that that capital improvement plan provides, that's where that number comes from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 106 you have a column titled dollars per square foot. MR. HOVELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they vary a little bit, so is that an average of all of those? Is that -- or is it square foot? MR. HOVELL: Well, I -- I'm not sure if it's fair to call it an average, maybe a weighted average based on square footage. But if literally you take all, each project has a somewhat specific project estimate based on the specifics of that project. Some require more site development than others, some are just in addition to an existing building that don't have site development costs, what have you. Some are parking garages that don't have -- you know. So they all have different square footage costs. But when you take the total project estimate, the 39,050,000 and divide by the square footage that that money will provide for, 122,433 square feet, that's the number you come up with. And there was a point in time when we had a lot more projects in here and as you just noted, at one point in time it was 400 and some odd dollars per square foot. There was another version as we went through this effort where it was $500 a square foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the same page, if you go to the Page 276 January 13,2006 bottom there is an asterisk. I've looked, maybe I missed it, where does the asterisk refer to? MR. HOVELL: Under the projects there is some major groupings, there's projects under construction. The next one down is projects approved for construction, and you'll see after courthouse annex space two there's an asterisk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stop, stop, stop. I'm on Page 103. MR. HOVELL: I'm sorry. I'm still looking at the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The asterisk -- I'm going to start from the first page and work my way through this document as best I can. The last asterisk on that page. MR. HOVELL: You're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does that refer to in the document, is it mentioned up above, anywhere? MR. HOVELL: It should probably come, there should probably be an asterisk right after the, under revenues, impact fees anticipated, the 14.2 million, because what it's talking about is the current impact fees are based on $184 a square foot and yet our recent costs are more in the neighborhood of 390 because we're building things that don't add office square footage, like a parking garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 184 per square foot includes what costs? MR. HOVELL: You mean like land and buildings and furniture and equipment, that kind of costs? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOVELL: I'd better defer to Amy but I think I just gave you a pretty good list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hi, Amy. MS. PATTERSON: Hello. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nice to see you again. MS. PATTERSON: Good to see you. The $184.32 is the cost of the land and the buildings, not furniture or equipment. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not furniture. Page 277 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the impact fee revenue statement with the impact fee study with you for this building? MS. PATTERSON: I sure do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one dated January 2004. If you turn to Page 7 it says, based on the estimated value of buildings and land provided by the county, an average figure of 184.32 per square foot of building costs and 35.15 ofland costs per square foot of building is used. My assumption by the way that's written that you add those two together to get the cost. Is that not right? MS. PATTERSON: Let me go further into the study to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if you do and it's used the way he just said it was then the numbers in this table are going to have an error in them that we need to probably take a look at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While she's looking at that, Mr. Chairman, I want to be absolutely sure because I thought I had the correct supersedure, which is that 413.35. I should be looking at 318.95? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it was a handout that was provided. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got several of them, that's the problem, and I thought I had it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the only change on -- I mean, well, there are more changes on the page but that's the starting change. Means you've figured it out, Amy? MS. PATTERSON: The study's referencing $219.47 as the total cost per square foot of building, so if we need to revise that number what I'll do is double check back with the consultant and make sure that there wasn't some reason, since we have been using this $184 number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the impact fee study does come up to -- Page 278 January 13, 2006 MS. PATTERSON: It does reference another $35 for land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm afraid that I'm going to have to ask you that the summary sheet will have to be redone and brought back to us because that's going to have an impact on the numbers as the gentleman indicated they used it. So that will be an important factor in this sheet. MS. PATTERSON: Assuming that we're not making a mistake with that $35 and we would revise accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One document's got a problem with it, one or the other. If you guys could just identify it that would be helpful. Ifwe go to, now, Page 106. Ifwe go down to the projects approved for construction, what do these mean? Are they included in the -- they are included in the government buildings overall square footage, right? MR. HOVELL: Yes, they are shown as coming on line in 2007 and 2008. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So their valuations are included in the current inventory. MR. HOVELL: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What's in the current inventory that is on Page 106? MR. HOVELL: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- MR. HOVELL: That's why this chart exists. The current inventory is only things that are already built and open for business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the available inventory of 639,231 none of that is on this page. MR. HOVELL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are things on this Page 106 being paid for with impact fees or other revenue sources under the government buildings section of this AUIR? Page 279 January 13, 2006 MR. HOVELL: They are paid for out of impact fees budgeted in FY '06 or prior years plus in some cases, like the fleet facility for instance, the line that you see here is only the portion attributable to impact fees. There is also sheriffs impact fees or perhaps other fund sources to make up the total project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the courthouse annex phase two the total project? MR. HOVELL: No, there is a phase one that is currently under construction, phase two that is approved for construction and we've actually got a phase three proposed in the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is the courthouse annex phase two for phase two the total that's in your sheet? MR. HOVELL: The 14 million, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Okay. In discussions this morning with Norm Feder's group they were made aware ofa document they had posted on the web that apparently was there by accident. Although it's not a secret document, it does provide additional information that may have affected this page. They have a courthouse annex phase two under the gas tax that contributed $22,540,000. I don't know how relevant that is to this or if it works into this or where Norm got that information-- MR. HOVELL: There is no gas tax related to the courthouse annex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. If you -- the emergency services complex that's there, 55,822 square feet, how does that compare to the size of the emergency services complex that we've all heard about? MR. HOVELL: The other square footage related to that building, the total building comes out to more like 130,000 square feet, this is the portion that is being paid out of this particular impact fee. There are other funding sources. And so the 17.8 million is also not the total cost of the total project. Page 280 January 13,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other difference is made up by other departments, or will they still be on the government building section of the document? MR. HOVELL: No, they are under other impact fees. For instance, the sheriff has some space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's got 34,000. So if you take 55 and 34 you're at about 90. That still leaves you about 40,000 short. Who is taking up that 40,000 square feet? MR. HOVELL: There's EMS impact fees going into it, sheriffs fees, government building impact fees and there may be some replacement costs that are being paid for for ad valorem dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that means that -- that means EMS has to show -- I'm just curious how we're going to account for that building. I'm trying to find out where all of the square footage is. You're right, it's about 132. And the sheriffs impact fee report says they are going to use about 34 and this report says 55 so there is some missing square footage. I didn't see any in the EMS. MR. HOVELL: They don't report square footage, they report units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I mean, they would have to put an awfu110t of units in there to make up that much missing square footage. MR. HOVELL: Well, it's not EMS, it includes EMS admin. It's currently located in Building H. They will be occupying this building and EMS impact fees are paying for their administrative space in the emergency services complex as well. Some of that is replacement and some of that is growth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the unit cost in EMS then includes the allocation for this building at 2.7 million per unit. I mean, if their impact -- I'm just curious how that's -- well, that's another issue I don't want to bring up. MS. PATTERSON: We can look into it for you and find out. Page 281 January 13, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind. MS. PATTERSON: No, it's no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you turn further on on Page 108, beginning on Page 108 you have the sheriffs CID building, 2373 Horseshoe Drive. MR. HOVELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go to the law enforcement master plan that was Attachment A to -- well, you won't be able to go to it because it was under the law enforcement section we didn't hear today because the sheriffs department didn't show up. But in that particular one they have the CID building, 2373 South Horseshoe Drive in their documents as well. Are both of you guys claiming that building? MR. HOVELL: It's not included in their impact fee study, because I coordinated that with Amy's office, and it's also due to be vacated by the sheriff. Well, actually, a year ago it was due to be vacated about now so it's probably another year or so out. But that building will be coming back to facilities for reassignment. So when we realized it had not been included in either the law enforcement impact fee study nor the government buildings impact study, and after discussions with Amy's office we put it in this inventory line item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's attached to the inventory sheet as an exhibit to their AUIR report and that's why I asked the question. I'll have to follow up and see if I can find out how it got there. MR. HOVELL: I have the whole book if you don't mind telling me what page you are looking at in the sheriffs section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I have it tabbed. Page 69. MR. HOVELL: I do see it and it does even say that that is a page out of the Tinda1e-Oliver and Associates impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which I did check and I thought it was but if you tell me it isn't I'm not going to doubt your word because I'll check it again. Does that mean you guys have got to check on that one too? Page 282 January 13,2006 MR. HOVELL: No, I think Amy just said we're still saying, yes, it belongs on general government impact fee, where I've shown it anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it is under the law enforcement impact fee study as this sheet indicates, does that mean somebody's study is in error? MS. PATTERSON: Not necessarily. We'll look into it and make sure. Since we have had these conversations with Ron what we'll do is just go back and check what we had planned to do with this. It can't be in both places so it has to come off one and go onto the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that, and so we need to fix them before the next meeting, is where I'm going -- MS. PATTERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on Page 108. And also on Page 108 you have fairgrounds office and fairgrounds maintenance building. The parks and recs department claims that those are going to be turned over to them. Are you aware of that? MR. HOVELL: No, I'm not specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 54 of the parks and rec document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's in there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Fairgrounds. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Might be on the preceding page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are supposed to be picking up the fairgrounds in '06 to '07. Are the buildings going with it? I thought they were indicating they were, but are they going to get the fairgrounds without the buildings? If you could take a look at it. MR. HOVELL: We will confirm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to bring this summary sheet back anyway and if you can answer these questions when you come back that would work. Page 283 January 13,2006 In the 2004 AUIR you had a, quite a few structures that were listed in the base inventory in the back of the '04 AUIR. And they are not listed in this one. I don't know why they are not. There is probably maybe two dozen over 10,000 square feet, I believe. Can you guys take a look and see why those aren't listed in the '05. If they need to be then that certainly will help the '05. MR. HOVELL: I think some of the ones you're referring to were, although they have square footage associated with them they are not office square foot, they are ancillary buildings like a generator shed or a tiller plant or something that doesn't provide an opportunity for anybody to provide a service out of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does the impact fee study or the base of your government buildings require it to be for useful office space, or is it supposed to be just a building? If it is supposed to be just a building you may want to consider putting them back in and take a look at them. I don't know, I'm just asking you. If you're going to come back why don't we just get it all cleaned up at one shot and be done with it. Is that fair enough? And that's the last question I had on government buildings, and with these outstanding issues I don't know how we can move it forward today unless this Board feels that you want to. I can't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was under the distinction impression that we were asking folks to come back with revisions so that we had that last shot to help them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we're in agreement on that. It's not my call. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I was going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOVELL: One question if you feel so inclined that I would like your opinion on is what is the appropriate level of service for this category that we should be taking forward to the Board. As I Page 284 January 13,2006 mentioned it would seem they have adopted 1.9 although it could be argued perhaps that was an error. We've got it prepared both ways. I think we're looking for your input on what's the appropriate level of servIce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, I think we need the tables redone so we can understand what numbers are affected by that. Second of all -- MR. HOVELL: The numbers won't change because none of the questions you've asked have any impact on what the table looks like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The level of service increases the cost to the taxpayers. And the impact fee study that I read has a level of service stated whether you use functional or weighted. You've chosen to use weighted so you're going to 1.7, so I would assume then they would have taken into consideration the balance between those two because if you use functional you're going to change your population statistics to something else. I'm not sure it makes a difference from our end what you use if you use the right population with the right -- MR. HOVELL: Okay, so your answer is to be consistent with the impact fee study if I'm hearing you right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really think you would want to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one is the subject of scrutiny now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you came up with these charts obviously you came up with the needs of all the different operations and came up with your square footage that way and then just plotted it to see how it was, based on the 1.7 or 1.9, correct? The 1.7 does make it look like there is an awfu110t of extra facilities. You're saying that's not the case. MR. HOVELL: Right. And that's the genesis of my question of Page 285 January 13,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that not the case because when you were programming these other functions, you were programming too much error in or is that not the case? MR. HOVELL: No, it's because when the impact fee study was done it recommend 1.7 square foot per weighted population. We already had a deficit. And if we're going to suggest that we always have a deficit then our chart will look like this. The need is there to try to make up that deficit but the funding and the level of service don't provide it. So we will apparently always have leased space and/or people sitting on each other's laps under this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this chart shows a surplus, doesn't it? MR. HOVELL: At the level of service of 1.7, which already has a built-in deficit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a surplus with a built-in deficit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it getting late? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It boggles the mind. MR. HOVELL: Again, you get into that same discussion you had with EMS. This chart only reflects owned space. So at the time the study was done 10 percent of our functions were supported in leased space. If we are to support it with owned space and follow the policy direction of getting out of leased space then our chart is going to look something like this. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Couldn't you then make your chart, have your chart with a third item in there showing the leased space as an additive, which combined then, as a separate line, but combined would give you a more realistic number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For my part -- MR. HOVELL: Yes, in a way. Yes and no. In essence this chart at 1.9 square foot per capita, just as I said, coincidentally happens to match up with the impact fee study recommendation to do 1.9 square Page 286 January 13,2006 foot per functional resident, I guess was the way they put it. It just happens to be the same number but that's the level of service that it would appear that the various entities that use government buildings actually need. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your chart shows what appears to be the surplus but you speak to it as a deficit, so some component has to be in there to make your point. Otherwise the easy thing for us to say is sure, go with that. But I'm not sure that solves your problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm -- I know that you guys hired -- somebody hired professionals to do a study for impact fees and I know impact fees are a very contentious legal issue. It would be the last thing I would do with this panel to suggest changing a study that some professional did that is on the books and on record and voted upon by the BCC. If they want to change an impact fee study, have a revision made and come back with a level of a service that they desire, then that's their call. That's one thing. But I don't know if I can outthink Tinda1e-Oliver sitting here in this meeting. MR. HOVELL: We went through this same debate of what's an AUIR versus what is an impact fee study. The impact fee study obviously is specifically to impact fees. AUIR takes the broader view of what are all the things you need to do. And you may have heard some people today even try and weave in, I think you heard libraries talking about their replacement costs, which clearly that has nothing to do with impact fees. So AUIR isn't necessarily a one for one match with impact fee studies. As long as we don't decrease the level of service, then there is no effect on impact fees. If we increase the level of service above what the impact fee recommends it only means, it only drives where the funding comes from. The impact fees cannot be based on anything more than what the impact fee study recommends. That delta needs to be made up with something else, perhaps ad valorem or whatever Page 287 January 13,2006 other funding sources might be available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if there is a higher level of service that's used in the AUIR and you want to modify the impact fee study with an amendment to raise it to a higher level of service, they can do that as well, can't they? MR. HOVELL: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can't change impact fee levels of service? MR. HOVELL: I will let Amy explain better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But libraries and a few others have already done that. MS. PATTERSON: What happened with the libraries is a little bit different than trying to raise your level of service using impact fees. They actually have ad valorem support for what they're trying to do with their book level of service. Your impact fees support your current level of service. If you want to improve your level of service you have to use a funding source other than impact fees because you can't charge an impact fee and then charge somebody again to improve the level of service. So that's -- if we want a higher level of service for government buildings, that's fine, but that, that increment between the impact fee level of service and your -- the level of service that you want to achieve has to be made up by another funding source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fair enough, thank you. I have no other questions. Does this panel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one question. On the leased spaces is there a point in time when we'll have no leased space or is this 10 percent going to carry or -- MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, facilities management. That's a great question. The current CEO has asked us, Jim Mudd has asked us to get rid of leased space as soon as possible. At one time we were leasing a million dollars a year worth and now it's Page 288 January 13,2006 considerably different. But your question I think though there is always going to be an appropriate amount of leased space to lease. It's the gap between the inventory you have and what you need. So I think there's always going to be a certain amount. I think the important thing is to, for government buildings, since we're going to be in them for a long time and it's not temporary, is to mitigate that and to make that number as small as possible. But I think there is always going to be a gap to fill. And the other thing is in government buildings we have much like the sheriffs office where you'll have a jail, for instance, will have a whole lot of inmates in one area because there are classifications. The people will be laying on the floor and yet you'll have open cells over here. Weare much the same way. If you look at the commissioners' office they may be appropriate now and appropriate for a number of years and yet the courts, in the clerk of courts people are sitting all over each other. So there are those pockets or what the jail calls classifications that we're always going to deal with, there's a surplus here but there's plenty over here. I think the lease helps that particularly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! can, Skip, you would have, if I understand, for allocated space individuals, human beings have space that's based on their title, their workload, whatever, any number of factors or maybe one or two factors. Doesn't that drive ultimately the need for additional space? MR. CAMP: Absolutely. When the study was commissioned in 1997 and accepted by the Board in 1998, the study looked at first of all was our square foot per employee adequate, proper. And we did that by looking at other municipalities, the private sectors, the State of Florida and we compared that to make sure that we had a defensible, conservative square foot per person, and a judge, for instance, gets, let's say, 300 square feet and a technician gets so much, and they are Page 289 January 13,2006 all different categories. And also whether they are open or closed offices. We wanted to make sure, confirm that we had conservative, defensible square footage. And that's where it started. Then it went, it went -- the study decided what is the relationship between the population, the overall county population and the number of employees that we have. And then how is the number of employees, what's the history of that and what's the projection, what's the population, and also things like court cases to see how stable the government functions were. And they did all those kinds of things in order to come up with these types of square foot per person. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in your inventory right now we could say you have a million square feet but if we allocated it out against the number of human beings occupying that we might find out that we needed 1,270,000 square feet. MR. CAMP: Absolutely. One of the things that happened when we started this is that we had, like Ron said we had a deficit in leased space and we had a deficit in the amount of people that we already had in buildings that was improper, people sitting on top of each other. And I think those are the things we're still living with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, gentlemen, ifthere is nothing else, this meeting is adjourned and we will go home. I mean continued to next Thursday afternoon. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would say project that it will be continued to 1 :00 on the 17th and maybe after that, depending on the land use petitions associated with the planning commission meeting that morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was under the understanding we didn't have to put a time, but if we do, 1 :00 is fine. MR. SCHMITT: I would project 1 :00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, MR. SCHMITT, that's what Page 290 January 13,2006 we'll do. The meeting is adjourned, or continued. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:46 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR Page 291