Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/25/2006 S (AUIR) January 25, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, January 25, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Frank Halas Fred W. Coyle Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ii', , / " _.~~::---:;:;;:~'-"!~ Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) AGENDA January 25, 2006 9:00 AM Frank Halas, Chairman, District 2 Jim Coletta, Vice-Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2004-05, AS AMENDED REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, Page 1 January 25, 2006 AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Presentation to the Collier County Board of County Commission (BCC) of the 2005 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on Public Facilities as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 3. Comments 4. Adjourn Page 2 January 25, 2006 January 25, 2006 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This morning this is the Annual Update Inventory Report on public facilities. Would you all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. And at this time I'll turn this over to County Manager Jim Mudd to give us some guidance here. PRESENT AnON TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) OF THE 2005 ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR) ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 6.02.02 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The AUIR -- the comprehensive review of the AUIR has been an annual event in Collier County for -- well, as long as I've been here and way before that. This year's AUIR, I believe, is of increased importance and has a lot to do with the -- with the new growth management plan that's -- that's -- that was introduced and passed by the state into law last year. And let's kind of go through the bidding on what the AUIR is. The AUIR is basically the blueprint for concurrency, okay, in this county. And -- and from it you go into budget ramification. From it you go into a CIE that goes into your growth management plan that gets approved. And it goes -- and then that CIE goes through your Planning Commission and goes through that process. And then goes to the Board of County Commissioners and gets pretty much put in stone in the state. The CIE in past years didn't have a lot of teeth in it, okay, as far as the state's concern and oversight was involved. What it -- what it Page 2 January 25,2006 did it -- it was a requirement. You could do it or not do it. A lot of counties didn't do it and they didn't put any time into it. This county has always put a lot of time into the AUIR and the CIE. And I can speak for at least the last six AUIRs that -- that I've had some part to play in either as the public utilities administrator, deputy and now the county manager. Because of the growth management plan that was introduced and __ and approved by -- by the state last year, the CIE takes on a new dimension. That CIE as far as roads is concerned becomes the menu, the checklist for that particular developer that wants to come forward and -- and -- and wants to do proportionate fair share or pay-as-you-go. If -- if in our five-year plan we have a road project, he based -- he -- and I'm using "developer" as a -- as a gender unspecific here when I say "he." It could be he or she. Comes forward. Looks at that plan. And if they're zoned correctly, they just pay their money. Right now in -- in Collier County, if you do not have road capacity on that particular road and that road is not going to be constructed in two years, under construction in two years, that particular person cannot get a permit to build that development until there is capacity or unless that road is under construction. And that five-year window now causes us some concern. This board yesterday passed some -- a Glitch Bill for the growth management plan that -- that got at two points specifically. One was the ability to have a more strict concurrency system as we do in Collier County than exists today than what the state proposed in that bill. And the other was to keep our impact-fee system as we have it as -- as close to what we have it so that we can make sure that the growth pays for growth. And I believe the board did that and passed it and I believe those changes will accomplish those particular items in that bill. So this year this AUIR takes on -- took on a more increased significance. Now, if you remember last year you had a joint Page 3 January 25, 2006 workshop with the Planning Commission in order to do that. Staff thought that it would be -- it would be a good idea for that to happen last year so we suggested a joint workshop. And we had one. And I -- I believe it was a good exchange. The rationale for that was we believe because there was so much confusion on concurrency that both commissions, the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission, needed to get together to talk about that to clear up any misconceptions or misinformation about those particular items. As the county manager this year I asked and went before the Planning Commission and I asked them because of the increased significance to the Growth Management Bill that was just passed, if they would do a really good comprehensive review for me. Okay. And I've spent at least four times with staff beating through this AUIR before it ever went to the Planning Commission. And they spent, oh, at least 28 hours, I believe, of time working on this particular -- on this particular AUIR. I can't tell you how much I appreciate what the Planning Commission did in that review. They -- they went after it. They were very diligent about it. And they -- and they took my -- my -- my requests to heart and they really got into it. I will tell you that a lot of the discussion during that review was budgetary, okay, in the review with -- with the Planning Commission. And there was some questions and some issues that -- that I was uncomfortable or staff was uncomfortable with. Well, is that a budget issue or is that an AUIR? I will tell you that they scrubbed this AUIR with staff, asked lots and lots of questions. And -- and today we have that combined product before you as the Board of County Commissioners. I can't tell you now that this -- I can't stress enough that this AUIR, okay, is very, very important this year. Because as it gets filed based on some deadlines and that new growth management plan, it has a direct impact upon how roads are going to be done and what's going Page 4 January 25,2006 to be in that five-year plan. If -- if -- and I'm going to use the collective term "we," if we -- and I'm not trying to point fingers, if we make a mistake, okay, in that five-year road program, it could have adverse effects on this county because of that growth management plan. We need to be very, very conscious of that fact and we need to be very diligent about what's there as we get ready to -- to -- because this document goes directly into a CIE, okay, that gets approved in your growth management plan. And then it becomes gospel until you change it. And under the new rules, if you're going to change it, you need to have a public hearing and you go on through that process. As a county manager, I believe this thing has been scrubbed pretty well. I need to get your direction. I've -- I've -- we've involved the Planning Commission for the last two years. I need to know from this commission if you want to keep the Planning Commission involved in this process for years out and I need your direction as far as that's concerned. But let's go through this. Let's take a look at what we have. After it's over, we'll get back to that question because there's several things I need you to do -- you know, one of which is to approve the AUIR with changes or as it's -- as it's stated. We need to ask you a question. I think in your write-up you -- you learn that your Category B's don't legally have to go into a CIE. We've done that in the past. I asked that question and we've got -- we've got a legal opinion that has come back from our outside consultants on that particular item. And we can ask that question at the end and resolve those and then we'll move forward. Without further adue, Mr. Cohen. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Hold on. We've got one question, I believe. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you. The AUIR, it's basically capital improvements, how we're going to build the Page 5 January 25, 2006 capital improvements; roads, parks and so on and so forth; right? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can you not tie dollars with that CIE or budgetary, like you say, because they're all tied together? It has to -- the concurrency system or these capital aid facilities, they have to be financially feasible. Your plan needs to be financially feasible -- feasible. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's what it says in the state's administration code in 9J-5. And since I've been a commissioner, we have always had a report on your AUIR. It's always been there. You have to report all counties. And, correct me if I'm wrong, I think through -- Senate Bill 360 is just stating you will and we're going to enforce it. That's -- that's what I read on it so... MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tell me I'm wrong on that. MR. MUDD: No. I'm -- I'm -- as far as Collier County is concerned on the AUIR, as far as I can remember, we've always done it. I stated that in my statement. There's no misstatement there. And -- and -- and, yes, the state basically said if you don't -- if you don't comply, there are some -- there are some penalties withholding your share of the sales tax and other things that they can do in order to bring counties in compliance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they just want us to do what we say we're going to do? MR. MUDD: Yes. Yes, sir. Whatever you put in that CIE. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why would you want to take a County Commission sanctioned advisory board and take them out of the process? Again-- MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I asked the board if we -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the CIE has to be tied to Page 6 January 25, 2006 dollars. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that was -- if it's the board's direction to keep the Planning Commission involved in that process, that's up to the board to direct the county manager. I involved the Planning Commission twice as a staff -- as a staff item in order to bring some -- some understanding to the particular item. I want to know if the board wants to do that. That -- that review by the Planning Commission was three days. And -- and do you -- and you need to tell me if that gives you any benefit in -- in that particular review and that process. Commissioner, I don't -- I don't -- one way or the other doesn't bother me. You need to tell me as a board, does that give you an added benefit? It is not -- it is not a requirement by any stretch of the imagination. The CIE review is a requirement for that Planning Commission in order to do that. We've started something in the last two years and I want you -- I want to find out from the board, do you want to continue that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I need to address something Commissioner Henning said. The -- the growth management -- state's Growth Management Bill went way, way beyond asking us merely to do what we said we would do. It's always been required that the AUIR be financially feasible. What the state legislation did was it permits any developer to proceed with development whether there is road capacity available or not if, in fact, the road was planned for the beginning of construction within the next three years. And that's the really dangerous problem. That's the pitfall. So -- so the county manager's admonitions concerning accuracy and, I hope, a conservative view on the AUIR is absolutely essential. Otherwise, we will put ourselves in the position where developers will begin construction without having capacity on the roads and we will Page 7 January 25, 2006 have nothing to say about it. That is the real danger here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I totally agree with that proportionate fair share issue on that, but a capital improvement plan has -- has always been a requirement. They're just enforcing it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no. No, they're not. They're really not. What they're -- what -- what happens to us is if we put it in the capital improvement plan based upon our best guess, is because of contractor bids or contractor delays or if the federal or the state Department of Transportation pulls money from projects they have programmed, we are left holding the bag. And then we are exposed to developers proceeding with development without having to adhere to our concurrency plan. And -- and that's the dangerous part. And that's -- that's the fundamental flaw of this whole bill. If -- if our comments can correct that, then -- then I'm happy with it. But that is the real key point. And that's why this meeting is so important. This must be financially feasible. We must be convinced it can be done within the time frames that staff has identified. And we must make sure that when we put it in the five-year plan, that we have a pretty good guarantee that we have the -- the -- the funds to do it and that we can do it on the schedule we said we could do it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The state's going to hold us that -- hold us to it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's the big problem. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's the big problem and the state's going to hold us to it. I mean, that's some of the -- when I was involved with the work group with the Florida Association of Counties, that was the -- probably the utmost important discussion was in regards to the new requirements by the state in regards to the CIE. So, Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As to your question about having the Planning Commission involved, I kind of like a second pair Page 8 January 25, 2006 of eyes or a second group taking a look at it. It gives me -- in my opinion, it gives me a better view of maybe things I wouldn't have seen so... CHAIRMAN HALAS: Myself, I'd like to-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: My two cents. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And that I'd like to see maybe us work with getting -- in regards to a work group like we did a year ago, a workshop. To me, I thought that was more beneficial. We were all sitting at the table looking at this as one pair of eyes. And I think maybe that's the best way to go. I think we get a lot more accomplished in a -- in a period of time. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be honest with you, I -- I hold a different view. I, myself, did not gain anything from that joint work group and I don't want to attend another one. I'll be -- if you attend it, it will be without me here. I think it's much more productive to have the Planning Commission working on their own, making a report independent of the Commission. And then the Commission taking it from that point forward. I didn't see it to be the most adhesive situation I've ever sat through. In fact, I found it to be less than rewarding as far as direction goes. I don't want to participate in it, to be honest with you. I do want to hear the opinions of others. I want to rely on the Planning Commission for the AUIR, but when it comes to the budget, I -- planning, excuse me, Productivity Committee is the direction I'd like to get the budget advice from. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's why each one of us have a -- has our own opmlOn so... COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HALAS: At that -- MR. MUDD: Mr. Cohen. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can we now start with, I believe, with Randy Cohen. Page 9 January 25, 2006 MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Department Director. Joe, if you could hit that first slide. As the county manager indicated, you know, the AUIR is required as a part of the LDC and Section 6.0202. It provides the foundation for the capital improvements element which you will see again later this year and adopt formally and transmit to the Department of Community Affairs for their review. Understand that Bill 360, there have been some significant changes with respect to what is required in a capital improvements element. And as you touched on as a body, the most important thing is that this capital improvements element has to be financially feasible. If you refer to the first page of the executive summary, I want you to note that there's two types of facilities that we're going to be talking about today. One is Category A facilities. And those facilities are roads, solid waste, drainage canals and structures, parks and recreation, potable water, sewer collection and -- and treatment. And those are all facilities that are subject to concurrency. The other types of facilities that you're going to be talking about are Category B facilities. Those are facilities where we collect impact fees but are not subject to concurrency. And just to give a brief rundown of those. You've got jails, law enforcement, government buildings, libraries. I'm leaving one out there. But the important thing with -- with the Category B facilities, obviously, is that -- the distinction is that they're impact-fee related. And I'm going to touch on a little bit why they're important a little bit further in this discussion. If you go to page 2 of the executive summary, one of the things you might note is that we are required, obviously, to be financially feasible. And the other important thing is that we have to provide a financially feasible capital improvements element by December the 1 st, 2007. One of the things I did want to note is that DCA asked after Page 10 January 25,2006 the adoption of this particular statute, actually passed a schedule where different governmental entities have to actually provide their capital improvements elements to the state. I guess they didn't want all of them coming in on December the 1 st, 2007, because they would have been overloaded. Our date is going to March 1st, 2008. And I wanted to collect -- correct that for the record because I just got a copy of that schedule and I wanted you to be aware of that. One of the things that's been interesting in the past when we talk about capital improvements element, this is only one of seven governmental entities in the state that has regularly provided DCA with a capital improvements element. So this Commission has been very diligent in reviewing its requirements with respect to capital improvements as part ofthis AUIR process. When we talk about DCA becoming very involved in the process and ensuring that things have to be financially feasible, they will be looking at this diligently to ensure that Collier County has provided them with a financially feasible capital improvements element. If, for some reason, we cannot, say, make a road improvement, and it's in the five-year CIE and that reason is, for example, financial-- financial and we have another source of revenue, could be ad valorem taxes, as an example, they're not going to say, Collier County, you can push that out of your CIE. So take that to heart. If it's there, it's there. I wanted to talk a little bit more about the recommendations that I'm going to be asking you to make as part of this meeting because there are going to be formal recommendations, formal action by this particular body that needs to transpire. The first thing is -- is if you look at page 4 of the -- of the executive summary, it's actually taking action to give direction with respect to the Category A facilities. And when -- when we ask for that particular direction, if -- if the action is to approve it, it would be with that specific language as -- as written. Number two is -- deals more with the transportation concurrency management database. And that's really important, again, as Page 11 January 25,2006 Commissioner Coyle pointed out, with respect to the roadway network that's actually going to be in the five-year CIE as it ties in with the potential for actually things being financially feasible. And the possibilities that things may get pushed out past that five-year window and what happens if the proportionate share actually does stay in place as part of the legislation that was enacted as part of Senate Bill 360 and there is no glitch amendment. Yes, sir, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: My question is, how are we interfacing with regards to the CIE with regards to the school board -_ MR. COHEN: We're-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- because that's going to be very, very important. MR. COHEN: We're required to modifY the interlocal agreement and also adopt a school concurrency element as part of the -- of the comprehensive plan. You will be having a joint meeting with the school board, I believe in the first week of April, which will be the initial kickoff, and staffs have been working together at this point in time to address those initial issues. CHAIRMAN HALAS: They realize that we now are ones that are very concerned about what they're going to put into their CIE plan and if they were going to be able to address that. MR. COHEN: It's a very interesting situation, Commissioner, because, obviously, as a body you are charged with the responsibility of actually adopting the school concurrency -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. MR. COHEN: -- as part of the comprehensive plan where they still control the purse strings. So we have to kind of come together as two bodies and agree as part of that interlocal agreement and also as part of that element as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. COHEN: Item No.3 is very important on page 5 of the Page 12 January 25, 2006 executive summary. And we're going to actually ask you to officially accept and adopt the attached document as the 2005 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities. And I'll get into that rationale in a bit because Items 3 and 4 pretty much tie into one another. Item 4, and this is pertaining to separate motions on Category A and B facilities with respect to actually adopting them. And the rationale there goes -- is pretty much your Category A facilities because they're subject to concurrency are required by state statute to be in the capital improvements element. Category B facilities, although they're under the capital improvements element, are not required by state statute to be in our CIE. Okay. And that's very important from the standpoint of -- of two things. One, if a Category B facility is not required to be in our CIE and we adopt it as part of our AUIR, it gives the county manager and you as a collective body when it comes time to the budgetary process, if it's not part of the CIE and not part of the state oversight, some more flexibility in pushing things back maybe out of the process if funds are short or there may be some other priorities that you may have or some other options that you may want to take with respect to those particular facilities. So it gives you a little bit more flexibility. The other reason that it's very important, obviously, you know, is from the standpoint of why do you want to put something in your CIE and tie yourself down financially if you don't have to? Okay. If you go to -- Joe, if you go to the next slide, please. We -- we found it very important, you know, with respect to Category B facilities because in the past our impact-fee consultants have wanted to have rational nexus that tied this to a specific document that this body -- that this board had adopted. And when I said three and four were inextricably intertwined, the reason I say that is, if you officially adopt the AUIR with its Category A and B facilities, but that -- basically what that opinion says is that Page 13 January 25,2006 you can exclude your Category B facilities from your CIE. So that affords you in the budgetary process and also in terms of addressing your capital improvements with respect to Category B facilities in the future a lot more flexibility in the process. So that's very important to take that into consideration when we go forward with the review of this particular document. Joe, if you could go to the next slide, please. At this point I kind of wanted to touch briefly on our impact-fee population methodologies. Just to let you know that every impact fee that this county has in place right now is based on weighted population. That's very important because this particular AUIR is all based on weighted population. So we have consistency between our AUIR and all of our impact- fee methodologies. Go to the next slide, Joe. One of the things when we -- when we put together this AUIR and also our CIE is, we want to make sure that we're consistent with what the state is requiring us with respect to putting together our capital improvements. And if you read this particular slide that's up in front of you right now, we're required to finance capital improvements based on anticipated population. And this county is part of our impact-fee ordinances and part of past action. Our anticipated population has been a weighted population. And, for the record, I wanted to kind of clarify how we calculate weighted population in this county because a lot of questions sometimes arise as, well, what is weighted population. What we do here is we take the permanent population and we multiply that by two-thirds and we take the peak population. We multiply that by one-third. So, in essence, what we're doing is we're looking at providing facilities for that peak population for a four-month period of time. And that's how the weighting calculation comes into play. We're assuming that our -- that the seasonal population is here for four months out of the year. And that's how we're providing facilities for the -- for the general population here and Page 14 January 25, 2006 that's the weighted population. Go to the next slide, Joe. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That means what we're doing is making sure that we have adequate sewer and water and all the other? MR. COHEN: Sewer and water is a little different and I think in providing -- providing that particular type of population figure -- see if -- we actually, because of what transpired in 2001 with the -- the water plant, what we take into account is more the peak population in dealing with providing plants in -- in -- in advance so we don't have a situation that occurs like that. So water and sewer is a lot different calculation. And it's -- the methodology is actually provided for you in the back of -- of -- of your booklet. And if you need a little further explanation, we can provide that beyond that. But the idea there is to deal with peak. Just in case, Mr. Delony can address that right now if you'd like him to. MR. DELONY: For the record, Jim Delony, Public Utilities Administrator. Good morning. Here's -- here's where we're at on population for planning for water and sewer services and to remain concurrent per our board's previously approved situation. We have adopted a model separate from the weighted population. And we feel it more accurately in the near term predicts the population increases that we have. The weighted population is as good a guess as -- as we can make in a lot of cases. But given the -- the -- the essential nature of providing potable water and water services associated with the wastewater, it was felt by this board a couple years ago that we want -- probably want to look at a different model that is more demanding on us in terms of concurrency. Therefore, we went and looked at a high BEBR which is essentially a different population model than the weighted population we get from BEBR. It's just a different model. It shows an increase Page 15 January 25, 2006 over a shorter period of time of population numbers. You may end at the same number over the 20-year planning horizon. It's just that the slope of activity in the earlier years of your planning horizon's a little steeper than a weighted population model. The people arrive sooner under the weighted BEBR -- I mean, excuse me, on the high BEBR than they do on the weighted BEBR. But, generally speaking, looking at the two models -- if I may, Randy, and, of course, this is your area of expertise -- you generally end up with the same number. It's just the time scale, the acceleration. And I think that looking backwards at what we saw in terms of growth in the population of the county, say, since 1999, this is the more accurate model as we go forward during this planning period. Now, the good news about AUIR, we look at this every year. Should we see through population studies conducted by BEBR as well as our own comprehensive planning department that the slope and pace of populations is changing slower and that weighted population certainly is a better model to use, there's no reason why we couldn't adopt that for future planning and concurrency as we do annual assessments of our inventory. And that's the short answer if I've answered your questions, I hope. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Delony -- MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- going back to try to bring this down to simpler terms for -- so we can get a better grip on this, we talk about weighted population. If we work with weighted population to determine what facilities are needed in the future, is this going to avoid the problems that we had back about four or five years ago when the -- the estimates were based upon the average population and septic needs were based upon average, and being average, they didn't allow for the peak and the peak caused the -- the septic system to fail and to flood the area where they have the plant? Is this particular way Page 16 January 25, 2006 -- this is the way we can avoid it by staying with weighted? MR. DELONY: Well, actually, sir, stay with the high BEBR, the model that we're using I believe is the best guess on what we need to provide in terms of service based on population forecasting. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This -- this will take care of -- make everything adequate as far as the facilities go because -- there's a couple of things we cannot have happen again. We can't have a failure in our -- in our wastewater collections. And we cannot under any circumstances ever reach the point where we can't provide enough fresh water. So by going with weighted population, we can. Is this correct? MR. DELONY: Sir, in the -- in the proposal from staff, we are not using the weighted population, sir. We're using a different model. This model deals with the high BEBR forecast. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: High BEBR? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. And my recommendation to you through the county manager is, I believe this is the best model available at this time to do exactly what you asked us or demanding that we do and not fall out of compliance with potable water or sewer servIces. MR. MUDD: Let me -- let me -- let me just help a little bit. When -- when he's talking about high BEBR, he's basically talking about your using the peak population, okay, during tourist system __ tourist season as the population that you're basically targeting for your service to have the water and the sewer facilities on-line for. Because, you know, it would be nice if you could average it out. And Randy basically told you that they only average one-third of the high population. There's a lot of folks here that will tell you that the high population is here for over four months. And it's here for six months, going on seven now. And they only really leave for about three to four months. They is not a bad term. Okay. I'm just talking about an influx of population into Collier County. Page 17 January 25, 2006 Mr. Delony needs to be able to have water when high season is here. And when he turns it on, the water needs to be there. When somebody flushes the toilet during high season, it needs to flush and not go all over the street and into the canal. It needs to be properly disposed of and treated. And I believe that high BEBR gives him that ability to do that for Collier County. And in that particular case, water and sewer is a little bit different. They go at the high end versus using weighted as the other ones do. And I will also tell you that transportation is done a little bit differently. And it's because you aren't building for peak. So you as a board have said we come out of February and March and we use the highest or the 100th hour outside of those two months as the -- as the goal and the focus point for transportation. And during high season, those two months, people are going to have a little bit of delay. And you as a board have decided that that is anticipated and it is a -- it was a determined decision on your part, an educated decision on your part to do so because of cost feasibility. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Finish. MR. DELONY: Sir, I have nothing else but to be here to answer questions. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was -- was going to try to clarifY that, but I think it has been. But just -- just in summary, let me make sure I understand. MR. DELONY: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: BEBR provides you with -- with seasonal and permanent projections for population increases. It provides you a trend. So -- and you are using the -- the peak population for each year of that trend so that you make sure that you have sufficient -- you're not averaging anything. MR. DELONY: No, sir. Page 18 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not -- you're not -- MR. DELONY: No, sir. In some -- in some instances you may want to view this as best-or-worst-case-scenario planning. Whereas, in other levels of service that we're considering today, we're looking at most probable levels of service demands. But because of the guidance and -- and, of course, Commissioner Coletta said it better than me and what he's put the bony finger in my chest to do and each of you have done the same, is that you can't fall out of compliance in these -- these two critical areas. Therefore, I feel and we, as the county manager has endorsed, that we use this particular projection model, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're convinced that the high BEBR actually forecasts the increases in population we're going to experience even in view of the recent Golden Gate Estates projections that caught everybody by surprise? MR. DELONY: Well, remember, I deal with water/sewer district as opposed to the county area, the political boundaries of the county. I'm looking within a sub area of the county and the area -- and a very delineated, you know, area we call the water/sewer district. So in the areas that we're -- we're talking about, it's not a county-wide look, but rather in those areas. Of course, where is the water/sewer district? It's in the -- the areas that are going to be more quickly developed most potentially and faster than some of the other areas of the county that are outside the water/sewer district. MR. MUDD: The Estates are on wells and septic; is that right? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But there are some assumptions in here that assume they are not. And -- and we'll get to those later. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. We'll -- we'll explain that later, but just to let you know all that -- what you have from me in the population models, just so we're clear and do a setup for later, what you're seeing here is a -- is a recommendation from staff for water and sewer dealing only with existing water/sewer district. It does not Page 19 January 25,2006 accommodate any expansions during the planning period as you're suggesting now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good. Good. Thank you. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: I just wanted to point one other thing out for the record. In the past, Mr. Delony's population methodology was actually provided to the Department of Community Affairs after this board acted on it as part of the CIE. And they have accepted that methodology as being sound. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Good. MR. COHEN: And next slide, Jim. This particular slide right here deals with actually what the Department of Community Affairs does with respect to our population methodologies that we've used as part of the last six AUIRs and six CIEs. They found our population methodologies as part of our CIE to actually be sound population methodologies. And I wanted to point that out to this board. Next slide, Jim. At this point in time what I wanted to do is turn the presentation over to Amy Patterson to give you a brief overview of Collier County impact fees as they relate, not only to AUIR but also to the capital improvements element. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. For the record, I'm Amy Patterson. I'm the Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager for Community Development Environmental Services. And I'm just going to go over a few points on impact fees, most of which are pretty familiar to you as we've been going through a lengthy update process on most of our impact fees. But as you know, impact fees are formally reviewed and updated at least every three years. And we also have adopted indexing methodology which allows for us to make adjustments in the years between our formal updates which is a formula that's adopted specifically to the type of impact fee that we're indexing. Page 20 January 25, 2006 Currently we have indexing methodology adopted for our roads, parks, correctional facilities, water/sewer, governmental buildings, law enforcement, library and we're preparing indexing formulas which you'll see coming forward shortly for fire, EMS and potentially school impact fees. And the annual indexing is designed to keep the impact-fee rates consistent with the demands of growth. And that way you try to avoid the huge increases that you would see every three years when you have 110 percent increase in your road impact fee or some of your other fees that you've seen go and double or triple. In order for your indexing formulas to be legally defensible, it's recommended by your outside legal counsel and consultants that we use a combination of national data sets. Some examples of those are the Engineering News Record which provides us construction cost indexes or the CPI which is your Consumer Price Index which we use in combination with local data that we receive from the property appraiser on land values. And, unfortunately, based on the rapidly escalating costs in Collier County, we found that it's necessary to undertake formal update studies more frequently than every three years to capture the true costs that are related to the capital improvements as we've seen construction costs and land costs accelerating much faster than our impact-fee indexing can deal with. You can remember recently we discussed the library where we adopted construction costs of about $180 a square foot the year prior. And we're finding that the true construction cost is about $300 a square foot. So you can see that in this case, this is something that indexing's just not -- is not going to be able to cover. In some cases in the past Collier County's adopted impact fees at less than the maximum legal limit. Now, I know that the current policy of this board is to adopt our impact fees at 100 percent; however, in the past, that's required a portion of the infrastructure cost related to growth to be funded by other revenue sources when your Page 21 January 25, 2006 impact fees fell short. And that's -- that's pretty much a -- covers what I have to say about the impact fees. But, again, I need to -- to reiterate that, in the cases where your impact fees are falling short, we have no other option but to turn to other revenue sources to make up that difference. We are required to provide these capital facilities to provide for growth. And -- and once they've paid their impact fees, if there's nothing remaining, then that's where your other revenue sources kick m. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle has a question. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Amy, why can't we adjust our annual index to keep up with the rate of inflation and costs of construction? MS. PATTERSON: Well, for example, parks -- when we adopted the parks indexing and it wasn't one of the first ones so -- and we're -- we're pretty progressive as far as the indexing goes. There are very few -- more and more counties are doing it now, but we were __ we were out there on the edge when -- when we started this. And our consultant took the CPI thinking that that was a good way to deal with this. But what we found the first year when we had a 3 percent increase against, you know, a 14 percent increase in property values, that there might be something slightly off there. And as we've gone back to update these studies again, we are looking at the indexing methodologies to try to get a more aggressive indexing. But the other problem tends to be that even though we know what's happening in Collier County, there's not a data set that actually -- accurately represents what's happening. And so you have to be able to validate your numbers. And without some sort of data set or some sort of record that can accurately validate that, you're stuck then with -- with the national data sets. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about -- well -- well, with respect to the cost of library construction, we found it's, what, about Page 22 January 25, 2006 $200 too low per square foot? MS. PATTERSON: It's about $150 too low. COMMISSIONER COYLE: One hundred fifty dollars too low. We know that. Can't we apply that based upon our experience with most recent contracts and most recent construction? MS. PATTERSON: We can and we have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: But it requires a formal study then. Because then it's actually adjusting components within your impact fees, it's not just a simple indexing. But there's nothing that precludes us from studying these impact fees more often. And I think that's one of the points that we were trying to bring across is that when we see these things happening, that's the time that, unfortunately, we hoped the indexing would help us in saving cost and saving time and also adjusting in the mid years, but it looks like we're going to need to come back more often. If things continue on the trend that they're following with the increasing construction costs and increasing land values, we're going to need to look at studying these impact fees more often than every three years. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so you're saying that we can't just adjust the indexes based upon our most recent knowledge? We have to study the impact fee all over again? MS. PATTERSON: We'll -- it's actually probably something in the middle. We don't need to necessarily go through a completely full update which is what we were doing with the -- upon your direction with the library. We knew we had a couple ofthings that were -- that were not in sync with what was happening. So we went back for what I would call a mini study for lack of a better -- better word. It's more than an indexing, but less than a full study where we adjust just those components. Again, when you go in and adjust some things, you have to do the opposite check and balance. If you're going to adjust your Page 23 January 25, 2006 construction costs, you always have to go and look at your credits to make sure that you're not overcharging. But we don't necessarily need to go through the -- the full-blown update study. And so I think that's a better way to say it. Because your indexing is very, very specific and it's meant to be a very simple process to just -- just slightly adjust things to keep pace. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Just before I turn this over to Commissioner -- are you done, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm finished. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- Commissioner Henning, basically you have to make sure that you still fall in with the guidelines of the dual or rationale nexus so that if you're challenged in court, you have a good basis to -- to defend what you're doing. And that's the most important thing and that's one of the things that was brought out very sternly by the committee that was put together, that there had to be a great dual or rational nexus in here. I'll go to -- go to Commissioner Henning and then county manager. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the way impact fees are collected, it also has to be -- does there have to be a checks and balance about expenditures too? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this IS a part of the expenditures, setting up the CIE -- MS. PATTERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and actually -- MS. PATTERSON: Right. Page 24 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- doing that whole process. So there is a tie -- MS. PATTERSON: There is a tie to the impact fees. And it's important when there are things in the AUIR, because remember that there are things that are built that add to your -- that help serve a population that aren't necessarily impact-fee eligible. And those things are always noted as such. That we're not spending impact fees to do -- to cover something that another fee might pay for. But that doesn't say that it doesn't add -- it doesn't help the population or serve the population in some way. And so those are things that are -- that are always footnoted as -- as not impact-fee eligible or impact fees not being directed towards that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the other thing -- just a minute, County Manager, I'll be with a few other questions. This is very important, I feel, to do things legally defensible. So now we're using our CIE as a weighted population just like we calculated our impact fees for a long period of time. MS. PATTERSON: As far as my knowledge goes, we've always used -- used weighted population in the impact-fee calculations. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But we haven't done this previously in our CIE. We've used permanent population. It's a lower standard. MS. PATTERSON: On occasion there's been -- there's been permanent population. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Since 19 -- or 2001. 2002 it was changed. So we're just -- and I'm glad we're tightening up. Now, your multipliers that you use, do you have -- does there have to be similarities between the impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: As far as which types of multipliers? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, like, you know, credits for using donations, land donations, things of that nature, does that have to be part of the calculation? Page 25 January 25, 2006 MS. PATTERSON: Reflected in the AUIR or reflected in the impact-fee calculations? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Impact fees. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. Yes. Anything that you receive that would otherwise be a charge to an impact fee must be credited against the impact fee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about if we use ad valorem taxes -- historically used ad valorem taxes, too, for some of these capital improvements that we also charge impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: A number of your impact fees do have a credit for ad valorem taxes. Law enforcement would be a good example. Your law enforcement impact fee has a very large credit due to ad valorem taxes being directed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So would it be fair to say if we continue to use or increase the use of the ad valorem taxes for impact-fee expenditures, that we'd have to continue to use that calculation? MS. PATTERSON: So long as you use other funding sources to do the same thing as your impact fee, you always have to provide a credit. But equally so, if you start to decrease the amount of other funding sources, you decrease the credit in your impact fee. So it's always something that we're -- we're looking at. And that's -- that's -- as I pointed out to Commissioner Coyle, is that it's always something that we look at when we're updating the impact fee. What have we done? What do we plan to do to be sure that that credit is an integral part of the methodology? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager Mudd. MR. MUDD: It's a good tie between what Commissioner Coyle was talking about and what Commissioner Henning did. And that's my point. You have to be very careful. If you get cost increases on your project that are over and above your impact-fee calculation and Page 26 January 25,2006 you have to go to other funding sources, you have to apply it as a credit in your impact-fee calculation. So you're not -- and the next time you update your impact fee, your impact fee is going to be arbitrarily smoothed and it's not going to represent growth paying for growth. It's going to -- because of that, additional dollars that go forward to that, you have to use it as a credit. And it's a good point to tie that, because you've to be very careful how you -- how you do that. As a board, if you decide to only come forward with an impact fee at 70 percent, okay, you are saying that you are going to come forward with 30 percent of the cost of that project out of ad valorem. So when you make those determinations, and this board has at least in one impact fee in my -- in my recent memory that I can think of that that happened -- that you're also making that decision. So you need to be careful how you do it. And that indexing, and Commissioner Coyle was diving into this, is very, very important. Because if you miss that indexing and you're off and even by doing it on an annual basis, you could be off eight months worth, okay, because it changed four months after -- something in the economy changed four months into your new update and you're not picking up the change until eight months later. So I believe we probably need to come to this board more often when we see those particular changes on certain impact fees to make sure that they are indexed correctly so that we minimize that difference in -- in -- in a way not to be able to get those impact fees where they need to be. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we found that out when we readjusted the road impact fees from where we wanted to put them and we had such large opposition that we ended up dropping them down about 100 percent. And we ended up in the long run on the short end of the stick here. And that's why we have such a large amount of ad valorem taxes, I think, on the road building. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can't go there right now. I don't Page 27 January 25,2006 believe at the time that the data was there to get it at that particular level. I believe this time when Mr. Feder comes forward with his impact-fee update, I believe it will capture the full cost because we will have had three years worth of what the right-of-way costs have been. I don't think this board has seen a 16K item where the amount of money we thought it was going to be and the amount of money that we paid for that particular right-of-way came in. I think it's always been above what we put in into a deposit. And that's been going on for three years now. It's nowhere near what we thought the right-of-way costs were going to be in. They're a lot higher and they're going up every day. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you. This has been a really interesting discussion especially when we come to impact fees and how it's going to effect the AUIR. My -- my concern is the fact that we mentioned the fact that we have to rely on national studies to be able to come up with our methodology for justification of -- of the impact fee. My concern when you use a national study, we're so unique down here in Collier County being especially at the end of the chain for supplies, being the fact that we have such a labor problem, I'm a little bit concerned that that might be putting us behind the eight ball as far as getting impact fees which really reflect what the wish of this commission is where growth pays for growth. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson, for the record again. You've attended the last impact-fee-review-task-force meeting where there was one very important piece of information that came out of that meeting and how it moves through the legislature, of course, remains to be seen. But that is the recommendation by the task force for the use of most recent and localized data. And what that puts us, of course, is -- is trying to figure out what exactly what that means, most recent and localized. And time will be spent trying to determine Page 28 January 25,2006 exactly what that means. But also giving us a chance to look at where we need to develop better data sets in order to have localized data. If we're dealing with the collection of incident data or ambulance runs for EMS, if we need to find ways to better and more accurately collect -- collect this data in order to be able to use it, that may be something that we need to look towards in the future. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to know how interest -- right now interest, say, for instance, on impact fees that we collect for -- for the roads and -- and so forth. Right now we take that interest and it goes back into general fund. How does that -- and we voted to do that a few years back because we wanted to make sure everything we could would go into the building of roads. How does that affect this -- this impact-fee business? MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. That's one of the issues that was raised by the Planning Commission. In the case of transportation because you had a bond referendum, you don't spend that immediately and your revenues you pay over time. As you payout, you encumber and then pay over a curve. We do have interest collections. In transportation it's higher now with the bonding's about five million in '05. That does go into the general fund. At the same time you have 24 million a year as established by this board that is going from general fund to fund transportation. So, in effect, that 24 million is maintained. So if my interest goes down to four million next year, that goes into the general fund. But the 24 million is the established amount coming to transportation each year from general fund. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just ask a follow-up Page 29 January 25, 2006 question about that? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, would that imply, Norman, if -- if we decided to reduce the amount of general fund money going for capital improvements for growth on roads, that we should be very careful not to go below the amount that represents the interest earned from the transportation impact fees that come out of general fund? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It becomes logically if transportation impact fees earned the interest, it really should be returned to that fund for expenditure. MR. FEDER: Again, that would be a decision, obviously, of the board. But I think that the fairness test would say exactly what you just said, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue. MR. MUDD: I'm not too sure I caught it all, but I want to -- I want to make sure where you go on this one, you understand the ramifications of where you're going. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to tell you where I'm going yet. We're going to get to that closer to the end of the meeting. MR. MUDD: Okay. Then we'll hold this comment to that and we'll get on with this AUIR. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All righty. MR. COHEN: At this point in time I just want to give a general synopsis of the -- what transpired at the meetings with the Planning Commission. A more detailed analysis would probably be better off on a section-by-section basis. Because what we've done is we've incorporated the comments from the -- the Planning Commission where applicable and made changes on those particular pages in different sections. But in other areas where we had very substantive areas of -- of Page 30 January 25,2006 analysis where certain capital improvements were actually recommended by various departments and divisions as well as financing mechanisms, what we've done is we've left them alone on the summary sheets. And you'll note not only in the Planning Commission recommendation sheet, but also on the summary sheets what those exact CCPC recommendations are. And those are recommendations for you to consider as part of each one of those sections and determine on a policy basis what direction you may want to -- may want to go. I just wanted to point on out from our staffs' standpoint in terms of how we've handled this, to try to make sure that we got the whole breadth of the Planning Commissioner recommendations, because there was a lot of discussion that transpired during -- during those meetings, but a lot of that discussion did not make it into the motion. So we want to be very clear with that. So from that perspective, I took very copious notes. I also had two members of my staff as well. And then we would meet after each one of those meetings and go through there to make sure that every one of us were on the same page and we were. So I wanted to kind of clarifY that for the record as well, too. I don't think it's really appropriate at this point in time to get into all the CCP recommendations because they're really better off served on a -- on a section-by-section basis unless it -- for this commission to actually go through them at this point in time. But I think it's probably better off to deal with them when each individual department comes forward. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think that's the way we should go on this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could. There is one thing. I understand that there was some interest on the part of the Collier County Planning Council over the difference of what staff recommendation -- their recommendations were and how staff picked up on it. I can understand the meeting was long and went over many, Page 31 January 25, 2006 many hours. I would suggest possibly in the future, if we're going to continue as it sounds like we're going to using the Planning Commission to critique the AUIR, that possibly you might want to have a representative or two of the Planning Commission here who may want to interject some additional opinions that may have been missed by staff as we went forward just to be able to keep everything flowing. I know that it got a little controversial at times, but I -- in the end I'm sure we're going to come up with a great product. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And we'll try to do that in the future. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Randy, are you going to go back to Section B of the agenda which was Collier County population methodology, David Weeks, or are we going to skip that? MR. COHEN: I touched on that when I explained the weighted population methodology that we actually utilized. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we're on Point D at the present time? MR. COHEN: I just went through the CCPC stuff. And at this point in time what I wanted to do is briefly touch on -- on page 2 -_ CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. COHEN: -- of the AUIR before going on to each individual department. And what I wanted to point out on page 2 is -- is we as a staff meticulously went through the -- the -- the items and the facility types that are on there. The county manager asked us to reduce a lot of items. I think we originally started with around $180 million worth of items. That was reduced down to $75 million. What I wanted-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Randy, let me stop you for just a second. Which page 2? MR. COHEN: Page 2 of the AUIR body itself. It's -- it's -- if you go past the table of contents, which is page 1, Commissioner __ COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. MR. COHEN: -- it'll be the page following the table of contents. MR. SCHMIDT: Top page says, 2005 AUIR total additional Page 32 January 25, 2006 revenue required. (Multiple speakers.) COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go to -- go to the Category A tab and then turn back two pages. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That works for me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It's not labeled. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So where it says, 2005 AUIR total additional revenue required; right? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, ma'am. MR. COHEN: That is correct. And one of the things I wanted to touch on and not getting in really to the Additional Revenue Required section, but it is actually, too, if you look at the definition of "additional revenue required" on that last paragraph on -- on -- on the page, one of the things that's really important to understand here is that what -- what that doesn't take into consideration is potential impact-fee increases that this body will consider possibly in the spring as well. Also, it doesn't take into consideration increases in property values which will occur as part of a revenue stream in your next upcoming budget cycle. So that number, that $75 million that you see up there could be greatly reduced when those particular items are considered by you as a collective body as part of both the impact fees and as a part of your budgetary process in June. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was that explained to the Planning Commission? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir, it was. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The notes I received on that particular thing is saying just what you're saying now. They were mentioning the fact that there -- that there was a difference in that. Now you're saying that it would be -- this cycle would be adjusted when? Page 33 January 25, 2006 MR. COHEN: Well, what was explained to the Planning Commission is that number right there, that $75 million, what that assumed was that there would be no increases in any of your impact fees and that there would be no other funding sources or mechanisms that -- that this body would ever consider. Okay. Realistically, if you look at it, you're going to be probably seeing some modifications to your impact-fee ordinances in the spring as -- as Ms. Patterson pointed out. There's been some massive changes in construction costs and land acquisition costs and those will be addressed. So a lot of these items will -- will be addressed with impact-fee increases if this body so -- so choses to actually increase impact fees as part of those recommendations that come from those studies. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at that point in time we would be seeking the advice and the input of the Productivity Committee on this? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. MR. COHEN: So I just wanted to point that on out. Because when you see that number, take that into consideration when you look at the other section when the presentations are made from individual departments and divisions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, with that said, we're not using future impact-fee increases in -- in this report. But I viewed in the CCPC meeting about parks and rec where we're using future assessed values on properties, a study, a part of a not-yet adopted impact fee. So how can you say we're -- we can't use this in here but, yet, again, we're going to use it? We're going to use part of it, but we're not going to use all of it? MR. COHEN: I think what we pointed out is that there is going to be impact-fee ordinances that will be coming before this collective Page 34 January 25, 2006 body as well as the studies associated with those. The parks and recreation impact-fee study, and Ms. Patterson, correct me if I'm wrong, is completed, which identified a land acquisition cost in that. And we wanted to use the highest and best information, you know, in providing this AUIR to this collective body and that's what we've done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're going to pick and choose the information that we use in this report? MR. COHEN: No. No, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't hear that. MR. SCHMIDT: This is a snapshot in time. That's all it is is a snapshot in time. It's a drawing of the line and it's a snapshot in time in capturing the best data available. This is -- this is not an attempt to obfuscate or to -- to cover the cost. It's nothing more than a snapshot in time. And -- and the CIE then captures that. The budgetary process is where you deal with the true costs when you -- when you really look at in the budget where you're going to be spending money and certainly as part of the procurement process when you actually begin to build the infrastructure, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand. MR. SCHMIDT: -- all we're trying to do is capture the best data we have at the time and try and present to you the facts as they exist. And certainly if there are discussions in regards to the sources of revenue or the costs, we're open to discuss those. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Continue on, please. MR. COHEN: That's all I wanted to point to on out on page 2. At this time I'd like to turn the presentation over to Norm Feder and roads. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe -- and Norm's coming up. I believe the page is important. Okay. Randy said if impact-fee increases are made, then that dollar amount could go down. If Page 35 January 25,2006 impact-fee increases aren't made, then that number isn't going to go down. Okay. And there's an opposite to that. And I believe that page basically gives you a -- an idea of worst case. If -- if nothing changed in the next five years, you would -- let's say, out of sources. Maybe it's gas tax or maybe it's ad valorem and it wasn't impact fees, that's what -- that's what you'd have to come up with in order to do that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Worst-case scenario. MR. MUDD: Worst-case scenario. And I believe Randy stated specifically in the beginning and said, be careful if you put Category B on the CIE because when you do, you got it. And if you don't have the impact fee, then you're going to have to come up with that ad valorem dollars. And I believe there's at least four of those five categories that are Category B that you need to be aware of. And we need to talk about that. It's important that you don't lose sight of that in the process. I had a very difficult time and Randy spent some time on this particular item. We stressed it about four different times. Now, let me tell you why we set if for four different times. Because there was a briefing during the Planning Commission meeting that -- that basically talked about rolling back the millage. (Commissioner Henning leaves meeting.) MR. MUDD: And I wish the Commissioner didn't leave right now because -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: He can hear you. MR. MUDD: And -- and so that was -- that was given. And-- and -- and the whole time then after on that -- on that board in front of the Planning Commission, it was all about rolling back the millages, no increases in ad valorem, and it wasn't -- it wasn't a good discussion about the level of service and the population estimates. And -- and __ and the intent was to get -- to get that independent review and not get them bogged down in that particular item. But I could never get that out of their head after that presentation was made. And Randy spent Page 36 January 25,2006 how many times stating that over and over and over again. (Commissioner Henning returns to meeting.) MR. MUDD: And -- and so I'm -- I'm going to say to you it's unfortunate. I wanted a good issue on that, but you got to understand that that is the worst case. If no impact fees came in, that would be the liability, so to speak, of what -- of what Collier County would have to come up with, okay. And -- and let's call it new monies, okay, for lack of better terminology, increase assessment or whatever it's going to be from taxes, I'm not talking about an increase in millage rate, over the next five years. Now, the $75 million over a five-year period of time knowing when those -- where those categories come from is that a doable thing, we can discuss that. It's not catastrophic by any stretch of the imagination. It is not $290 million or -- excuse me, $270 million in back-road construction that we had to come up with in that process, but -- but I believe it's there and you need to understand the importance of that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Could -- could I suggest something that might save us a little time in this respect? If -- if the board could -- could take an official position on excluding B category items from our CIE and AUIR because there -- there is no requirement for a level-of-service standard that is enforceable by the -- by the state. If we can just take a position on that now, can this, then, become a budgeting issue. MR. MUDD: Category -- Category B needs to stay in the AUIR. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: It has to do, does it go on your CIE and get reported in your growth management to the state. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. MUDD: And that's the point. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if -- if -- if we -- if we make Page 37 January 25, 2006 the decision now that we will not put it in the CIE, okay, it becomes largely a budgeting issue. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can we deal with it in greater detail during the budget hearings rather than -- than debating all of these things here right now about whether or not we need to buy more property, when do we need to buy the property, what is the shortage of funds. Because during our budget hearings, we will have a better handle on what our funding sources are. Is that not true? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You can. And -- and the only -- and the only -- you need to connect another dot. If you determine that the budgetary items become so significant, then -- then you also need to be able to go forward at the next AUIR and adjust the level of service down. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. You need to -- if you're going to turn -- the level of service and the monetary funding thing are basically knobs that are joined. And if you move them in one direction, they -- they all go up. Or if you move them -- if you move them down, they all go down together. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So let's -- let's get to the bottom line, then. It's got to stay in the AUIR? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You -- you have to deal with the level of service. If we disagree with the level of service, we must do that today? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right? CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's -- that's one of the main things. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- but -- but the funding can be determined -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: At a later date. Page 38 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- at a later point in time during the budget hearings. Okay? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Exactly. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand. Good. CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm okay with that, taking it out of the CIE, but how do we keep track of projects that -- that were recognized one year and recognized the same year as funding, but not actually built? MR. MUDD: We're going to talk about that in a little bit. I believe Norm's going to get at that in large part about-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know on the Category B. Norm, doesn't do B. MR. MUDD: Well, we'll do that in the AUIR and specifically lay those out for -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to do B? MR. MUDD: He wishes he could. MR. COHEN: Can I -- can I interject something, Commissioners? If -- if -- if the route is that you are going to choose to take the Category B facilities out of the CIE and that goes back to the recommendations that I had, one, you're going to have to officially adopt the AUIR as a document to ensure the legal defensibility of our impact fees. And, two, also provide us direction to remove the schedule -- the Category B items from the CIE. And we'll undertake both of those if that's the direction of this board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Should we do that now? MR. MUDD: I'd wait, sir, as we finish this and we'll get to it at the end. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Let's not jump ahead here too quick. MR. FEDER: Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I also have Don Scott, Transportation Page 39 January 25,2006 Planning Director. What I'd like to do is give you a quick overview and set the stage for some of the issues raised. I'm going to ask Don to go through the specifics of the AUIR itself. But what I do need to note is the discussion you had about the importance of this AUIR. And it is very significant. Although transportation's a little bit different, the implications under CIE and many of the issues I know we're going to be discussing in greater detail in a few minutes are still very prevalent and very significant based on particularly Senate Bill 360. But transportation is a little bit different than a lot of your other items even in Category A in the sense that you went to a real-time concurrency. And that took us some effort and that's what we discussed that, unfortunately, 360, if we don't get our glitch provisions might hamper those efforts. But, nonetheless, rather than three years as provided by the state, we're only relying on the first two years for construction. And rather than AUIR once a year looking at it, assessing where we are and then waiting for a year later to reassess, we are doing that at an ongoing daily, actually, by hour-and-minute basis of real-time concurrency. So as Joe pointed out, in many respects when we hit the concurrency application here, it is really a slice in time. And it's actually a slice in time when we did this AUIR, not even where we are exactly today. And I'll let Don hit some of that detail, but that is significant. But, nonetheless, this AUIR still even in transportation directs our capital improvement element and the decisions there. And that becomes extremely important especially under the issues that have already been discussed by this board. What I'm here to tell you is that we took the issue of -- of AUIR, CIE very seriously and have all the way through with the direction and the assistance of this board. We started five years ago with a five-year work program. Instead of a one-year wish list. And this board came in about that time and assisted me in doing that. Now, what I'm very Page 40 January 25,2006 pleased to tell you is that five-year work program has been delivered. We had one drawback on it which we specifically brought to you and recommended that we modifY the section of Immokalee Road between 41 and 1-75 to have significant right-of-way savings and cost savings. And we delayed that one year, but that's under construction as we speak. So all the projects in that five-year except for two projects have been completed or under construction. But we've got a very, very strange and new venue that we're dealing with from a number of different areas. So just about the time that the issue is becoming that the state finally is getting serious and requiring others to have a cost feasible and valid and delivered CIE is just about the time, at least for transportation, that a number of factors are making the risks and the uncertainty far greater. We've got a situation where, first of all, we went through and developed the urbanized area where we had long-range planning. In the past it was fairly accurate, but most of our program is now moving out into the Estates area where we're still trying as a county to make sure we determine how and what it is we want to do there. An example of that is one of the projects -- and I'll go over them in detail for you -- that actually did get delayed out of that five-year original work program, which was Santa Barbara Boulevard, it represented some of what we're going to be experiencing out in the Estates where we have driveways connecting out onto a major artery, always planned to be a major artery, but, nonetheless, individual driveways coming straight out to it. And that was a source for an awful lot of discussion, analysis and continued work because this board takes these issues seriously. I know that. But that's the kind of issue we're going to be facing in the future. So that's one area of risk or uncertainty. Another is we're having very rapidly escalating costs. I don't have to explain any of that to any of you. You've seen it on an Page 41 January 25, 2006 ongoing basis. And while our impact fee was indexed -- and I'll go to that discussion -- what has worked well as we're almost finalizing our last of our update to a new impact-fee methodology, is the right-of-way land. Because what we did in our indexing there is we tied it to the property appraisers' basically assessed value increase without new development. And that has kept the land portion pretty well in sync. And you'll find that as we bring our new methodology to you. In the other areas, though, we had about a 3 percent increase. And I don't have to tell you any of the components; steel, the asphalt, fill, pipe. Every bit of it has well exceeded that 3 percent. The two areas that will probably increase the most will be our utilities portion and our mitigation. And that's the third thing I'll bring into in risk and vulnerability are that we experience far greater than we have had in the past and that is the permitting agencies and their requirements. We're trying to get with them and get with them earlier, pursue our program and try and work through the issues. But one of the other delays that I'll touch with you, basically the delays, have been getting permits. And that's become a harder and harder process, not only for us but for the private sector and others as we continue to grow and as we try to protect the quality of life here in Collier County and work with the environmental groups to do that and the agencies. It gets harder and harder to address some of those issues and more time consuming. So here we are. What I wanted to present to you -- and I handed this out -- is essentially we started out five years ago on a five-year work program. And, therefore, an annual CIE has been maintained, has been delivered. I'm very pleased with that. That was a strong commitment the board made and that's a strong commitment I and your staff made. And we've been able to deliver as I already pointed out. Very quickly, what you see there is basically added lanes that Page 42 January 25, 2006 have been added to the system since 2000 or under construction today. Obviously, the only one there, if you can see it, is -- is six laning is Livingston because that was not an established corridor. What you see in the others, particularly in the green, is where we've added four lanes to what was two lanes to go to six. And then you have in the red, where we've added two lanes, either to go from two to four or from four to six in other areas. So there's been very, very significant results over the last five years of adding new capacity to the system that has allowed us to respond to what has been continued in a very rapid growth and to play some catch-up. But we are running into some of these areas of uncertainty. And what you have here is looking at, other than as I said, the one Immokalee project that we brought to this board for cost-savings and it's under construction now, these are the first of the real delays that we've had in delivery of our program. And we've had four projects as you can see up here that are moving from the last AUIR for '05 construction to '06 construction. When Don goes through the elements, you'll see sometimes, like, Santa Barbara that's noted on here is actually shown in two sections, on Santa Barbara as well as Radio Road. So it's shown three times in that list of items. But, nonetheless, that one project basically has moved from '05 to '06 as we tried to sort through and tried to make sure that we develop something with the community concerns and issues and needs taken into account. County Barn which is the first that you see on the list up there was moved from '05 to '06 as well. And in that item what we faced was with the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project or LASIP, as we call it, we continuously found ourselves with environmental groups understanding whether or not they want us to design portions of the LASIP project in County Barn or not. We felt, obviously, that we should and have in the final analysis done that, but for a while the Page 43 January 25, 2006 permitting groups felt like to approve something that had some of the LASIP features in it on the County Barn project would be a back door to their approving LASIP which they have not done for some 22 years. But I'm pleased to tell you finally it has been approved and we have all the permits to move forward on LASIP and in that event are moving on County Barn in like kind with provisions for the LASIP project, but that did delay us to '06. We had Rattlesnake Hammock that was delayed from '05 to '06. That project, of course, is under construction now. We just had the notice to proceed. We just had the kick-off of construction, I'm pleased to say. But that project, there's a lot of concerns about panthers. We'd had a couple of panther kills on 951 documented in the recent history. And the concern was that we find some way to address that. It took quite a few months working with the permitting agencies, the Federal Fish and Wildlife. Finally, the resolution was to put up a number of signs on Rattlesnake and 951 alerting motorists to the fact that there may be panthers in the area. And we've done that. That allowed that project to go forward, but that resolved the permitting concern. So that project is under way. And the last one is the one that we addressed even yesterday and is of significant concern because of the growth in the area is Collier Boulevard from Immokalee down to Golden Gate Boulevard. That project we just rejected the bid as -- as being basically noncompliant. We had a couple of permit issues because we added a new utility line and modified some of the stormwater retention areas. But that one should be slated and will move in '06, but it was originally slated for '05 to go to construction. So those are the four projects that have moved from '05 to '06. You also have here information what we've added in. We've shown one delay coming up from '07 from our prior planning effort to '08 and that's Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Pine Ridge. And then the last is Green Boulevard which was originally in Page 44 January 25, 2006 '08 to '09 in this AUIR. The last one being more of a balancing of dollar issue than necessarily the -- the items that I mentioned. I bring this to your attention to try and highlight two things. One, we're committed to delivery of that five-year work program. I've been very pleased that we've been able to do so. But it's also to highlight, you see where these delays are from five to six and we still have some outstanding issues. Some of them are very close to moving in '06. Some of them will be close to the '06 completion. And with that in mind, we are in a much more risk-oriented, more volatile environment for delivery of our program just at the time that the state is finally taking serious what we took serious for the last five years. So that's something that obviously we need to take into account as we look at our program. You had the Planning Commission make some recommendations. We feel we've addressed them. We'll try to do that as we present the item that you have in the AUIR. The one that we didn't go into detail on is their request that we be conservative relative to our work program. Which is a little bit of a change of venue, but one I think we'll be discussing in some detail today. Because our process in that five years where we're actually able to deliver and then have these last issues here was, one, to go very aggressively trying to play catch-up for all the issues we had in the past. So that's the issue we need to discuss now in great detail is -- is do we move from a very aggressive program acknowledging that we're in a much more volatile environment, what are the implications of that or do we start going to a more conservative setting, the other issues we felt we've addressed here in what you have in a product after good discussions with the Planning Commission. With that I'll ask Don to sort of walk you through here and between the two of us and, then, of course, open it to questions at any time. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have questions. Commissioner Page 45 January 25, 2006 Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then after the questions I think what we'll do, Don, before you start in we'll take a ten-minute recess for our court reporter. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder, after seeing the latest study of the buildout for Golden Gate Estates, I'm very concerned, you know, that we may not have the will any longer, I hope that's not the case, to be able to follow through on an immediate manner to provide some of the roads structure that's going to be needed in that area. I'm especially very concerned about the Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson to Desoto being all the way out to '08. Now, that's -- that's for actual construction we got now or -- MR. FEDER: That's for actual construction. That was actually advanced last AUIR and has been maintained on the basis of what we saw as 20 percent growth two years ago and, unfortunately, 20 percent growth that we've seen again. But it is in -- in '08 and that was actually advanced in -- in two years ago because of that rapid growth in the area. And the one thing I do want to make sure that this board understands, staff is not in any way losing its orientation to delivery and to production. As a matter of fact, we're kicking that up here to respond. We take it very seriously that I had to stand up in front of you and note that we've had four projects for various reasons, permitting, community issues and on 951 all of the staff and permitting and community issues that had some delay. We take that very seriously and we have a work program. I told you five years ago when I came, I'm going to give you a five-year work program and we're going to deliver. So we haven't pulled back from that, but we also acknowledge that we are in a riskier climate and there's some implications to that risk that, unfortunately, was established under Chapter 360 that I'm sure we need to discuss and come to an understanding of how we respond to it. Page 46 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Respond, I assume, very aggressively as the idea that taking on a conservative approach to roads is still a No.1 priority in Collier County. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, my intent is always to be aggressive and to take it on. The question is how we represent that and pull it forward, but I don't want to be here if we're not going to be aggressive in trying to do our job. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: At that we'll take a ten-minute break and we'll be back at 10:36, please. Thank you very much. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're back after recess. We'll continue with the 2005 AUIR report. I think we left off with Don Scott. MR. FEDER: Well, Mr. Chairman, before we -- before we jump in with Don, what I wanted to do is just hit the first pages under the Road and Bridge. Page 5, which is the first page in the Road and Bridge section gives you the overview of the program. What that shows you is over the next five years we've got both revenues and the program balanced together of 774,620,300. Essentially, obviously, what I'm saying to you is three-quarters of a billion dollar program over the next five years which, interestingly enough, pretty much equates to the long-range plan you've dealt with where we said we have about a $3 billion cost-feasible if you took three-quarters of a billion basically over the 20-year period. And so we're on track to try and meet our needs, but at the same time we do have the issues and need to understand how we're going to approach them. So we are balanced here. What I will show you in this pie chart that you have shown is -- is basically how our funding is structured. The largest item that you have right now which will dissipate more over time is carry forward. Carry forward includes bonding revenues. And so that bonding portion, since we just did the second set of bonding, will be spent Page 47 January 25,2006 down. It's encumbered, but it will be spent down soon. What the carry forward represents is the fact that you have a payout curve. In the case of design short of construction, more than about two years before it fully pays out even though you encumber it Day 1 and you have to have a new budget when you let it. Right-of-way takes even longer as we go through the court system and finally payout. So you will have a constant carry forward to some level. It's a little bit higher here because we had a bonding issue, the second part of bonding. Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I -- could I ask you what Toll Revenue Trust Fund is? I don't think we call it "toll." MR. FEDER: Well, that's the 1 percent here and that is really the monies we got from the state to look at a toll possibility on the Marco Island Bridge. So it's a very small sliver there, but we had to acknowledge it as another item. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And do we collect interest on that carry forward and does that go back to -- I always worry about every penny getting back to you. MR. FEDER: Yes. Commissioner, as I noted previously, we do -- last year we had about 5 million in interest that accrued because of that carry forward and the new bonds. That does go into general fund as I mentioned; however, at the same time we get 24 million a year that is going into transportation. So that 24 million a year is -- is at least at this point has been established by this board as regardless of whether or not that interest was -- let's say, goes down to 4 million the following year as -- as more that bond proceed money is actually spent out that was previously encumbered. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to make sure we protect you, Norman. MR. FEDER: We're protected, Commissioner, and that's why we have a balanced program here. What I will tell you is that 27 percent Page 48 January 25, 2006 of your funding here is coming from impact fees. Obviously, that's going to be higher if you didn't consider the roll forward, carry forward that's previously encumbered. But a big portion is impact fees and that is going to continue to grow especially as we have finished our efforts at bonding at least for right now in our 20-year plan. You also have significant dollars out of the general fund as I noted, that 17 percent. That's 24 million a year. You see a little bit more as you look at the breakout later on page 12 that goes with this funding scenario, page 5 in this chart. And basically it shows there's 24 million a year. The first year is higher and that's because of the carry-forward portion. So this gives you a pretty good feel that right now gas taxes are important to us at about 14 percent. Out major funding is, in fact, now that we've completed our bonding efforts, is the impact fees. And that is going to grow as we come back to you in about a month with the update of the impact-fee funding. The other thing that the Planning Commission had some issues with and I'll just carry over and then I'll ask Don to hit everything in between is to page 12 on your AUIR and that is the other part of the funding. And what we did is we modified at the Planning Commission's help this bottom line that you see here because we had a lot of the funding scenarios issues going back and forth and they had difficulty. First of all, we had impact fees and we had Ave Maria separated out in one chart and not in the other. We had carry forward and -- and bonding separated out in one chart and the other. They both have now been combined so it's easier to follow. Also, this last part shows that, in fact, while, for instance, in '06 we have expenses of 398, revenues of 408 because of a 298 carry forward and bonding. So, therefore, this ten-million-eight, if you will, that is rolling into '07 becomes part of that carry-forward issue. In '07, Page 49 January 25, 2006 though, we're spending more than we are collecting. So we would have been six million shy in that year, but because of the ten carry forward, we're four million. And you see that carries out and at the end of the five years you zero out. And we could have tried to balance every single year, but by pulling a positive balance forward, you're able to -- to bring the projects in as you can in production cycle. So we are balanced to the anticipated revenues. It was noted that our revenue stream is somewhat conservative both in gas taxes and in impact fees because they haven't been increased. What I'll point out to you, the costs that we have in our program is also present-day costs and, therefore, they basically have equated out. That's been our experience in the past is if I use the present-day cost and stay conservative in my revenue stream. We originally didn't have as much in our anticipated as we actually spent as revenues have come in faster, particularly with the action on the 50 percent up front. We are increasing the impact fees. And the important part is as impact fees become a bigger part of our program now that we're past the bonding, as we maintain that consistent with the cost both in the update and in the indexing, then we are bringing the two, the revenue stream and the cost, pretty well in sync with each other. So we feel fairly comfortable by, again, coming back to you even with a somewhat conservative income stream with present-day cost to tell you that we are in sync, this case, about three-quarters of a billion dollars anticipated. And I'll ask Don to walk you through the rest of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a question by Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Norm, going to that pie chart -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- staying with it. Can -- can you tell me what portion of the carry-forward amount represents general Page 50 January 25, 2006 fund revenues and what portion of it represents impact fees? Well, in fact, you know, tell me what the components really are. Because it would appear to me if it is really truly carry over, it is money that has been approved or appropriated for a project that has not yet been spent. And since we are appropriating both general fund money and we are probably issuing bonds guaranteed by impact fees, it would be helpful to understand the breakout of that carry-forward amount. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I -- I will get that for you, but one slight change to that. The bonds are supported by the gas tax. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gas tax, okay. MR. FEDER: And it is -- the components of that carry forward is the bonding amount itself. That's why it's including the bonding. That I can give you separate out. The carry forward is both gas tax and impact fees. And to an extent, as I said, that one component of bonding which is separate. On the impact fees we typically try to utilize them first and expenditure out. But when I encumber, I encumber a project I bring to you and every time it shows generally the cost that I'm encumbering and what I'm going to use as a revenue stream forward, impact fees in these districts and gas taxes and projects as well. We then try to encumber the impact fees first in the sense that we have to use those in the district and not let any lapse over time. So I would tell you that, offhand, other than in general where I'm sitting is that I've committed impact fees, gas taxes. I have encumbered them. What I have not yet done yet is expended all of them. And I try to expend more quickly out of the impact fees and then the gas tax. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have you encumbered any general fund monies that are -- that's being carried forward? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- so there are a number of components in that -- that area that's called carry forward-- Page 51 January 25, 2006 MR. FEDER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- including bonds. It would help me to understand the percentages. It's not relevant right at this moment, but sometime before the meeting ends. MR. FEDER: I appreciate that. And one part that I can answer for you is on page 5 -- I mean, on page 12. Excuse me. And on page 12 where you saw the general fund as a revenue stream -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Uh-huh. MR. FEDER: -- you see that I've got about fourteen million seven-ninety in effect that is in that that carry forward because it's 24 million a year. So that one I can answer quickly as how much is the general fund of that carry forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fourteen million two twenty-eight, is that -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes. MR. FEDER: The difference between 24 and the 38,790 that's shown in '06 under General Fund on page 12, Revenue Stream. So, obviously, that's a carry forward because the commitment in '06 was 24 million. Does that help, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It -- I don't follow your fiscal year breakouts, but I understand what you're saying. So -- but, if you could just give me the -- MR. FEDER: We will do that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- breakouts on the other sometime later, that would be fine. MR. FEDER: And as you pointed out, they are encumbered, they're set to projects and then the payout curve goes through. And, as I said, we try to utilize the impact fees first to address those funds as they were dedicated to the project. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and do you have -- well, you have debt service included on page 12. Page 52 January 25,2006 MR. FEDER: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Thank you. MR. FEDER: Thank you. Don. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. I'll try to keep this quick. There's a lot of people behind us. Overall, the page on -- page 7 essentially is just overall conditions. Traffic counts went up 2 percent which is better than in the past, but -- and has an eye towards, like, Livingston Road, for instance, the three or four that are on that went up substantially. Meanwhile, because of Livingston Road, 14 other traffic count stations either stayed the same or went down. So there's some balancing in there. It hasn't been as much increase as some of the past years when we're standing here and saying it was 8 to 10 percent. Now, other areas of the county, though, Immokalee Road's seen some great increases around 20 percent. Golden Gate Boulevard, like we're talking about earlier, and Davis Boulevard, some of the areas down around Collier and 1-75 have gone up a lot more than that. So the end result is, what is our deficiencies and what are we doing to take care of that? As you see on the map on page 8 and on the screen, a lot of the deficiencies we are addressing in the next couple of years, but what isn't included and what is the side that, you know, we don't have immediate solutions to? Obviously, what we talked about last year and probably the year before that was US 41 South, the PD&E study's going on from 951 out. The -- there's a coalition out there that's looking at trying to widen that roadway. Obviously, at the moment we don't have the funding for it, but that might move that project forward. It's still constrained by the schedule of FDOT and how fast they go through PD&E and design process. Other sections. Davis Boulevard, last year we assumed it was going to be in '08, '09, right now we don't have funding for that. We are meeting with FDOT to look at the scope of the project. I have been dealing with some of the developers in the corridor to try to get Page 53 January 25, 2006 right-of-way donations, stormwater donations, too, as part of the project. We're actually looking at the scope of the project. Specifically there were portions of that job that were towards the ultimate at 1-75, Collier and Davis. So, for instance, a portion of it was buying both of those gas stations on Davis at 951. The one on the north side's not needed for Davis widening itself. That's part of what we're meeting about is trying to get that price down to a more reasonably -- you know, something we can wrap our arms around between development, community, ourselves and FDOT. Other portions, Collier Boulevard, sections within the city that have some upcoming deficiencies, of course, that was part of the TCMA. But what we're seeing if you look in the next page, page 9 -- page 10, you can see the V over C ratios in how you determine the TCMA is operating at an acceptable level is 85 percent of those roadways are above or essentially less than an V over C of 1.0. If you go through the table, if you go down to, like, Golden Gate Parkway which is about the fifth one down, that's .98. There's some other sections of Davis that's further down around .98 also. I believe within the next year or so that TCMA will fail. So it's not -- you know, the averaging of those links will not -- we won't be doing it by that method. If any developer comes in, they're on a link, if they can do link-by-link analysis, they will be allowed to go forward. If they can't, as part -- obviously, in the deficient areas, then, the concurrency system will stop them. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Link by link, so if you just take one link, but everything else is failing, then you add more onto that link, everything -- it's still going to fail. Why would we do that? MR. SCOTT: Well, what I'm saying is the TCMA, what it assumes is that you might have a parallel quarter that operates acceptable and that you are using that towards your thing. When 85 percent of the -- less than 85 percent of those are not operating an acceptable level of service, you can't -- the TCMA does not operate at Page 54 January 25, 2006 that. Then it is whoever is -- whatever links you were affecting, if you affect ones that are overcapacity, then you can't go forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Don, just one more question. I notice that there's a whole raft of TCMAs right in that area there. And, yet, we -- there's a lot of vested developments that and -- yet, Davis Boulevard isn't even going to be widened and they're not going to do anything with that intersection there at US -- or at 951 and Davis. How can we allow any building to take place when we already know the road is failing and it's only going to fail worse and -- and there's no -- no savior in sight? MR. SCOTT: And -- and that's -- you know, the TCMA was in the eye that, okay, I have a parallel corridor. Davis was supposed to be the parallel corridor for Golden Gate Parkway. If you don't widen that, obviously what you're hitting on is that they can't go forward. Now, there is a lot of vested development in all the corridors down there. And so far from our -- our -- you know, we've had an issue with a different part of the county with vested development, even the question is, at 110 percent could we stop them and the answer was no. They were vested. And in this area they vested and paid. So that's why I'm working on the other side of that saying, okay, if I'm going to have these things, I've got to work with them to get the right-of-way, to get what we can get, to get that widened. I'm hoping that it's not, you know, an indeterminate amount of time away, like, ten years, but it -- it won't be next year either. Because even from a schedule standpoint, they're in design right now. We still have to go acquire right-of-way. At best-case scenario, it's still four to five years out. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, we -- knowing all these things, we just can't -- can't approve anything else because we already have too much approved; is that correct? MR. SCOTT: And as we come forward, we've changed with the Planning Commission. There was an issue of consistency. And when Page 55 January 25, 2006 -- obviously, with consistency you're saying it will operate acceptably five years out. I can't tell when the project's going to be -- you know, we switched on that. Anything -- we will follow the standards. If the concurrency system says you can't go forward, that's the answer. You can't go forward. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: The -- some of those -- obviously, we're working in some of those areas to come up with some other solutions, but if it doesn't, as I said, the concurrency system will stop that. But it's going to take -- you know, it's going to take all of us. You know, some of these roads I'm hitting on, our state roadways and you know what our state and federal funding stream is -- MR. FEDER: Was. MR. SCOTT: -- or was, yeah, or will continue to be in the future. One of the issues that's always been in the past was, okay, that's a state road. Let the state take care of it. That's not something we have a luxury in doing on any of these roadways now. With Davis Boulevard we're working together. I think with 41 to really move that forward it's going to take commitments by those developers in that area too. And I think there's some interest for them to fund that above an impact-fee level. It's going to take more of that to move these projects forward in the future. CHAIRMAN HALAS: On some of these roads that were originally for funding, do you feel that they're taking away the funding on some of these roadways to put that into the SIS Program? MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, the first statement is that, no, they're not doing it right now. It was to be in the future. Now, obviously, we're already saying -- we were already saying with our side of it that, okay, our funding stream is really going to cut down in the future, but assuming Davis was going to be done. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Done. So you -- that -- you have inklings that that's what's happening here? Page 56 January 25,2006 MR. SCOTT: You -- you know the side that we see, we're sitting here talking about, okay, we need to recapture 30 million. Twenty million's in the work program. It was assumed to be a $50 million project at the MPO meeting about the LRTP; there was talk that it was a 60 to $65 million project. It's more from the project cost side of it than it is from the future funding stream of SIS, but that is an issue for the future. I mean, our funding stream for the future, if you said, okay, I want to use that to widen, say, 41, it -- it would take you 12 to 15 years of funding just to pay for that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. If it's not on the SIS. MR. SCOTT: And it's not realistic. It's not realistic for us to do design and then sit around for ten years. Your design is not going to be good ten years from now. Your permits won't be. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then the CI -- you put that in the CIE, then you're locked in is the other thing. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don, I think it would be helpful if you explain the difference between the transportation concurrency management area and a transportation concurrency exception area and then I've got a follow-up question when you -- when you do that. Okay? MR. SCOTT: Transportation concurrency exception area is -- is mainly made for, like, an infill area or a community redevelopment area where you want to allow development to go forward, but it kind of meets the standards of -- of less trips, you know, more walkable community, more density that -- that -- you have more commercial in the area, that you have more mixed use, that type of thing. And you identifY specific transportation concurrency exception area type of transportation issues that they will address as part of that, but it's accepted. They can go forward if they do those things. And some of it can be as simple as providing transit routes or, you know, HOV parking, high-occupancy vehicle parking which doesn't always fit for Page 57 January 25,2006 certain projects but that's the thought behind it. Transportation concurrency management areas is more from an eye of looking at, you know, three or four roadways that go in the same direction. And if it gets overcapacity on a certain roadway, you would go to a parallel roadway that still had some capacity left. Now, the problem is, does your parallel roadway have any capacity and that's where we're running. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Running out. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And now the follow-up point is that the concurrency management system doesn't just apply in the transportation concurrency management area. It applies throughout the county. MR. SCOTT: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The transportation concurrency management area designation only lets you permit -- only permits you to use a system of roads to manage the traffic capacity. And if there is capacity within that system of roads, then you can let -- let development proceed. But when the parallel roads or the system, the network of roads in that particular area fail, then concurrency cannot proceed. But even outside the transportation concurrency management area, the concurrency system still governs. And if the road reaches capacity, nobody can build on it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and I -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even if they're vested? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's a -- that's a -- I think-- I think if they're legally vested. If they are legally vested, I think they have a -- a demand to -- to be able to continue and we have a lot of those. We have a lot of those and that's unfortunate. MR. SCOTT: Well, and there's -- there's a difference in there too. I understand from our transportation concurrency system we have a lot of bank trips in there. The first thing they point out is is it reality Page 58 January 25, 2006 that you're over 110 percent of real traffic or is it your -- what you think is going to come in. And what we're trying to apply it to is what we think is going to come in because we know that's going to happen in the future. That doesn't stand up as well as reality so... COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me ask one other question. What must we do to recognize that the TCMAs are not functioning at level of service? MR. SCOTT: At the moment nothing, but as -- when we add trips that make that go over that level, then that's -- you know, I can say no to whatever e-mail that transportation concurrency management area is not. You have go by link-by-link analysis. And if you can't go, you can't go. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Don, would you flag us on -- on something of that nature? MR. SCOTT: I sure will. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, how close are we to getting at that point? MR. SCOTT: It's fairly close. I mean, you know, this -- as -- as Joe had mentioned earlier, this is a snapshot on time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. SCOTT: There could be someone in the office right now adding a few trips in there for all I know that -- you know, the -- the transportation concurrency system is up-to-date more so than this is at the moment. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: I think -- I guess we want to talk a little bit about the Planning Commission recommendations? MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. SCOTT: One of the other things that they have raised is doing -- besides the three that are bulleted on page 1 before Category A, I guess before the table of contents, is doing an a.m. concurrency Page 59 January 25, 2006 analysis. One of the things that the Planning Commission hit on a lot is if you take particularly in the Estates area, a.m. is worse than p.m. P.M. time frame, there's a lot of trip chaining. People don't go home at the same time, but they essentially go to work at the same time. So where we've -- and I don't know how -- for the next AUIR, what they'd like to see is an a.m. analysis and a p.m. analysis concurrency-wise. I don't know how I'm going to look at it. I might have both and say it's -- a.m. is worse in this area and that's what we're looking at. I think that's probably some discussion after the analysis is done for the next AUIR, but that's something we will move forward with. CHAIRMAN HALAS: What -- what -- what would be the difference if you had a difference between a.m. and a p.m. If a road is failing at one of those -- at one of those time periods, the road is failing. MR. SCOTT: That's their point. And -- and why we do p.m. analysis is -- is really accepted across the state that p.m. is worse. But in the Estates area a lot of the a.m. -- it's a lot based on schools. People go to drop off their kids at school at a certain time. In the afternoon it spreads out more. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead and finish the recommendations and then I'll comment. MR. SCOTT: I don't know if you want to touch on -- MR. FEDER: Yeah. I'll go through the others. We mentioned them briefly, but if you're on page 1, I will recognize that they did ask for a footnote, the bonds and carry-forward revenue combined on 12. And, as I said, we did take care of that because we had page 5 and page 12 that was split out just a little bit differently and that became confusing. And so we've modified at their request. The second bullet was on page 5, add a footnote noting that interest is derived and accrued. We've done that. Their note was an Page 60 January 25, 2006 estimate of taking the five million, which they asked us was provided for '05 and just sort of carrying it out. What we've done is footnote it, what it was in '05. Again, that's important because, obviously, the amount of carry forward when I have large projects, like the overpass, Immokalee Road and others that are substantial dollars starting to go out on a monthly invoice payout, as that starts to go down, I can't tell you exactly what the carry forward will be and, therefore, what the interest to be accrued will be. And so we just acknowledge the fact that that interest does accrue, goes into the general fund, but that the general fund is supporting us at a level which, if I understood the question, but in any event, far exceeds the interest that is accruing to the account. Page 9 we raised that to you and that we haven't addressed in any specific fashion other than to modifY from the '04 to the '05 AUIR as I noted to you on the four projects in particular from '05 to '06 based on production and strengths. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the gas tax calculation showing a decrease in calculation, is that -- was that a part of your impact-fee update? MR. FEDER: Gas taxes are shown as a credit to the impact fees, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. But it -- did it -- was it a decrease? Is it showing as a decreased revenue? MR. FEDER: I'd have to go back to the formula. I know that the consultant utilized gas taxes, made an assumption and used that as a credit against the impact fee and is doing the same in the current update. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't -- don't see how we can -- based upon traffic, based upon hurricanes and the lines trying to get gas and how revenue from impact fee or gas taxes have Page 61 January 25,2006 decreased and historically -- historically they have increased. So what -- what -- what has changed? MR. FEDER: And that was discussed with the Planning Commission. I know Mike Smykowski who is our budget director addressed that specifically. I think that it was agreed that there was possibly about three million of a difference. If you did a different scenario, that the planning commissioners were identifYing, it didn't change it appreciably. But, yeah, it did show a decrease in the revenue stream. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did -- did we correct that? MR. FEDER: We have not adjusted that because I think the discussions they had with the Planning Commission acknowledged that even if you were to change it, I believe and I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, rather than a 3 percent to a 4 percent growth rate, that it wouldn't change it that appreciably. But if you want an answer to that, hopefully Mike Smykowski is monitoring this and I'll ask him to address that for you in some detail. MR. SCOTT: Well, the -- the issue was that it increased over time. Over the five years you see the increase. The issue was they looked at last year's AUIR and the number this year for the five-year was a little bit lower than last year's five-year. MR. FEDER: Because they had gone from a 4 percent to a 3 percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have my '04 right here. MR. FEDER: I'm sure you do, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I concur, you know, and it's -- it's just amazing how -- I don't think anybody thinks that we have less traffic on the road. I don't think I've seen anybody pushing their car because they didn't put gas in their car. MR. FEDER: And -- and we're getting much more people living out of county and not necessarily buying the gas within county, a few other factors that come into account. Page 62 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we go to the recommendations of taking the interest instead of putting it into the general fund, how would that -- would that have any net effect on the impact fees? MR. FEDER: Yes. You would reduce -- well, I won't say that. No. We're assuming a level of general revenue and that's a credit back, in this case 24 million a year. That's a credit back on the impact fees. If you're saying take -- let's say, for instance, in '05, that five million and then only provide the balance to the 24 million, it would have no impact whatsoever. And, in fact, it's a wash whether or not you give me twenty-four million and have the five go into general revenue. Or if you give me the five from interest and then give me nineteen, which would be the difference as a transfer. They both end up in the same situation and the same credit relative to the impact fee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it set up a better accounting as far as -- as far as where the money's coming from? I mean, if we leave it in the impact-fee fund, that interest-- MR. FEDER: I -- I will tell you that I think the decision from the board was to receive that interest. It comes back and you don't know that level until it's brought back to you. And, therefore, it becomes more difficult to do the budget. And so, if you know that you're providing 24 million and then you get those dollars back and are able to then modify your budget or work with it. But having said that, I'll defer. Obviously, twenty-four million of general fund, whether or not that is five and then nineteen or if that is twenty-four and then five goes back in to replace the general fund is -- is in effect a wash. But I think administratively your budget director, manager has noted that that comes as a rollback, if you will, to us is not known at the time. So it's better to do the general fund and then to bring that back into the fund because it will change each year based on how much expenditure's gone out and, therefore, how much has been left in the Page 63 January 25,2006 bank and how much interest is accrued. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I have a question on the work program, Don. And -- and I see that things have been adjusted, like, Santa Barbara and Immokalee and so on and so forth and I understand and I appreciate. The one thing on Santa Barbara, that segment between Radio and Golden Gate Parkway, we're not doing the Davis Boulevard construction? I mean, Radio from-- MR. SCOTT: Radio is included within the Santa Barbara job from Davis up to -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Davis to Golden Gate Parkway. Now, what about the intersection of Pine Ridge and Santa Barbara or -- or Logan, you might say? MR. FEDER: Based on the decision with the board, that intersection we didn't acquire -- we're not acquiring right away, not calling it a major change. We are coming back internally with our traffic cost folks and our internal design to try and look at what improvements we can make there in turn lane. What you do see that's not in the work program here is the section between Golden Gate and Green where originally, of course, our project was going to be four lanes within a six lane right-of-way. We did establish based on the increased cost estimate and the delay with the new interchange coming, our focus from Golden Gate down to Davis including the Radio Road section. There is a misnomer in there. The work program, I should say Phase 2 right-of-way, we are acquiring right-of-way on anyone that is interested in working with us and negotiated from Golden Gate up to Green. And then we need to come back in our work program just to put in that section from Golden Gate to Green. And in the process that didn't appear in the work program here. We have funds in advance of right-of-way that can be moved and Page 64 January 25, 2006 keep the balance ledger sheet and the work program the same and reinstate that section back in. But also we're directed by the board that once the new interchange at 1-75 opens, to go back and reassess that. So we don't want to move on that quickly and then have to come back to the board for a reassessment of whether or not we're going four or six as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm really curious about the intersection improvements and how we're going to deal with that. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And the issue before when we came back with the -- in our executive summary before was that when it was decided to go back to four lanes, I still had right-of-way for six lanes in the area. And, theoretically, if we decided to buy for four lanes, we would have had to buy from the same people twice which is not something we wanted to do. And then we started looking at it, what can we do within the existing right-of-way within that corridor. And there are some things identified to be done on that -- based on that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the intersection improvements? MR. SCOTT: Yes, within the existing right-of-way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that include Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara as far as intersection improvements? MR. SCOTT: Well, Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara, included within Santa Barbara to the south. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Great. Now I see that you changed the Immokalee Road from 1-75 it was to 951. Now it's to that future Logan so... MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I did. I broke that up for the Logan to be open at some point for concurrency purposes based on the fact that that will be a traffic break within there. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet, but -- MR. FEDER: Commissioner, that is only -- MR. SCOTT: Future traffic. Page 65 January 25, 2006 MR. FEDER: -- that is only the analysis section. The work program right about in the middle still shows that the project that we're moving on is from 1-75 to Collier Boulevard. But, again, when you're doing your analysis section for your concurrency, we do quite often divide it up into smaller segments than a construction segment. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page are you on? Maybe I'm -- MR. FEDER: I am on the work program itself on page 11. And I call your attention to about halfway down on the major projects, Project No. 69101. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. FEDER: It still shows that Immokalee Road is from 1-75 to Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. FEDER: I think what you were looking at was the area that shows where we stand when it's going to go into a concurrency issue and when we have a program. And that -- that splits out in small segments than necessarily in this case the project segment itself. Just like on Santa Barbara, you see on that list three entries on Santa Barbara, one on Radio and two on Santa Barbara. What is one project shown here which is -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll study it later. The -- so the question -- I mean, it's programmed for a construction this year. We haven't even hired a design person. MR. SCOTT: Actually, we have design build. It's out right now. I think we've actually got packages back and we'll know cost-wise probably in about two months. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, could you maybe have this discussion after the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this -- no. This is very important. The important thing is, is it's programmed for construction in 2006. We've seen previously that some things were supposed to Page 66 January 25, 2006 happen in 2005. It didn't happen. MR. FEDER: And, Commissioners-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to be assured -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I think they explained that earlier, it was because of permitting and some other -- MR. FEDER: Well, now, we've got a different issue here. Commissioner, if I could try to answer your question. That is a design build project. Based on the board's direction a few meetings back, we went out. We're paying for three firms to bring in proposals. And the reason we're paying for that proposal is -- is to be able to pull from the different ones as we select one. Those are under review right now. They've been received. We'll be coming to you the second meeting in February as it's slated right now with a recommendation as to what firm. There are some thoughts. We may be able to stay totally within right-of-way where we do have to get some right-of-way for intersections if required. It still allows us to move to construction. And the construction schedule is based on a two-year with both a design build. And the luxury of that is you can design it and build it and keep moving in the process. The permits for the four laning included the permits on the six. So we don't have the permit issue to slow us up. We have limited, if any, right-of-way. And so we're very comfortable telling you that it will be in a construction phase and design and construction portions on that -- this calendar year. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're confident that we can do this in '06? MR. FEDER: Yes. Everything in our schedule is showing that we are starting. Now, it won't be completed in '06. Again, what you see in fiscal years here are the start-up of construction, not the completion. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. Page 67 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are -- are you saying that for all of the items in your work program for FY'06 -- MR. FEDER: That is correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you're saying that you have all of the right-of-way, you have a guaranteed price and you have a guaranteed start date? MR. FEDER: Of course not, no. What I am saying and the first part that I was answering to, if it's shown in '06, that's when we're slated to start construction. Now, in different items here, I can go through their various stages of where they are in status. Again, some we have permits in. Some we do not yet even though they're in an '06 status. Right-of-way in some cases is totally cleared. Some is still waiting on order of taking that is set very shortly. So I can give you that. What we have done is gone into a Microsoft Project. We've gone to a very extensive effort to flowchart out our projects to adjust it based on some of what we're running into on permit times. And so can I guarantee that no issue will come up? As noted, I discussed with you that while we're going to be very aggressive and are committed to delivery of the program, we had four projects that got delayed for various reasons and we are in a much more vulnerable period of time right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Here -- here's my point and I think it was Commissioner Henning's point. We have just experienced huge increases in construction costs. And we've just turned down or will turn down two -- two bids for doing -- MR. FEDER: The very first -- the very first bid we've ever rejected but, yes, we have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we might do that again. MR. FEDER: I don't know until we go back out and see what comes in. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever happens, we're sure that Page 68 January 25, 2006 the costs are going to be substantially higher than we have estimated. So if -- if -- if you -- if -- if you say that we're going to start these in fiscal years '06, which is within the next eight months, and you've got, what, $364 million of construction you're going to start within the next six months? MR. FEDER: No. That 364, of course, includes -- MR. SCOTT: Some other billing. MR. FEDER: -- the -- the encumbered, but not yet spent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Okay. MR. FEDER: A big portion of that, 298 million of that IS essentially encumbered but unspent. MR. SCOTT: And some that are under construction right now too. MR. FEDER: Well, that's what I'm saying, they're under construction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my concern is what happens if you're wrong on anyone of these roads? If -- if you're wrong on the cost or if you're wrong on the ability to get it started on a particular date? MR. FEDER: Other than my tenure here? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. FEDER: What I will tell you, Commissioner, that's why I led in in the beginning showing you the accomplishments over the past five years, but showing you the vulnerability that we've run into, we have a process that says you can rely on construction if it's set to start within the first two years of our work program. And, as I said, up until recently that's been the case. What I now had to present to you today, unfortunately, was four projects that went from '05 to '06. In most of those projects, if not every one of them, we relied on that available capacity to make determinations and to make recommendation to you as a body on approvals. So that's very significant. And we take that very strongly. Page 69 January 25, 2006 What I have put up on the screen in the prompter here is something that I've already started talking to legal may require a Land Development Code change, probably not a growth management change, but definitely needs to be taken into account. It doesn't solve all of the question. What it says is we are developing a work program and seeking to deliver and committing to that delivery, but understand there are items out there that go beyond our control. If I have a project, what this graphic is trying to display and it's a difficult item, but if it's currently in the very first year of the program and in the case of four projects I mentioned, they were in 2005, first year we started using their capacity as a determining factor. MR. MUDD: Right here (indicating). MR. FEDER: Yes. No, right here. They were in the first year. Ideally the way we want to proceed is they would be under construction in 2005. Instead, this AUIR, they have become the first year of 2006 of this new AUIR and they're for a capital improvement element. They stayed within that two-year band. Because even if they had been in 2006 originally, I would have used their capacity under our processes, under our growth management plan in determining whether or not I had capacity. However, if they were in the second year and they moved outside that band, in other words, they became second later or if any of these projects that were a first year move again, at that point my recommendation is that we change our Land Development Code or make the changes required to say that I no longer can use that capacity until it's under construction. So I have a little bit of a fail-safe. Now, what it doesn't do, is it doesn't address those approvals that we made in anticipation of that capacity when it was within that two-year window, either in the second year and it moved one time or first and it moved to second and then moved out of the two-year band. It says it can't be within the first two years of my work program as a floating basis. Obviously, that was never intended in everything Page 70 January 25, 2006 we did. Before we had no delays so we didn't have that as a concern. I'm now telling you that we need to make some adjustment to make sure we take that into account. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now -- now -- now, please, everybody listen carefully. I -- I am not addressing what you think you can do and what you're going to try hard to do. I'm -- I'm -- I'm addressing what we will have to put in a written plan going to Tallahassee -- MR. FEDER: Understood. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that ties our hands to a very large degree. I feel very uneasy when I have just gone through a process of rejecting a bid because it was 70 percent higher than what we estimated. I do not believe it is possible for you or anybody else on this staff to accurately estimate where the costs of fill and concrete and steel and pipe and all this is going to go over the next few years. It could come down. It could continue going up. And to put something in an AUIR that doesn't reflect that concern is, I think, irresponsible. And -- and I would not vote for this. I would shift them out to FY'07 if it were -- that's only eight months away. I think that we'd be far better off giving ourselves some pad as far as the officially approved document is concerned, but then encouraging you, the staff, to work as hard as you can to beat it by a year. I would -- I would feel much more comfortable being in that position than in the position of locking ourselves in because the risks are so high. If we lock ourselves in and we don't achieve these goals, then that means it gets worse for our residents in Collier County because the developers can proceed, at least after March '07, is it -- MR. MUDD: It's pay-as-you-go. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the pay-as-you-go. At least the developers can if we fail to meet these dates just go ahead and build. And we don't ever want that to happen because that makes it Page 71 January 25, 2006 worse for our residents, not better. MR. FEDER: That's understood. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we -- we've got to be very, very careful about -- about what we put in the official document. MR. FEDER: I don't -- I don't doubt that at all. That's why I raised that in the beginning. But I will tell you there's a couple of other things that we need to be discussing as well. First of all, if -- if we base it basically on cost, we are increasing our impact fees and we're noting in our impact fees to pay the full cost, because this board has taken that position 100 percent. We have issues if we are not then showing how we're delivering projects. We also have a lot of these risk factors that we need to start taking control of. We need to look at why I got a 70 percent overbid. Even if you read the paper today, the quote from the company -- and I'm taking a little bit of liberty here, because I'm not them -- but I will tell you through our negotiations what we heard, what I read in the paper and I believe everything I read in the paper, essentially they're sending us a message. They want to be able to do mining in this county. And right now they can't because of some of our provisions. Now, that may not change, but that was a strong message I think we got with that bid. Okay. And so can we control some of these factors? Are we building in a way to help pay and control the cost issues? Are we trying to do some things on permitting? And do we need this board's help in making sure that if we decide we're going to do a project, we've had sufficient community vetting and unless something extraordinary comes up, we're going to follow through on it? Now, those are the challenges as well. Now, having said that, can I guarantee, no. And that's why I submitted to you which is not a perfect solution a commitment that, one, I don't want to ever move a project. So as I see there's any change in a project schedule, that will be brought to the board and Page 72 January 25, 2006 we'll move it if we have to. Now, with that in mind, we have to have some fail-safe as well that if, in fact, I get into a permitting process that can't be resolved for some reason, then we don't continue to move that two-year window. That, in fact, until it goes under construction, we're not going to use that capacity at all. Now, having said that, I will, obviously, go to the board's direction if we want to take a position and move projects out or give more time, but I will also tell you that what you experience the five years before I came here was something I do not want to do again. And that is to have no plan and, therefore, no results. If you don't have a target, you're never going to hit it. And I need to keep my staff focused on a target and we need to attain it. And I will tell you that, obviously, I -- I appreciate the risk for myself in these discussions. Because it's, obviously, easier for me if you take the Class B status which I said I volunteered. Obviously, that's a lot less risk. So I need to judge that because it's not just me. The point you're making, Commissioner, is very valid. It is the community at large. And the community at large is the reason that we need to be very careful. And so I'm open to -- to whatever direction the board gives in that event, but I'll also note that we -- we need to go both sides of the equation. We need to, as you said, not slow down our effort to try and deliver and that's the part I want to make sure is understood as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That's -- that's exactly my point. But the consequences of failure are so severe we cannot let them occur no matter how valid the reason. We simply cannot be put in a position where we have to let developers proceed with development when there is no road capacity. And -- and it's far better for us to develop a conservative schedule and then beat it than it is to develop a tight schedule and fail. MR. FEDER: The last thing I'll point out for the board's discussion and I'll receive the direction from the board is, interestingly Page 73 January 25, 2006 enough, the schedule and its vulnerability is anywhere along the line. Something can come up. But it's much more in the outer years of the program, which unless -- and somebody can help me as I understand that -- proportionate shares are five years of your capital improvement element that if you have anything for construction. And that's where my vulnerability's actually greater. When I'm in the first two years of my program, while it's been an interesting last year or so, you basically have designed, held your 30, 60,90 meetings, have an idea of what your right-of-way-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's three years; right? MR. FEDER: The first three years you can buy them by the state. The first two, I'm assuming, that we're going to get our Glitch Bill passed, because we only allowed two here in Collier County, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't make that assumption. MR. FEDER: Until acquired otherwise, I'm assuming two. But, nonetheless, what I'm trying to say to you is right now under the two or under the three, the earlier in my program -- the further along the production cycle I am, the more I know the vulnerability and can respond to a project that I have. For instance, construction out in the fifth year, I haven't yet started to design it. The community issues still haven't really come forward in great length. The environmental issues and permitting issues haven't. I haven't figured out my costs, my right-of-way cost, my construction as much. Now, can I have a surprise in anyone of those statements even closer in, yes. But in reality probably the greater vulnerability rather to -- relative to proportionate share is in the outer years of my program where I'm programming not only the construction, but the right-of-way and the design within that five-year period and have none of them nor the background from them as I'm moving forward. So I'll just throw that out to your consideration as well. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. Page 74 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I also have some concerns about 360, but I -- I'll be honest with you. I'd rather hold everybody's feet to the fire and just say that these roads have got to take place and they will take place. I'd like at some point to hear Mr. Mudd's spin on this. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would -- Jim Mudd for the record. I would tell you that until you get your Glitch Bill passed by this legislature, this first -- first initial issue, this March 2007 AUIR that we have to turn in; is that correct, Randy? MR. COHEN: It would March 1,2008, sir. MR. MUDD: Is it 2007 or 2008? MR. COHEN: It'll be 2000 -- March 2008. It was going to be December 1 st, 2007, and they pushed us back. MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you. I would -- I would make sure that until that gets passed, that you be very careful about what your five-year construction program looks like, CIE, that's there. And-- and as conservative as you can get as far as that construction plan is concerned, because it basically states that you're going to give away capacity on that particular road, pay-as-you-go. And Norman's not going to be able to use this concurrency system and monitor when it's overcapacity and is it in construction. So I would -- I would try to tell you that it almost needs -- the five-year plan needs to look like a two-year plan. And whatever Norman is absolutely sure is going to happen in that two-to-three-year period of time, I can go to three year. It needs to be there. And everything in the fourth and fifth year you need to -- for this -- for this submission, I think you need to move off of that plan. Not -- not that Norman's going to go off of what he's doing right now. He's going to keep trying to get it all on. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can still keep it in our own long-range plans. It's just as far as this document goes of what we submit. Page 75 January 25, 2006 MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand now. MR. MUDD: That's it. You want to minimize -- you want to minimize your risk in case it doesn't go your way. MR. COHEN: Can I add, Commissioner, also, one of the things that's in Senate Bill 360 that was adopted just to show the additional scrutiny that will transpire with any Category A facility, there's language in there that basically say, CIE amendments which delay a scheduled project beyond years one to three will only be done after a public hearing is held. So what they're basically doing is they're holding your feet to the fire. I wanted to point that out for the record. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't see anything wrong with that, having a public meeting and -- and telling the public. And that's what we should be doing is telling the public we have a problem delivering. And, oh, by the way, we're going to shove these projects out further and anticipate delivering before that date. And Commissioner Coyle is absolutely right. You know, to breeze over this document by not asking questions is wrong. I mean, there's so many implications of this document. If we don't get it right, there's going to be hell to pay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: There's also as I recall too-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, I am right with you. I think that we need to be more conservative, push these out and -- and build them as soon as possible. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And work harder to get them done. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Yeah. And stay on them. We need some kind of a reporting schedule or a period where things are not happening, let us know. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I would submit to you that on the Internet is every project, its reporting schedule and we are sending out Page 76 January 25, 2006 to you on a monthly basis a schedule of all the major projects under construction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody knew about these except for Santa Barbara. We had a meeting -- meeting and everybody knew that it was going to be a delay. MR. FEDER: And on County Barn we came in with you on the right-of-way and noted the issues we're having on permitting. All of these have been publicly vetted. But I will be open to any process that you feel would -- would make sure that the public vetting and -- and, most importantly, your knowledge of any changes is readily apparent. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I had a few other questions. I'm going to try and ask simple questions and get simple answers. MR. FEDER: I'll try. COMMISSIONER FIALA: If Ave Maria withdraws part of their project as we've heard rumored here and there, read it in the paper maybe, what will happen to that impact-fee fund? Will -- will that affect you any? I mean, just if they say they're going to scale down some of their projects is what I've read. MR. FEDER: The -- the actual collection still anticipated as they showed us over the five still are tracking. Although they've been a little bit slower because they started up a little bit slower, but they didn't have that aggressive in the first. We also have a provision that we wrote into the developer contribution agreement that makes it clear that after a period we can look at it, failure to comply. And it provides that we will relook at the whole thing. And should we find that, in fact, it is not progressing as was planned, that either party can pull out of the agreement. And so I think you've got some fail-safes in the developer contribution agreement with Ave Maria. Right now, although not in the exact dollars as they anticipate, they -- they are tracking generally in that first set of impact-fee levels from what we've seen on the Page 77 January 25, 2006 collection so far. But, yes, they have scaled back a little bit of the university, but remember, the Ave Maria agreement was both university and the town of Ave Maria. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. The second thing, the funding that we talked about on page 9 for Davis Boulevard, I heard -- I heard that possibly those funds that we were hoping to get the 30 million now have been diverted someplace else. Is that true? MR. SCOTT: No. I haven't heard anything positive yet. MR. FEDER: No. You haven't heard anything positive. Although some counties within District 1 did hear some positive news. And I sent something out to all of you which I find interesting and I've got some calls to make as soon as I get out of here later today. Essentially, we had a $50 million project which we had done a couple years of saving up our money working with everybody, thought we had what was in the prior fifth year of the DOT adopted work program. And, essentially, they took 30 million of that 50 million which is right-of-way and construction costs out of the program. Of course, we're trying to look at reinstatement. They're talking about increased revenues at the state level as a possible source of delegation to pursue to try and get reinstatement. We're also working directly with the Florida DOT to find a way to lessen the cost. And what I mean by that is that original project had some of the interchange aspects into the Davis project as well. The interstate interchange 951, Davis, 175. Additionally, we're trying to work with abutting property owners, other issues, to see if we can pull it back some. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just -- I don't mean to interrupt you because I don't want -- we already heard that part. MR. FEDER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was just -- I was just wondering if the hope that we were going to get the 30 million back is dashed to the ground or -- Page 78 January 25, 2006 MR. FEDER: It is not dashed, but it is not -- not something we're going to rely on until it's in our hands. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine. Then the last question is, this 10 percent contingency, is that enough for you? MR. FEDER: Basically each project has a level that ended in our estimate, but its present-day costs, yes, generally we're okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll move on. MR. FEDER: We will take direction, I guess, at the end of this from the board and how you would like us to modifY our work program, if any. I would recommend that if you're looking at that relative proportionate share which won't be in until 2008, but, nonetheless, if you look to do that with this cycle, obviously, I will be able to come back to you. Show you the production schedules. Show you the particular critical-path items and where we are. You could then use that as a judgment. You might summarily tell me to move everything back a period of time. I'll also tell you to look at the outer years. And maybe the outer years, I assume, my right-of-way phase and my construction might be a second right-of-way phase because, who knows? And then at least I budgeted the dollars for construction where I thought they might be, but those are the more vulnerable, the outer years. Not that there couldn't be issues even in the first two years of -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Norm, what my -- my concerns are that because of the -- the Bill 360, depending upon where it goes through the legislature, my concern is if we put this into the CIE and turn this to the state, my concern is once we put that in, we're locked in. And then if the developer sees that this is in there, he can then go forward with his development on that particular road if we have something scheduled and can't make that -- that guideline. Page 79 January 25,2006 MR. FEDER: Fully understood. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And then, of course, then we get into the proportionate share which is really going to put us -- a wrench into the system. So I'm not sure how we're going to set this thing up. If we -- if we have two schedules, one that is within the county and then one is with the state. MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner, your point's well taken. I have a good idea what I'm going to do tomorrow, but there's always something that comes in and surprises me. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. MR. FEDER: I have less of an idea, although I'm trying to plan next month and I'm trying to think ahead, but it's more likely that something's going to come in and surprise me next month. That's the only point I'm making to you on the five years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. And that's what my concern is too. Because there's always something that pops up. And once that is on the CIE report, then we're going to be held accountable for that when that's -- when that's turned over to the state. So I guess what the discussion here on the board is that when we submit something to the state, it's got to be very conservative. But what we need to do is have our own internal plan that is -- is very assertive. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two sets of books. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. MR. FEDER: That -- that was my smile, sir. And I will tell you that, again, being held accountable is something. And I appreciate exactly what you're saying. It's not me. It's the community that suffers. And I think that's the point being made. So that's the part I need to take into account. Because being held accountable is what -- what, obviously, I need to be doing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's -- it's -- it's really fairly simple. We -- we develop a plan we are absolutely sure we can achieve$ Page 80 January 25, 2006 and then we incentivize you to beat it. Okay? MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. And I appreciate that. And I'll also tell you that the one part that I can't say is, I've said in the beginning, don't ever say "always" and "never," because I know I'm wrong. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The next one is -- I guess we've got that completed. We're up to drainage canals and structures. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should -- don't you want to make a motion on each one? MR. COHEN: It would probably be more appropriate to take a motion on each section -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. COHEN: -- after that particular section is completed, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would -- I would make a motion -- I'm going to just kind of throw it out there if you want to help me. For one thing, we need a better reporting on our gas taxes than what's in here, but most importantly is the schedule. I would like to push the schedule -- adjust the schedules two years instead of one year and develop a system to stay on track and get these projects done as soon as -- as soon as possible. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. As -- as a guiding principle, in order to do that I wonder if the other commissioners would -- would find it acceptable to -- to give guidance to the staff essentially as follows: Nothing goes into the first two years of the plan that we don't have guaranteed sources of funding and a guaranteed completion date. And -- and -- and that's -- that's going to require, in my opinion, a contract in hand which -- which means that you will have already planned for this. You will have already done the -- the PD&E study. But -- but if the construction isn't guaranteed to start within those two Page 81 January 25, 2006 years, it shouldn't be programmed. And -- and do you see the problem is, we -- if we don't do it that way, we run into the same problem we just ran into. Somebody gives us a bid that's 60 percent -- 70 percent higher than we expected and we don't accept it, so we don't meet the schedule. So -- so it appears to me that you will have had to get your -- your permitting in place. You will have to get a contractor that says, yes, I can build it for that price. And, yes, I can complete it for that price or completed it at that date. And if -- if -- if you don't have those things, it shouldn't go in the first two years of the plan. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the right-of-way is all taken care of? MR. FEDER: A couple -- a couple of questions and I'm not trying to in any way defeat the motion or the item. First of all, you said "completion." I think you're saying "to contract." Understood that. And-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Beginning construction. MR. FEDER: In budgeting how -- how do we address that in budgeting because I can't bring to you -- I can't encumber unless I have the funding available to do so. So you noted both sides of the equation. I feel comfortable more so in guaranteeing the first because I have more control over it with your help than I do the second part, obviously. No -- no items -- the guarantee that nothing could ever come in the way. So, in effect, if I understood and what you said to me is the first two years I wouldn't have a construction phase until I bring to you a contract for construction which assumes all the other attributes are completed and you approve it. And then I would have a construction phase? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you were able to do that in the first year, that's wonderful. MR. FEDER: Well, I'm not going to delay in coming to you, Page 82 January 25,2006 yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That's right. So if you had something you had programmed for the fourth year of a construction or CIE and you could get it started within the first two years, the only way that it would appear on any subsequent CIE is if you had the funding in hand, you had a contract and you had a -- a completion date that meets the schedule. MR. FEDER: And, in fact, obviously, that wouldn't be the case because if it was out -- previously planned, if you will, or production-wise probable in the fourth year, because we've been pretty aggressive at it, there's no way I probably could deliver in the two years. Okay. And in that sense what I think I'm hearing is the direction from both my five-year work program I send out, the AUIR and the capital improvement element, would be to show no construction phases before their time, so to speak, no construction phases whatsoever until I can come to you with the construction contract. And we proceed in that manner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then when you've got that, we'll put it in there. MR. FEDER: If that's the direction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just -- just reinsurance one more time. What we're proposing here will do nothing to slow down the effort for building roads? MR. FEDER: Understanding if this is the direction from the board, a couple of questions. But if this is the direction, what I would do is, obviously, you would still see the study, design and right-of-way phases and they would be scheduled with the intent of delivering -- if you just erased all the construction I just handed you on that same schedule because we're still trying to meet our schedule as aggressively as we can, and this schedule is aggressive. It's meant to be realistic, but aggressive, but it cannot be guaranteed. Page 83 January 25,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, I think what we're saying is almost like two sets of books. You have a five-year program, but it doesn't show up on the CIE -- MR. FEDER: If I understand correctly, I'm going to have one single set of books. It's going to not have a construction phase. It's going to have study, design and right-of-way. And when I bring you a construction contract that you approve, it will have a construction. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But that particular scenario will get us to where we need to be in the same time frame we've been talking originally? MR. FEDER: A few things, I'll have to try to forget how to deal with. It sounds like a challenge for me and that is understanding how to come to you in budget, how to have that money set aside and know what I'm dealing with. And also on impact-fee implications of that when I try to re-enforce and substantiate my impact-fee process. Because, in effect, what we have done here with that statement is since I cannot guarantee anything if I -- if I try to go to what I understand is the direction of this board, then I cannot use the capacity for the first two years on anything in my concurrency management either. So I have established an interesting concurrency management issue for this county at the same time. All of which, if that's the direction of the board, of course, I and the staff will try to carry out. But I'm trying to make sure you realize that I'm running through in my mind here a few things that we'll probably have to deal with. But in answer to your question, we would still give you a good indication of our production schedule in the sense I would still have the study, design and right-of-ways shown. And you might infer from that when I thought I could go to construction. And when I really can, I'll bring you a contract. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So we realize the ramifications of what we're just discussing here before we make a motion. And I think the county manager has something to add to this. Page 84 January 25,2006 MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe this is the same discussion we had about Category B earlier today. I believe you need to have an AUIR approved. What's on the CIE can be construction only as Norman just described. I believe that puts us on firm ground. Now, maybe the county attorney can say something different. But I believe in that legal opinion we just had, I believe we're within that legal opinion that we -- that I just received last night. I don't think you can have just a two-year construction on your AUIR. I think you really get yourself in a bind with impact fees. So I would suggest that you have an AUIR and that the CIE be something a little bit more conservative in the construction side of the house for roads in particular. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this is a real circle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it is. Unless -- unless we -- unless we draw a line, it's not going to ever stop. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I really do not feel comfortable playing games with this thing. I don't feel comfortable to talk about maintaining two sets of books and putting one thing in AUIR, putting something else in the CIE. I -- I think we have good reason based upon historical experience, which is historical, that -- that prices are beyond our anticipation. Schedules are beyond our control. And-- and before we can take the risk, we need to get some certainty. And so I think what we should do is spend those two years getting that certainty. And if we can do it faster than that, then we've -- we've got an obligation to do it. It's that simple. But -- but putting it in the AUIR as something we intend to do in FY'06 and then write a CIE that won't get that -- that indicates that we're not willing to adhere to that schedule, is, in my opinion, sending the wrong -- wrong -- wrong message. I don't think we'll have a problem with impact fees. We have an obligation to spend impact fees in a particular period of time, but we Page 85 January 25, 2006 can certainly spend impact fees. We've got lots of requirements for -- for funding. So we can certainly spend the impact fees. And it -- it -- it just appears to me that what we're doing is taking some time to recognize the realities of the uncertainties that we're confronted with. Which is, we don't know if we'll get a bidder for these things. We don't know what the price is going to be. We don't know what the schedule for construction is going to be. And until we get some handle on those things, how can we be certain about anything? MR. FEDER: I hope five years of history showed you that we don't take it lightly, but we do have a new set of situations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't have 70 percent increases in costs over the last five years. This is something very new. And until we sort it out, we've got to be very cautious. Now-- now we can come back and change this later this year if -- I guess, if we wanted to do that or early next year. But we -- we need to be very careful now. We're under some very, very serious threats here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- well, it's not only that. It's acquisition of land. It's the permitting process. And I would really like to do a workshop and try to resolve some of these issues, Commissioner, and start peeling it back. Because I have shared some thoughts with Norm and the county manager on one. I hoped that would help out. But the growth management plan that everybody is complaining about, it -- it says we want you to have the infrastructure in to prepare -- prepare -- prepare for growth. We want you -- your plan to be reliable. And I can't be assured that we can be relied upon until we -- we deal with the labor shortage, material shortage, right-of-way acquisition on a timely basis, the permitting on a timely basis and a reliable cost-estimate on the roads. So I don't -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: What would we have, the people from building industry come in here or the road building industry come in Page 86 January 25, 2006 and give us an insight of what their problems are also? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Because some of their problems is we're creating them, but also there are some alternatives that -- that we can start taking a look at to have some assurance to our residents that we're going to build the infrastructure. But I don't see anything wrong with what we're -- we're going to do is to reschedule, reshuffle these projects out until we have some certainty. MR. FEDER: If I could, I think a workshop that looked at some of these issues, because I think we need to hit both sides. We need to find some way to reduce some of these risk factors for us and for our partners, if you will, in the process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, but I'm looking at this -- I'm -- I'm seeing a real threat to the road building program. We've done an excellent job at this point in time and we have had threats over the top of us from Day 1. I can remember all the different little problems we ran into continuously along the way. And I understand we're very concerned about the concurrency laws that the state may come up with. We don't know what they're going to be. My concern, and I'll tell you, once we take and we say we're going to lower the bar, but we're still going to try to achieve something above the lines we draw, we're not going to do it. This is going to be the first step to taking a step backwards. And we're going to see this whole program of road building eroded at the most critical time our citizens need it. I -- I really don't think we've explored this fully. I do think we need to maybe go into a full workshop on this so that we can -- we can analyze this and lay it out and advertise it to the public. Because what we're -- we're attempting to do here, I really do think it's going to dramatically alter our ability to build roads. I really do. The more I hear about it, you know, the two sets of books, the idea that we're going to give them one number, but we're still going to strive to make Page 87 January 25, 2006 that. Then I hear we got an increase of cost of 60, 70 percent which we know about. We know that we have these certain things that we have to overcome. And we also know we have an obligation to build. And to step aside and say, no, we're not going to do it, but we're going to cutback, puts us in the same category of the commissioners that preceded us where they found every reason in the world not to proceed. You want a workshop, fine. If you want to reach a decision today, I don't think you're there as far as everything that needs to be known. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's my concern. I think we have -- we have to move this on. And I -- and I figure that the longer we wait, I don't think that the problem is going to go away. And we sure can't bury our head in the sand here. I think we got an obligation here to the citizens of Collier County to make sure that we're going to assure some way or another that we're going to address growth. And we've heard all the discussion, but I just want to make sure that we don't put ourselves in a box here that we don't get things accomplished. So everything's been on the table. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think you need one more piece. I think you need Amy Patterson to get up and talk to you about impact fees and how they rely upon an AUIR. And if you -- if you make a decision without that piece of information, I think you're going to have your problem -- you're going to have a funding shortage. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. MUDD: And that's what I'm worried about. Ms. Patterson. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson for the record again. Regarding the AUIR, the AUIR does provide us the basis for what we legitimately spend our impact fees on and, therefore, translates right back to the dollar amount of our impact fees. So if you start to reduce down what you're going to spend your impact fees on, focusing down on -- on a small amount of projects, you run the risk, Page 88 January 25, 2006 then, of being underfunded. Basically saying we're going to focus on three projects instead of five or whatever the example might be. Well, that's the basis of your cost. And you have to remember that your cost of your road is not just the construction. It's everything before and everything to completion. So you have to get that whole picture in to capture the true costs. And it's not just a snapshot of construction. So I don't know if that provides any clarification, but to begin to back out projects, you truly may be faced with some -- with some problems as far as funding your -- your overall program. CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's my real concern. So I just -- I'm glad you brought that forth, Amy, because I think that's also part of the equation here. We have to make sure that we address the issues of growth that are going to be -- that are upon us at the present time in this county. So, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I think -- I think it's important that we balance the risks. Let's -- let's presume you -- you go in the direction that has been presented to us today which says we're going to take on these really large projects in fiscal year '06. And that's only eight months away. I mean, we've got eight months to do that. I don't believe you'll do it. I don't believe we can do it. Okay. Now, if you fail, under the state growth management plan the developers can proceed. And they can take that road capacity whether it exists or not. So that overloads the roads even more and we're still struggling to build them. Now, that's the risk. Now, the other alternative is to be more conservative about the schedule; we guarantee the funding, we get a schedule for completion and we do the job. If we can do it earlier, that's wonderful. But if we don't, we've at least got the time to develop the capacity on the roads before it is taken up before other development. Remember that the state's plan demands that you stay three Page 89 January 25,2006 months behind in road construction. That's essentially what it means. That the developer can proceed with development if you have programmed something for development or for construction within three years; they can proceed if you haven't delivered it. Now, that's a bad result. You've got traffic on roads that haven't even been built yet. You don't want that to happen. That is not a service to the people of Collier County. We're not doing them a favor by doing that. So the best thing to do is to get a schedule we know we can meet with the uncertainties facing us and get it done and then we're not under that threat. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why don't you put that into a motion form? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I thought I had, but -- but I will -- I will try. It seems to me that I did have a motion for guidance on the table, but if you want a motion for approval -- we can debate this all year. Unless we make -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: We're moving on here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. We -- we need to get the thing done. So I'll make a motion that -- that we slip the schedule two years. We have construction, design and engineering to take place as quickly as possible on all of the projects that -- that we have -- have scheduled. And we will accomplish on this as quickly as possible, as quickly as we can guarantee the funding and get a contract to get it done. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, discussion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Discussion, please. Let's start with square one. Have you indicated at any point in time that you can't do the schedule that you've got in front of us today, that you're incapable of doing it or you see some major flaws in your own Page 90 January 25, 2006 planning? MR. FEDER: There are some schedules that are tight. There are some unknowns we're experiencing in the further-out years which I guess those two years we'll pull out the furthest out. I haven't done some of the phases to know what issues I might be dealing with. I will also tell you that if we do have a workshop, as I mentioned, there's a lot of things we collectively need to do if we're going to deliver the program and reduce some of those risk factors that are increasing. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it doesn't sound like we're about to give you the luxury of a workshop to be able to discuss it. A final decision's going to be made here now. MR. FEDER: I don't think one precludes the other necessarily unless you tell me it does. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, let's -- let's go with the next question. This particular action we're talking about today, if you follow through on it and you do what you do, what would be the -- the -- the effect to our revenue stream, impact fees mainly? MR. FEDER: I don't know. And that's something I'm going to have to go back as we're in the process of updating our impact fees. I might say it a little bit differently than Amy said, but I'll defer to Amy on impact fees in general. But our impact fees are collected based on the cost to provide the capacity that -- that's consumed, not necessarily on the level of our program. So with that as a basic standard, although I do know that the methodology looks back and tries to evaluate whether or not your needs, cost-feasible and your revenue streams are reasonable in how you're applying it. So I know I'm not answering it specifically. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're not. MR. FEDER: It's tied to both, but I think-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Money. Money. Dollars and cents, are we going to -- MR. FEDER: I can't -- I can't tell you right now that there Page 91 January 25, 2006 wouldn't be any. I would tell you the main part of impact fees is whether you show the construction in there or not. My calculation of the cost to provide a lane mile would not change. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, this-- MR. SCOTT: Let me answer that directly. You can't tell about the future but, obviously, somebody, that if they have counted, say it's on 951 and we see it's not within two years now, they were going to pay their impact fee and go forward. They will not be able to pay -- go forward so they -- they won't pay their impact fee. So there is an effect on that side of it for the immediate. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And, once again, I take it that you don't have confidence in your own plan any longer, that the last five years were a fluke. And the fact that we got everything built just about what we said we would do, but the future is so uncertain. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I did not say that. I was asked if I could guarantee that nothing could happen to delay any project in there. And my answer to that is I don't say "always" and "never." COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Go back five years ago. We're back five years ago and we're starting this whole process. Can you guarantee me the next five years are going to work? MR. FEDER: In hindsight all but four projects -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's fine. But, I mean, when you went into it, you couldn't guarantee then either because there's outside factors; hurricanes, whatever can take place. MR. FEDER: I came on the job. I think I recognized to even a couple of new commissioners here that I saw the job as pave or perish. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to be honest with you -- MR. FEDER: So I'm still here, but we'll see. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If -- if I look slightly distressed at this moment in time, there's a very good reason for it. I see an extreme threat to this road effort that's been ongoing for some time. And I see the cumulative effects of what we're talking about being Page 92 January 25,2006 extremely detrimental to the next area we're going to be building in and that's District 5. I see no end to this if we go forward with what has been suggested with this motion. MR. FEDER: My understanding of the motion, though, is while I move construction phases, I do not move my study, my design or my right-of-way phases which will dictate when I can bring to you a construction contract. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the -- the final results would be is that we're moving items off into the future rather than dealing with them now. Is that the end results? MR. FEDER: The production cycle to the point of being able to bring to you a construction contract as I understand it will not be changed. As a matter of fact, I think I was told to figure out how to get a fourth year and second. I don't know if I can do that. But it will not change. The issue is, can I bring you that construction contract and then get approval then and move forward and does it affect any income stream or some other things? And those are the questions I, obviously, haven't given great consideration. But the answer to your question is, I didn't hear it say slow down in your production. I heard it as you're not going to show the -- you're going to move construction phases out two years, but you'll keep your study, design and right-of-way where it is and bring to this board as quickly as you can the construction contract which I would hope would be two years. If I can deliver the program will be two years earlier than where you see the construction in the program if it's in there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, once again, too, we don't expect anything as far as a detrimental effect to our revenue stream especially with impact fees. MR. FEDER: That's the one that, again, we'll get some answer for. I can't tell you totally. There might be some implication. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Mr. Henning. Page 93 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess what Mr. Feder said answered the questions for hopefully Commissioner Coletta, but I'm really, again, concerned about the drop off of revenue from gas taxes. And we know growth is not slowing down. I would imagine people are driving cars. MR. MUDD: Can you have Mr. Smykowski address that particular issue? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. MR. MUDD: Mike. MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Mike Smykowski, O&B Director. Commissioner Henning is correct. It was -- it was raised at the AUIR -- AUIR workshop. This is the current year AUIR. Bare with me here. Where the -- where the gas tax is, the five-year total was $l07 million. MR. SCHMIDT: That's on your page 12. MR. SMYKOWSKI: This is your page 12, correct. So, Commissioner, if you want to turn to that, that may help you. MR. SCHMIDT: That is also the same figure on your -- your cover sheet, but page 12 highlights it. MR. SMYKOWSKI: At the point at which we were preparing the AUIR, we did not have our '05 actuals in. So for fiscal year '06, the $20,160,000 that Mr. Mudd is currently pointing to was the FY'06 budgeted figure. Subsequent to the preparation, the actual for fiscal year '05 is roughly equivalent to what we have budgeted in '06. So we collected about $400,000 more than projected. Our forecast was about 19.7 million. We collected $20.1 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So they are going up? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. Mr. Strain at the Planning Commission workshop mentions that he -- he felt it was too conservative. What I showed at that point was growing the revenue 3 percent annually from the FY'05 actual would result in $110 million in Page 94 January 25, 2006 gas tax revenue in the period from '06 through '010 as opposed to the 107 million that is shown on your page for the five-year. It's roughly a difference of $3 million. The starting point or the five-year total in the prior year, last year's AUIR was $107.7 million. So that was the disconnect that Mr. Strain pointed out at the Planning Commission workshop on the AUIR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're going to adjust that up? Can we correct that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, we can. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I didn't ask, would it -- would it have been brought out? MR. MUDD: What -- do you -- what -- do you adjust the revenues in the budget? Absolutely, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, you know, a concern that the Planning Commission had -- I kept on asking the question about the gas taxes and it wasn't -- wasn't answered. So if I didn't pursue it, would it have been addressed? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MUDD: My answer's in the budget, it would be. It was -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Today, yeah. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the same -- you know, we just had a conversation about construction going up 70 percent on the jobs. The cost of the construction projects don't have a 70 percent increase to them. So it's -- it's the best estimate you can. As the books were prepared, Mike didn't have that information. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have it today? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The other thing is, Commissioner, I will point out, the actual from '04 to '05 was an increase of 2.21 percent. You know, we're running it out at three. So, you know, there -- there's a question of, are we being too conservative? That shows that we Page 95 January 25, 2006 might, you know, be slightly optimistic given that there was 2.21 actual growth in revenue from '04 to '05. So in the big picture scheme of things, you're talking about 2 1/2 to $3 million difference in revenue on $107 million. You're talking about 2 percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: I guess the question that Commissioner Henning is -- is making here that -- that when we would start to look at the budget, the updated numbers, would they be updated with what we really collected? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't say that at all. MR. MUDD: To answer your question, absolutely. What Commissioner Henning's question is, why -- why didn't this chart get changed based on the question from the Planning Commission and to get that thing resolved? And basically staff is making a projection on what it's going to be in the future. There's no certainty that it's going to be there. Mike basically just showed you that it was only a 2 percent increase from '04 to '05. What's it going to be? Is it going to be three? Is it going to be 2.2? If you want to use 2.2 -- this board wants to use 2.2 as your estimator on the project from real to whatever, we can do that. It's the best -- his -- his best shot at what it's going to be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If gas taxes are going down, that means that less gas is being bought. That means people are not driving their cars and why are we building roads. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I don't think that it says the gas tax is going down. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, not that one, no. But this one it does based upon the previous year projections and what's -- what's -- what's on this sheet. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If we can't come to a resolution, should we take a break here for lunch and come back and discuss this farther before we call the motion? Page 96 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's call the motion first before we go to lunch. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I got the motion so... COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I think Commissioner Coyle was next. We'll finish -- try to finish this out so we can take a lunch break. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just very quickly -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You could table -- I beg your pardon. You could table the motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't want to do that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to confirm that these projections, none of these projections have that one -- a half cent sales tax that we ran into at the MPO that sort of snuck in and bury it here somewhere, was it? None of that is included in here? MR. FEDER: No, Commissioner. None of that's included because this is not a 30-year time frame of planning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Good. Thank you. And that's -- that's my question. I'm ready to vote. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just to clarify. You may want to clarify the motion, that the intent is to not have any adverse impact on impact-fee revenue stream. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That could be done. I think I would start to take great comfort with the whole thing. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that was the intent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, now are -- are you telling me that because somebody might find an adverse impact on the impact fee, the intent of our entire motion is undermined and thus void? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think just to clarifY. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can tell you I don't believe there Page 97 January 25, 2006 will be a significant adverse impact, but that -- that's my belief and it -- it -- clearly staff probably has a different belief, but that's okay. We can work that out, but I -- I don't know how many times I've got to say it. The reason for this is to keep us from getting in the bind that we'll get into if we're not conservative. So what -- what I -- I think we ought to do is make the decision. Get on with it and then the staff can find out how to deal with it in the most effective way. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we can always try to put the broken mirror back together again. And I have serious doubts we're heading the right way. I'd rather see a workshop so obviously I'm not going to vote for it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or we can have a workshop after the vote, but we've got to move this thing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So I'm going to call the question. The motion was made by Commissioner Coyle. And I believe it was seconded by Commissioner Fiala in regards to that we're going to set it up for a two-year work program. And that with the motion basically states that we will not show where the project is until at the point in time that we have a contract in hand. Is that right? Does that pretty much sum it up? COMMISSIONER COYLE: That pretty much sums it up. We're going to -- okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. All those in favor signify by say aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed by like sign. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 98 January 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The motion carries 4 to 1 with Commissioner Coletta rescinding. Yeah. And at that we'll take a break. It's 12: 18. And can we be back by 12:20? COMMISSIONER COYLE: 12:20? In two minutes? CHAIRMAN HALAS: 1 :20 -- 1 :20. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we allowed to meet even though our meeting was only scheduled from nine to twelve? I mean, I do too. I've got all kinds of appointments. Are we legally allowed to do that if it's not a noticed hearing? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what we'll have to do is -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- re-advertise this, aren't we? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we're fine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, ask Margie. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. You're legally permitted to continue. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we'll continue after lunch; right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: At 12:20 (sic). Okay. (Lunch recess was taken.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much, County Manager. We're reconvening the 2005 AUIR report. And I believe we're picking up with -- with Norm Feder, Head of Transportation. MR. FEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being the glutton for punishment, I'll go through stormwater now. But I will present to you on page 19 and on 20 is basically -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Can I interrupt you just a minute? MR. FEDER: By all means, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Did you get good clarification from our vote prior to breaking for lunch to give you the guidance that you Page 99 January 25,2006 needed? MR. FEDER: I had two questions. I'll throw those, but I'll tell you the one I believe I heard was to keep phases other than construction where they are and to move construction phases out successively each two years. Which year one would become three, two would become four and three would become five. And four and five would no longer be within the five years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that was just a make believe move out; right? MR. FEDER: That -- that was a move out of the site of the construction phase, not the preconstruction or the design or right -of- way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if you've got the design and the right-of-way done earlier, then you start construction earlier. MR. FEDER: As soon as I have a construction contract to bring to you for approval. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yup. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. FEDER: The other thing I had heard was to take all construction out of the five, but I believe the first one is what I heard. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's -- that's the one I intended. MR. FEDER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I just want to make sure that point was clarified because I think there was some discussion and I wanted to make sure that everybody was on the same page and that we can continue on. So go from there. MR. FEDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. FEDER: Yes. On stormwater on page 19 and 20 and then I'll go over what came out of the Planning Commission. Nineteen and twenty have been updated to address those issues and I'll try to touch Page 100 January 25, 2006 on them as we go through. Basically on stormwater your -- your process is to go after a 25-year, three-day storm event. I realize that in overall county we've got disparative issues on that. We're more on that in the urbanized. We're moving out into the eastern part of the county. It shows primary, secondary system that we control. Of course, you have the Big Cypress Basin Water Management District that controls basically the primary. Based on where we are in '05 to where we proposed to be in '010 on primary and secondary, both canal miles and structures, you see a little further down there that based on the cost -- unit cost that we're talking a program of a difference of 76 million. The overall program for the five years is $659 million of which 76.9 or almost 77 million is in the five years to be funded. That will get us an additional 36 canal miles, another 21 structures. What you have below that, then, is the FY'06 funding. We have ad valorem which comes out of the 0.15 mill stormwater utility established by this board in '06. That will bring in $7 1/2 million. You have commitments out of Water Management District for 4.3 in grants. And we had a carry forward of 6.1 million from the past. That gives us 18 million that we have in '06. Then from seven through ten, the other four fiscal years, we're showing that the 0.15 mill will bring in another $41 1/2 million. And then we're projecting, and you will see the asterisk for that in a minute, SWFMD and BCB and other grants, about 12 million and MSTUs being formed for about 5.4 million. That total, again, brings you to 76,959,750; therefore, the program is balanced. But let me go through the asterisk and then I'll go back to the funding scenario of splits. Basically the asterisk is showing you that we developed based on your establishment of a utility a 20-year plan. Now, that 20-year plan takes into account the system that we have and the cost-share ratios that were established when you set up that utility. Page 10 1 January 25,2006 For instance, on capital projects you see here that major projects; one-third county, one-third grant, one-third MSTUs. In the case of the tertiary system, one-half county and one-half grants. In the case of title areas, one-half county, one-half grants with MSTUs then to fund the operation once we're completed with those improvements. We also have here when you see grants possibility of tertiary of MSTUs, but the predominant is on the capital projects of one-third. That was the policy given by the board. So based on what we see over 20 years that we will generate and the way the system breaks out, that would really be a total of about 100 and not quite 5 million, 104,993,415 for a 20-year program. But what was shown here is the fact that initially we're going to be front-loading this with our ad valorem and what grants we're getting and even BCB and Water Management District I think made clear to you that in their longer-range planning that they're looking to commit dollars to come up with their one-third or their one-half share that you see, but that's a little further out. So initially we'll be starting out our program a little bit slower than the 20-year plan, 1I20th each year, if you will, and it'll be more front-loaded with the county dollars. Now, what does that mean? In the case of primary facility, for instance, let's say, Lely, LASIP project, if that project is about 45 million for the overall project, that means that to meet the fund share, I can't spend more than 15 million of county funds on it. Then another 15 million is assumed to be Big Cypress Basin Water Management District. And then the last 15 million would be from MSTUs. What that recognizes when the board established this is that there's countywide benefits to these improvements, but there's also localized benefits to these primary system improvements. What we're doing in the case of LASIP as an example as you see in the next page where we funded some projects, we are taking the county monies starting downstream and seeking to bring forward those improvements Page 102 January 25,2006 and increments as we go after the Big Cypress Basin dollars and then eventually the MSTU dollars to complete the overall job. I think it's been pointed out to you also when we went through this process that sometimes that one-third can get you about half of the improvements even though it's only one-third of the dollars. If they're strategically placed and that's what we're trying to do, the two-thirds of the county and BCB could well get us 80 percent. And I'm just throwing out general numbers, obviously. You have to look at each one individually. But about 80 percent of the overall improvement value. And then the question to the people in the area will be, do they want to spend their monies to get the full improvement attribute? That is how the funding scenario is set up. What I'm pointing to you, if I applied that 1I20th or 5/20th in this case, then we would have a little larger program than you see right now. We assumed only what we really expect we can get right now. Even with that, we're going after a trust for public lands, Florida Community Trust Grant that we should have for about 8 million that you don't see here. Until it comes forward, we haven't shown it. So what I did in that asterisk is point out to you that our program will expand as these dollars that we're pursuing very actively now that we have the assistance of a dedicated source with the utility as those monies come forward or as we finish something and set up an MSTU, we'll bring those monies to it. So you've got a program that is probably a little bit conservative right now. On page 20 it shows you what we'll do to bring forward within the funding share scenario and we'll pursue the other share of monies to bring forward the full program. That's a very quick overview, but I'd be happy to try along with Jerry Kurtz to answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the detailed program list -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- page 20, Line Item 9 versus Page 103 January 25,2006 Line Item 27. Nine says, countywide swale improvements. Twenty-seven says, countywide sewer -- storm sewer improvement. What's the difference? MR. FEDER: Okay. The storm sewer improvements is probably going to be related to our lime rock road conversion where we're bringing those issues in. The swale is generally where we're going out and improving and upgrading swales in many cases already on improved facilities, not on the lime rock conversion. If you remember we brought you in the lime rock conversion issues, it makes no sense to go from lime rock to an asphalt condition and not address the swale issues at the same time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's -- you're talking about culverts, then, also? MR. FEDER: Culverts and the swales themselves, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, those are going to be set up through MSTUs; correct? MR. FEDER: A portion of them will be through MSTD. A portion will be in county dollars to allow the tertiary system to help relieve the secondary and then the primary to get the flow from each system to the other and improve overall drainage within the county. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What's county -- countywide stormwater improvements? MR. FEDER: Which item, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nine. They just seem to be the same. MR. FEDER: Large swale improvements. That is the issue that I mentioned to you out in the Estates even where I have and around the county where I have paved streets. I have many where I need to go back in, establish a positive grade. That means both the canal itself as well as the individual culverts where they're not at the right height or the size of the pipe even if it was permitted previous conditions or criteria is not adequate for a good, positive outflow at the pump. Page 104 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You have to show me on this sheet the 50/50 shared contribution on that. MR. FEDER: Again, as I noted to you in many of these cases and -- and we can go through any project and try to get you that exact figure on where we are now. What we're committing to is not going over in the county dollars the proportionate share, but we're also acknowledging that in many cases we're front-loading it as we're going after the grants, the BCB money and forming MSTUs. We're front-loading at least to what is allowed county portion -- the county portion to start up projects. Many of these are much more costly than you see in the multi-year projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Line Item 19 -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Livingston Road East/West, Imperial Golf Estates. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that in correlation with the East/W est Livingston Road improvement? MR. FEDER: There are issues throughout that go beyond the roadway. Remember roadway addresses its own drainage requirements, sometimes provides a little bit of relief when we try to bring it into the overall system needs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's this one? MR. FEDER: But -- but this is a whole slew that you have in the north county and -- and, Jerry, why don't you hit this one a little bit more specific? But even through Imperial Lakes, their drainage system, we're looking to modify issues to -- to help the overall drainage in the northeast part of the county -- west part of the county. Excuse me. Yes, Jerry. MR. KURTZ: Hi, Jerry Kurtz. Yeah. That project is basically a project that resulted from the North Livingston Road basin study that we did two years ago. And that resulted in about half a dozen areas Page 105 January 25, 2006 that we could improve. So this is -- this is one project that we're kind of digging in and moving forward on in that basin. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Separate from the -- the road. Thank you for that. MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Another question, Line Item 42, you have a reserves of $1.3 million. That doesn't reflect it on page 19. MR. FEDER: Part of that reserves is part of the carry forward, is it not? I believe -- I believe, Commissioner, that that's part of your 6.1 million carry forward that is shown on page 19 from '06 -- from '05 that's in '06. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you've got a carry forward of 6.1. MR. FEDER: Yes. That's why my program is 18 million as opposed to generally 13 in other years, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the carry forward -- where's the 6.1 figure come from? MR. FEDER: 6.1 is from prior years from '05. It's carried forward into '06. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well-- MR. FEDER: And then a portion of that is put into reserves. The others are programmed to specific projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just on page 20 it shows 1.5 and MR. FEDER: Yeah. It's showing 1.5 in '06 as being held in reserves rather than programmed out to a specific project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're going to carry forward that to the '07? MR. FEDER: Unless we have a specific project that comes forward that demands that dollars and then we come to the board. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you anticipate a carry forward, why would you budget the capital improvement if you Page 106 January 25,2006 already know that you can't -- you can't do that? MR. FEDER: Let me start over again. In '06 you see 18 million which includes a $6 million roll forward from '05 basically programmed out two projects. There is one item that's been put in there for 1.5 million of 18 million overall. That is held in reserve waiting identification of a specific project that it might be programmed on which we have to come to the board and ask that it either get added to one of the other projects or be established as a budget to a new project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if that's part of the $18 million, then let's break it down even more. Is that -- is that from ad valorem? Is that from SWFMD or is it from the carry forward of 6.1 ? MR. FEDER: I don't know which -- which P I put under that part, but I can try and find out. I will tell you the 18 million -- I can tell you how it's comprised and that's shown on the paper. Whether or not that 1.5 is coming equally or proportionally or solely out of one, I can't tell you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, and my point -- I mean, it's not -- it's not dedicated to one project. MR. FEDER: Not yet, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's -- and it's a carry forward. And, you know, why don't we reduce the ad valorem 1.5 if it's not a dedication to anything? MR. FEDER: Because this board asked us to get aggressive on stormwater and that's what we're trying to do. In reality to meet the needs as we showed in the 20-year, we should be about a $104 million program, but we don't have based on the proportionate share that we want from Big Cypress Basin MSTU as well as the county's utility funds all those grant funds or MSTU available to us today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Realistically, can you do $18 million worth of improvements? I mean, you've got a whole laundry list of improvements for '06. Realistically, you could do all Page 107 January 25, 2006 those permitting and all? MR. KURTZ: We're going to knock ourselves out to try. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, what I will tell you is that roll forward from prior years was higher. The projects are getting committed now. We finally got approval after 22 years. The LASIP project by itself! could spend 15 million. I could let within this year very quickly 15 million just on that one, but we're not going to do that. We're trying to move forward on all projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I -- is -- is -- what does "trying" mean? Because it means different things to me. I'm not sure what it means to you when you said you're going to try to get all these done. MR. FEDER: Jerry, do we have a schedule for each one of these projects? Are we moving forward in design? Do we have the right-of-way where it's required? And do we anticipate being able to go out to construction in '06? For every one of these it's construction. I understand some of these dollars are design dollars. Some of them are right-of-way. And we tried to indicate that which was one of the issues brought forward to us by the Planning Commission. So are we comfortable that the designs are or will be like this year? The right-of-way will be pursued this year, although it may be encumbered, not necessarily spent this year especially with right-of-way and construction that it's likely to go this year. Do I have the design to be able to meet the construction items I have here? MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We need to take a vote on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to answer the Planning Commission -- MR. FEDER: Yes. I will go through those. The Planning Page 108 January 25,2006 Commission request was first and foremost. It's on page 2. On page 19 they wanted a footnote, estimated interest and funds. And you see on page 19 we have, in fact, put a footnote, accrued interest in stormwater funds approximately 827,948 fiscal year 2005 because of that roll forward or carry forward. We'll go to general funds and offset general fund transfer to stormwater. They then asked us on page 19 to change the amount of existing ad valorem revenue sources of FY'06 and seven to ten reflect anticipated. And that has been done and that's why what you had previously was an ad valorem from six through ten and then potential other sources. And we've modified this to reflect those. And that is the anticipated and actual in '06 and anticipated seven to ten in ad valorem. And then the last one that they asked for is adding footnotes for soft and hard costs is what their terminology was. And on page 20 you see the project. We show whether or not a study, design, construction or right-of-way phase to indicate. Because as they pointed out very correctly is you see a project multiple years, what phase is it in and where's it going. And that's what they were asking in soft and hard costs. So we feel that we've responded to their issues. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the capital improvement plan for stormwater. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. The motion's made to approve this by Commissioner Henning and it was seconded by, I believe, Commissioner Coyle. I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Page 109 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any opposed by like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion carries. Thank you very much. I believe the next item is county potable water. MR. MUDD: Potable water. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. MR. DELONY: We'll eventually get to them, Joe. We'll call for them. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Jim Delony, Public Utilities Administrator. The public utilities division is responsible for the administration and reporting of the water, wastewater and solid waste components of the AUIR. As part of the division's continuous review and appropriate revision of our water, wastewater and our integrated solid waste management strategy, the division sustains execution of the AUIR levels of service standards. As each of the divisions directors discuss the AUIR specifics for water, wastewater and solid waste, we ask that you keep in mind the major capital infrastructure projects necessary to support the level-of-service standards and to comply with concurrency standards that normally require a minimum of eight years from the point a decision's made to initiate the project. This is very important as we review today's charts to verify that we are making or will make the appropriate decisions at the right time to ensure we have the prescribed and necessary infrastructure supplying the prescribed levels of service and they are in place to protect and ensure public health, safety and the welfare of our county. Commissioners, this morning the public utilities portion of this presentation will utilize pages starting with page 21 through page 42. The presentation order will be Mr. Mattausch discussing potable water. Dr. Yilmaz will then discuss wastewater. And then Mr. Page 110 January 25,2006 Rodriguez will discuss solid waste. Tom Wides will discuss our funding strategy and our concurrency tracking methodology to ensure that those standards are in place for cost of all three program areas. Finally, Mr. Anderson is here and he'll present our approach to capital program execution that is so critical to our AUIR. And with that I stand here for your questions or I'll turn it over to Mr. Mattausch. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is there any questions, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: If not, proceed. MR. MATTAUSCH: Thank you, Commissioners. The first thing I noted is I need to change my notes. This says "good morning." We're -- we're well past that. For the record, Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director. I'd like to give you a bottom line first. We're -- we have no consent orders under which we're operating. Weare meeting all of our permit requirements and water quality requirements. And we're continuing to provide sufficient quantities of water to our customers every day. The AUIR process offers us as -- as planners and decision-makers a -- a very important opportunity to provide for the mechanisms for accomplishing the three most critical things with a water utility. Number one is to stay in compliance with all rules and regulations. Number two is to meet the demand for water by our customers. And, No.3, we need to posture the utility for the future so we can continue to do the first two. I'll be referring specifically to the chart that's -- that's up on the monitors. That's found on page 26 in your book. And that -- that refers back to some numbers that are contained on a table on page 23. And -- and, actually, if you can -- it's your choice whichever way you want to look at it. If you want to look at it graphically, you can take a look at the chart that's on the monitors or if you want to look at the real numbers, that -- that table is on page 23. I'll be tying the two Page 111 January 25,2006 together. There's no proposed change in the level-of-service standard that's the basis for the water department portion of the AUIR. The current level-of-service standard which is found in the title block on that chart, it's also found in Column 3 -- at the top of Column 3 on page 23 is 185 gallons per person per day. That number is the number that was adopted in the 2003 water master plan approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 25th of 2005. And more recently was substantiated by South Florida Water Management District in the current process of updating the Lower West Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. One hundred eighty-five gallons per person per day is used as a multiplier of the number that's found in -- in Column 2 in that table which is the peak population which is how we derive how much water we need to plan for. And your -- the -- the discussion that Mr. Delony had with you this morning about why we use peak populations really laid the ground -- the ground floor of this discussion on how we derive on exactly how much demand we need to plan for for our customers. It's for a peak water demand. Because people expect not only water to come on in the middle of a hurricane, but they also expect water to come out of the faucet when they turn the faucet on in season during the dry season when we have our highest demand. Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HALAS: One question, are we still basing it by 185 gallons a day and is -- is that really the real usage that the -- the people here in Collier County are using? MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, sir. The ten-year average for -- for per capita consumption is 181 gallons per person per day. That is the ten-year average. In the last two years we've seen a lower demand than that per person per capita consumption. But I want to remind you that -- that some of us were together in this room Easter weekend in April of 2002 asking our customers to use water only for essential uses Page 112 January 25, 2006 because we were not appropriately planning for that peak day. And since then we have had to -- because we haven't had sufficient capacity, we have had to manage the demand in the system by reducing pressure to the distribution system significantly, in fact, reducing pressure to the distribution system which has kept our demand artificially low over the last two years. I can tell you over the last two years we're closer to 165 gallons per person per day. But I can also tell you that if we are able to sustain our level-of-service standard which is -- which is 85 pounds per square inch to the distribution system, if we're able to sustain that, I would submit to you that we will be back much closer this year to that 185 gallons per person per day than the artificially low demand that we've seen over the last two years. Did -- did I answer your question? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yes, you did. MR. MATTAUSCH: Okay. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we also had a very wet spring last year too. MR. MATTAUSCH: Well, in -- in fact, we had -- we had 22-plus inches of rain in June. And -- and that was a record monthly rainfall. And so, yes, that did impact us. In addition to over the last couple years we've had a couple of those little storms come off the Atlantic that have dumped a little bit of rain too. And that does have an impact on -- on our gallons-per-capita-per-day consumption. The -- that -- that number, of course, is used as a multiplier with the peak population. That's how we get demand. And if you'll take a look at the chart, the -- the lower line on that, the dashed red line on the chart is the demand for water that we project during the planning window of the AUIR. A master plan outlines expansions to constructed capacity and reliable water capacity. And -- and you see that line on the chart. You also see in the text boxes on the chart what each one of those specific capacity expansions are and when they take Page 113 January 25,2006 place. Those are also on -- let's see, in -- in Bullet No.5 on page 24 in your books. At the top of the page on page 24 under Bullet No.5 you will see -- or numbered Item No.5, you will see an outline of each of the capacity expansions and when we currently plan to bring each of those specific capacities on line. The total constructed system capacity which is shown on the chart as a blue line is affected by each of those projects. That number is also Column 4 on page 23. The total reliable capacity of the potable water supply system is -- it's -- it's critical to keep the -- the constructed capacity or the reliable capacity above that red dashed line, the demand curve line. And, in fact, I referred a couple moments ago to -- to April of 2002 when we were very obviously on the wrong side of the demand curve. And so the goal of -- of any utility, whether it be water utility or wastewater utility or -- or an electrical utility is -- is to make sure that you have sufficient capacity to meet customers' demand. And as Mr. Delony said this morning, in that worst-case setting when you have the highest population and the driest time of year. We've had to manage demand as I said by reducing our delivery pressure to the distribution system. And, in fact, over the last couple of years we've operated daytime pressures in the 75 psi range as compared to 85 in our nighttime pressures. We've managed the irrigation demand by reducing delivery pressure to the distribution system down to 70 psi. Seventy is kind of a trigger point for us because if we go below 70 psi, we -- we have some other serious implications in the distribution system. The most serious of those is our ability to fight fires. And so at 70 psi or below 70 psi, that triggers a notification process for us whereby we notify every one of the fire districts saying that we are below 70 psi because we don't have sufficient capacity right now to meet demand. And we need to be able to -- to allow Page 114 January 25,2006 those fire departments to -- to fight fires. And so we go through a notification process, two-way notification. If we go below 70 psi, we notify them. They notify us if they have a fire. We can instantly boost that pressure to the distribution system. But that's why this planning process is so important that -- that we make sure that we stay on the upper side of that demand curve. Because that gives us that ability not only to fight fires in the system, but -- but also to maintain the -- the integrity of the distribution system. If pressures get too low in the distribution system and -- and, you know, that as we leave the water treatment plant, the pipes get smaller and smaller and smaller until such point you enter a residential unit where you have small pipes answering that residential unit. So -- so even at 85 psi and the point of entry to the distribution system, we may be at 35 or 40 psi at the customer's tap. If we get below 20 psi, we not only have regulatory issues of reporting that -- that we are not in compliance with Florida Administrative Code 62-555 which requires us to maintain 20 psi in our distribution system. Even with fire flows, max day conditions, peak hour demand and fire flow condition, we're required to maintain that in the distribution system. If we get below that, we can -- we can jeopardize the bacteriological integrity of the distribution system too. And, therefore, fall out of compliance with the quality of water that's delivered to the customer's tap. So that's -- that's very significant that -- that we need to plan to make sure that we -- we have sufficient demand to maintain pressures in the distribution system. Planning for and scheduling of construction -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Could you hold up? We've got a couple of questions. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll start off with Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I was -- I was just going to Page 115 January 25, 2006 mention that on this chart here it would be so much easier if I could see how many people we were talking about so I could see how they integrated into this potable water system. I was -- I guess that's not important to say now. But anyway-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is very important. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was going to ask that too. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Because it's hard to get a true picture when -- and I keep going back and forth to where your population is, but to try and compare. So that's all I was going to say. MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes, ma'am. I appreciate that. And we will make sure that we put on -- on the axis a population number. But you're right. It's -- it's a little cumbersome flipping back and forth between the chart and the table in order to get all of those numbers. The other difficulty is, if we put a whole lot of numbers on that chart, the chart then becomes unreadable too. So it's -- it's a fine balance and I -- that's -- that's noted. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, of course -- of course we are building for population, but we don't know what the population is so... MR. MATTAUSCH: Absolutely. That's -- that's noted, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. Commissioner Henning. MR. DELONY: This is the other chart. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. There is a chart on the visualizer that -- that does have on the -- on the access population. MR. DELONY: This is right here. This number right here. MR. SCHMIDT: And, Paul, we do verify that's population for your water/sewer district only. MR. MATT AUSCH: And -- and, yes. That's water/sewer district population. Those are projected numbers. Again, you know, that discussion that we had this morning supplied by our planning Page 116 January 25,2006 people and by BEBR. And -- and, again, the model that we use is high BEBR. And -- and we use peak population because peak population is what I have to provide for. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and so this -- you say this is for water and sewer, this little map that you just put on here right now? MR. DELONY: Yeah. The pop -- for the record, Jim Delony, Public Utilities Administrator. What you're seeing in there in that little box, that line with the boxes, that is the populations that you have on the columns that you were referring to. That is the population served -- to be served. The population to be served in the water/sewer district. And it's the same numbers that drove that line, ma'am, as it comes off of the chart on page 23, I guess it is -- 26. So that -- we took that -- actually, at the Planning Commission one of the folks asked us to take the population off because it was confusing. So we thought we would -- we got it. We'll put two of them in next time. But the bottom line -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Different strokes for different folks. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. You can see, though, it's really just a math test. Population times 185 spread out over a period of time. And that derives that curve that you see here with the little boxes there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. DELONY: And let me just -- for the record, that represents populations to be served in the water/sewer district. It's not the entire county, just the water/sewer district. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what you're saying is not the entire county, meaning not Golden Gate Estates who are on wells or anything like that? MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is just the population to be served? Page 117 January 25, 2006 MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Okay. MR. DELONY: Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it does. Thank you. MR. DELONY: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- so the graph -- the square box line graph is population? Am I wrong on that? Which one is population now, the square pink? CHAIRMAN HALAS: The one on the left-hand side, I believe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It goes from left to right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: The square box, yeah. MR. MATTAUSCH: The axis down the left-hand side IS population. MR. MUDD: It's the magenta box, pink box. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there it looks like you're not going to have the capacity certain years. MR. MATTAUSCH: Commissioner, the -- you have to -- you have to take population times 185 gallons per person per day. That gets the demand for water. And it's the demand for water that -- that we need to compare with capacity in order to make the appropriate planning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is one of these lines capacity? MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, the green line, sir. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I'm seeing is the -- MR. MATTAUSCH: I'm sorry. The -- yeah. The red line is demand. Okay. And then there's two lines that are capacity. The green line, the solid green line is reliable capacity. We had that discussion last year when we talked about A -- AUIR and we talked about reliable capacity. The green line is reliable capacity in this Page 118 January 25,2006 system. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Be more specific. The dashed red line, Commissioner Henning, is the required amount of water to be delivered. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- and that's based upon population? MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. So -- so what -- what is the square box line? MR. MATTAUSCH: That's -- that's just the number for population. That's why -- that's why we, you know, Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. MR. MATTAUSCH: -- had asked us to take the line off because it confused -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need as stated, like, two or three different graphs and then you could put them altogether; correct? MR. DELONY: Again, yes, sir. If you'll look at the chart that's on the -- your visualizer which is the one Mr. Mattausch started with, it deals strictly with supply and demand of water, strictly with supply and demand, when we're providing it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I got it now. MR. DELONY: Okay. The -- and then when Ms. Fiala said she'd like to see how population plays out, that's just a number. That's not a math, I mean, just depicting it. But I think for you, Ms. Fiala, it was important to see that we were moving at the same slope at least or some variation of that slope. As we got more people, obviously, our slope of delivery and demand would -- would go up as well. I think that was what was helpful to you in that regard. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exactly right. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. Sir, are we okay? Page 119 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please refresh my memory on reliable capacity. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. I would be happy, Commissioner, to talk about reliability. There's -- there's really a couple different standards that we have to use for reliability. One is looking at each system or each piece of -- of the system as of in itself. Take the south lime softening plant, for instance. We have 12 million gallons a day of constructed capacity at that facility. If that was my only water treatment plant, the standard that I would use for reliability would be the ten state standards. That is a utility standard that's used across the industry to define "reliability." And that definition is without the largest piece of equipment. In other words, you have a breakdown of the largest piece of equipment that is off line. What is the capacity that you have left? That is the true ten state standards definition of reliability. In the south plant that -- the plant, the 12-million-a-day capacity becomes 8 million gallons a day because my single unit, largest unit is a 4-million-gallon-a-day capacity unit. So I would need to take that out. But -- but when you talk about a -- a complex system like Collier County's water supply system, I actually have four different water treatment processes. I have lime softening and reverse osmosis at -- at my south facility. And I have membrane softening and reverse osmosis at my north -- north facility. Which is actually like having four separate water treatment plants. So when you get -- when you no longer have all your eggs in one basket in one facility and you have a number of different treatment facilities, then there's a different standard that we can use as a utility. And that is -- and a lot of utilities have studied this and -- and settled on 90 percent of the total system capacity as being reliable capacity. And that is the green line that you see on the chart. That -- that is 90 percent of the total constructed capacity used as reliable capacity in order to provide water to the system. Page 120 January 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Does that also take into consideration wells that are down for maintenance also? MR. MATTAUSCH: And -- and we are beginning to meet that same standard in our well fields. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. MR. MATTAUSCH: Okay. We -- we have had a lot of projects that have come before the Board of Commissioners over the last couple of years in order to get to that same standard in our well fields. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: So that's -- that's also added into this plan right here, this equation? MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes, sir. We are -- we are now appropriately planning in the master planning process which is reflected here in the AUIR, that master planning process reflected here is appropriately planning not only for -- you know, four or five years ago when we were standing here we were talking about only constructed treatment capacity. We are now appropriately planning for the entire system which does include well field supply. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Basically you just about touched on it. So will saltwater intrusion we have the situation well under hand -- in hand where we have the -- the capability to be able to makeup for any shortfalls if we start to lose wells? MR. MATTAUSCH: Commissioner, in the -- in the north R.O. well field we did experience some higher salinity water. I'm not sure we can actually attribute that to saltwater intrusion because that -- that aquifer -- because of the hydrogeology -- or I heard a better term a couple weeks ago, they hydro-sorcery of -- of the situation, with that well field being 700 to 1,000 feet deep, it was very difficult to attribute that to saltwater intrusion from the Gulf of Mexico. Page 121 January 25,2006 There are other likely conditions that caused that but, yes, we are -- we even have -- in fact, if you want to refer to on page 24 in -- in the item in five about -- about a third of the way down that list, in 2009 we are going to add two million gallons a day of high TDS or high salinity reverse osmosis water treatment in our north water treatment plant in order to be able to utilize not only the investment that we have in those wells, because those wells were very expensive, but -- but also utilize the capacity that's in those wells and treat that high salinity water using high pressure reverse osmosis in that water treatment process. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Paul, I'm a little confused about the total reliable system capacity for FY'06 and '07 . We show that we're still deficient. I had the impression that we had pretty much turned the corner just this past fall and that we were okay as far as reliable system capacity was concerned, at least as it applies to the minimum level-of-service standards. And -- and I'm wondering how -- how does ASR factor into this supply calculation? MR. MATTAUSCH: It is included in the -- in the overall system capacity. I believe that Column 7 -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. Delony. Column 7, we do factor ASR into our ability to meet peak demand. But -- but even then, right now I only have one potable water ASR on the system. That is only one million gallons of water a day that I can recover during that high demand period of time. So although, you know, the -- the chart does reflect a deficit, if -- if you take a look at true reliable capacity, what -- what -- what I have to -- what I have to do yet this season until I bring additional capacity on in February of 2007 is ride that thin line between true reliability and truly meeting demand. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Paul, could you tell me or Page 122 January 25,2006 are we in line with our required water management goals and our consumptive water permit? Are we falling in line there? Are we out of -- are we out of sync or how's it working now? MR. MATTAUSCH: No. We are in compliance with all of our permits. And -- and we do have a water use permit that -- that you heard Carol Wheeley guarantee you that -- that will be on the board agenda in February to -- to help take care of the addition of the South County Regional expansion to the reverse osmosis. But -- but, yes, sir. Weare -- we are currently in compliance with our withdrawal limitations on all permits. MR. DELONY: Commissioner, thank you for that question because I want to take a minute to talk about just what you asked me -- asked Paul. We -- we are there in terms of what you've asked. The challenge is to stay there. Given the -- the -- the demand curves that you see here and the supply curves that are -- are put upon us for execution, that water use permitting process is very critical. Now, that's what got us behind in the past is we didn't -- we built plants, not enough wells because it was tough to get a permit. You know the story better than 1. We're not going to do that. I'll come in here and tell you where we're at. And it's part of our concurrency commitment here to build at standard our water supply plan commensurate with our water -- our water treatment plan. You've made very clear to me when you were the chairman here that's what you expected and we've kept that promise. It is not easy. And we'll probably be back in here speaking to you when or if we have problems. We've had good results to date through a consortium of consultants, the Water Management District and in-house staff to get where we are. February, next board meeting is a very critical decision, a very important one for us to meet what is outlined on these -- on this chart that's districted (sic) on the teleprompter. But I just want to let you know we're there, but we got to stay Page 123 January 25, 2006 there. And I -- I know why you asked that question, because when you were the chairman, you asked me that same question my first month I was there. And I want to tell you we have not stopped doing what you've asked us to do. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Planning Commission's recommendations. It was recommended to smooth off the green -- no, I'm sorry, the -- the blue. MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah. The question from the Planning Commission was, can we phase that next increment of capacity in the Northeast Regional Water Treatment Plant? What -- what are the -- the costs? What -- what are the ramifications with that? We -- Mr. -- Mr. Anderson is prepared to talk about that and let me -- let me let Mr. Anderson answer that question. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Roy Anderson, Engineering Director. The -- on the visualizer we've put together our economic analysis of those options that the planning board asked us about. And you can see Phase 1 is -- is going ahead with the entire project at once and that cost is $59 million. The -- if we go in two phases, which would be Phase 1 and Phase 2, then the total then becomes -- I can't quite -- MR. MUDD: Seventy-four million. MR. ANDERSON: -- seventy-four million dollars. So the difference is really the -- the -- the cost savings in terms of the -- in terms of the two options. So I misspoke. The Phase 1 is $69 million. So the difference is actually $5 million. That's the benefit that we're talking about. Soš Page 124 January 25, 2006 that was the result of our cost analysis. Now, by itself that would -- that would suggest that one project is the way to go. But, of course, in the total sense, we have to look at all our projects as we prepare the budget for next year. And we will -- you know, we'll -- we'll -- we'll reassess this project in the context of -- of -- of -- you know, our total universe of projects. But this was intended to answer the Planning Commission's question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: This is basically today's dollars; is that correct? And not -- MR. ANDERSON: This is present worth. That is correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What would that -- instead of phasing and do it all at once, what would be your maintenance costs? MR. DELONY: You know, for the record, Jim Delony. I guess the bottom line of it is is that the largest cost of doing business is the first cost associated with construction. Obviously, when you're using facilities, there's an inherent or you build facilities you have an inherent cost of just maintaining those. This is a very dynamic program that's laid out here in terms of the variables of knowns and unknowns. We will be back here a year from now. And we will be back here many, many times between now and then looking at this number. And it's quite possible that the population doesn't provide it. I mean, there's the guy that gives me the population sitting right over there. Going on what I know, looking at the economics I understand today in response to the question of the Planning Commission, this remains our recommendation in terms of the best value solution to our demand versus supply equation. We put this together very quickly to be able to answer this today. We're going to be back here in April and May or May to talk to you about the three-year master plan update. I intend to take a little harder look at answering just that question you asked me, sir, in terms Page 125 January 25, 2006 of life cycle that we've got that. Not only about this project, but all of our projects. There's a lot of risk on -- that we have to assess on both sides of this green line and red line that's on your chart. And where we stand today and what we know and what we know of those costs as illustrated by Mr. Anderson, this remains -- remains our recommendation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When -- when are you going to come to us for construction of the first phase? Well, what is it, a 40-million-gallon expansion? MR. DELONY: The first -- first phase of construction is not a 40 million gallon, sir. It's just what's listed here in the report. It's 18.75. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The recommendation was to split it out. Okay. No. That's per person. The 10-million-gallon facility -- no. You're going to do a 20-million-gallon facility. It will be on line in 2009. So when are you going to be back to us for the construction and answer some of those unknowns such as maintenance costs? MR. DELONY: I don't know that I'll have all the answers on maintenance costs. I think I'll have the answers with regard to what we need to do in terms of the first construction costs. I can make some -- some analysis. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many treatment capacity gallons do you have today? MR. DELONY: Today on-line? It's in your report, sir. It's exactly -- we have constructed capacity right now of about 40 MGD. Is that correct? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if you know what your capacity is and you know what your costs are for that capacity, can't you figure it out of what the maintenance costs would be for an extra 10 million gallons? MR. DELONY: In today's dollars everything being constant, Page 126 January 25, 2006 yes, sir. From that equation, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's all we're asking or I'm asking is if we're going to make a financial decision, let's make sure that we're making a -- the best decision. And we do that by getting information and good information. MR. DELONY: Absolutely, sir. I couldn't argue with that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when are you going to come to us for the 20-million-gallon expansion? MR. DELONY: I'll be back in here in April with the details of the master plan that lays out that expansion program. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And at the time you'll tell us -- MR. DELONY: I'll tell you what I know with regard to the best value the questions that you put to me today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have a motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But I didn't get a second to it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We have motion for approval on this potable water level-of-service standard. The motion was made by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala. I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those with opposing say -- signify by aye. Page 127 January 25, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. It passes unanimously. MR. MATTAUSCH: Commissioners, I thank you for the time. I'd like to hand this over to Dr. Yilmaz who's going to talk about wastewater. DR. YILMAZ: Thank you, Paul. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm George Yilmaz, your Wastewater Director. Commissioners, I'm pleased to report to you that the Public Utilities Wastewater Department is in compliance with the concurrency requirements and position to rely and meet current and future demand that is imposed upon us by the future. Weare providing essential public health safety service and we are in compliance with all wastewater treatment standards as well as our permit requirements. Furthermore, we have met all the requirements of the 2001 FDOT consent order prior to mandated 2007 completion date. And we have by letter requested an early closure of the consent order. The existing level of service for this department is a 145-gallon per capita day for the north service area and 100-gallon per capita day for the south service area. With this AUIR cycle consistent with our master planning process, we are introducing five service areas as I indicated consistent with our master plan. Please refer to pages 28 through 37 starting with the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant as depicted on the graph on page 29. As you can see, required capacity's presented by purple diamond and the available capacity by the red triangle. Currently the North County Wastewater Reclamation Facility is about 241 -- 24.1 million gallon day. An additional 6.5 MGD expansion schedule for fiscal year 2012, to bring the total capacity of our north water reclamation facility to 30.6 MGD per our current master plans and financial plans. Page 128 January 25,2006 There are no deficits during the ten-year planning horizon for this AUIR report. Now, please refer to the graph for the South County Water Reclamation Facility on page 31. Currently the south water reclamation facility capacity is 16.0 million gallon day. This represents total buildout for this site with the current expansion we just had just in time. This represents total buildout for the site. And as the South Water Reclamation Facility nears its capacity in 2014, a new 4-million-gallon plant will be constructed in south portion of the county sewer district as shown on page 33. There is no deficit, I'm pleased to report today, at the South County Water Reclamation Facility during the remainder of ten-year planning horizon as well as far as this AUIR process goes. There are two other new water reclamation facilities planned during the next ten-year planning period. They include a 4-million-gallon-day northeast water reclamation facility to be on line 2009 and a 2-million-gallon day is central water reclamation facility in 2012 as shown on your package, pages 35 and 37, respectively. Currently we are looking at through our master plan update if we can have a pretreatment and master lift station be in place in lieu of 2-million-gallon day east-central water reclamation facility and we'll find out that through our master planning update process. The wastewater department uses the master plan data to determine the window of eight-year decision and execution cycle. This determines when future expansions are to be in service and meet the demand as we do now for the future. The Planning Commission recommended approval with no changes for our wastewater AUIR concurrence presentation. And now I'm open for any of your questions or comments you may have. If not, next will be Dan Rodriguez, our Public Utilities Solid Waste Director. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. Page 129 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know about anybody else, but this is a real hard read from each of the presenters because the information is -- I mean, there's no standard format on -- on how everything's presented. Everybody's doing their own -- own thing. And it's just -- to me it's very hard to read and follow through. We -- potable water, we had a total county count. In this we have, you know, region by region. Transportation was different. And, anyways, the report that you provided Jim Mudd in November, that you had anticipated the peak flows and current available capacity for the north and south wastewater treatment plant. And it shows that you have a 19.867 available capacity. Do you want to see it. MR. DELONY: Yes. Yes, sir. Again, I'm -- I'm waiting for your question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you going to do with that capacity? MR. DELONY: Sir, it's -- it's there and people are using it every day. That is what's there at the plant and what we have available to handle demand and maintain compliance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me -- let me then restate it, then. You have capacities and then you have the uses. And what's left over is almost 20 million -- MR. DELONY: Are you looking at the checkbook document? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. DELONY: Oh, yes, sir. And -- yes, sir. Okay. And that represents a concurrency model whereby we look at what is on the books for permitting as we look at building construction and the pace of construction vice just looking at flows against capacities. That's to make sure that as we would approve a permit, that we have not already given it to somebody else as we move through this system. So that has a very specific requirement and very descriptive set of reasons why we do that. This particular document you're seeing here today is a Page 130 January 25,2006 supply-and-demand curve looking at performance of facilities in terms of their reliable capacities vice demand driven by populations and levels of service over a longer period of time. That's much more real time in terms of our month-to-month concurrency model. As I've told the board a couple times, we look at concurrency three ways in Collier County Public Utilities. First of all, here in terms of our facilities planning. Then the reports you have in front of you, there is a performance report that looks at how we're doing in terms of our permitting as we get building permits and FDEP permits with regard to drawing down that capacity. And then, finally, every day I get feedback whether I'm compliant with regard to the product that we put on the line or that we take away. So those three components ensure that we're in compliance and that we've met demand or meeting demand. And that's the purpose of this document here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that you're meeting demand and you have available capacity for growth of almost 20 MGD per day. MR. DELONY: If you look at the charts that you have here with you, you can see that we do have some capacity that's available today that over the next year, eight year of -- eight years of execution gets drawn down as those permits are issued. And that's how -- that's the -- that's the -- you get up, you get taken down. That's the way it works with regard to -- as we issue those permits and we issue those -- those demands upon our capacity. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you -- if you have your total capacity of -- of 40 million between the two plants and you -- and that's the north and the south in the urban area and half of that is reserved for permits or use, where are we going to service the people in the urban area? Because I'm seeing that we're just built out in the urban area. MR. DELONY: Sir -- hello. Okay. That's the reason that we Page 131 January 25,2006 have this concurrency model now for solid waste -- for wastewater services in Collier County. That is a great question. Two service area -- first of all, the difference between water and wastewater is that the plants are not 100 percent connected. I can't move the flows as a system or whether I service an area. It's the nature of wastewater services vice water. So I'm not talking about a system. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll ask you another question, then. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. I have a series of systems, in this case five that we must maintain concurrency. These essentially represent the areas to be served by those stared plants within those service areas. That's the reason for this AUIR. You see that we have five specific concurrency models, a prediction of models of demand and supply for each one of these five regional service areas. And that's how it works. You're combining them. You can't combine them. That's not the way the system works. The pipes don't move everything around. It goes to a specific plant serving a very specific footprint of customers. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- what happened between the interconnect between the north and south plants? MR. DELONY: The interconnect is very minimal. It's there for maintenance and plant upsets north or south. It only moves a very minimum amount of flow. I believe that currently we're able to move DR. YILMAZ: One and a half. MR. DELONY: -- one and a half million gallons one way and two millions gallons another way. That's just to help me be able to manage flows, just peak flows between those two plants if I have mechanical problems or plant upsets. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that per day or per hour? MR. DELONY: Yes, per day. MGD, yes, sir. Page 132 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I just don't -- I don't see where you're -- you're going to use up the capacity that you have today in the north and south service areas. MR. DELONY: Sir, I -- I have to, again, refer you to the charts that are a part of this AUIR that shows those service areas in terms of population to be served, levels of service for each one of those folks that are there. And then what is the on-line capacity to service that demand in those service areas. You have charts that give you the predicted and current populations of each one of these service areas. And then these are our future service areas that we're reporting to you on this A UIR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you -- and you track that by approvals ofPUDs that come on line for that service area? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. That's -- that's one way we maintain. As I said, that report that you referred to earlier which is our available capacity chart, the one in November, that's the way we do that real time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the area in the north is going to grow twice this size? Your -- your -- your treatment area in the north is going to grow twice, twice the size it is today. So North Naples is going to grow twice the amount? MR. DELONY: North Naples on page 28 of your -- of your charts provides for this particular area right here. And it provides you our population levels of service and, therefore, capacity requirements for that area per population models that we get from comprehensive planning for that area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's hard for me to comprehend that area is going to grow twice the amount of population. MR. DELONY: Sir, again, I have to rely carefully with the projections I get from comprehensive planning on what is going to be -- how many people are going to be living here over the period of time Page 133 January 25,2006 for this AUIR. And that's where those numbers come from. And then by -- by statute we take those numbers, multiply them by standard -- the level of service and that becomes the demand we have to serve in terms of plant capacities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know what you're saying. I just can't -- MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I just can't see putting that many people in there unless we increase the densities. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, those population projections will be updated on an annual basis as they have been in the past. And right now the current projections are -- you know, indicate that that will be the population of that particular area. If the population was to slow in that projected -- in that particular area, obviously, Mr. Delony's, you know, need for -- for plant capacity would probably be pushed back in the AUIR -- in the AUIR and CIE. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the existing capacity. That's the existing capacity it has today. MR. COHEN: Yeah. The existing capacity which he's showing in 2010 would actually require the necessity of plant expansion, if I'm -- if I'm correct? MR. DELONY: Yeah, you're right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the north side? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. If you'll look at page 28. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We've got a lot ofPUDs that have been approved on Livingston Road. And then there's a large -- another area of -- of -- of Grey -- Grey Oaks that's been approved too. So there's a lot of PUDs that are on line that have been approved since the -- we put Livingston Road in. MR. DELONY: Sir, the -- if I may and I -- and I hope I'm looking at the same thing. We're on page 28. We say that the peak seasonal population in the north county water reclamation service area Page 134 January 25, 2006 is 143 and change today, 2007. COMMISSIONER HENNING: North? Okay. MR. DELONY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to follow you. MR. DELONY: And then on -- at 225 -- 2025. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to find where you're at. MR. DELONY: Yes, I'm sorry. If you'll look at Column 2. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. This is north. MR. DELONY: Column 1 is the fiscal year. Column 2 is the peak population. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. DELONY: Then you said that you thought it doubled. Well, in 2 -- 2025, which is the -- we're going out to 2025 in terms of our planning in public utilities. That's further than the ten years we need to do for AUIR, but we need to look out that far because there's this eight-year multiplier we spoke to earlier. We're looking at a predicted population of about 200,000 people in that service area. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But that's not double. MR. DELONY: No, sir. It's not. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you'll have extra capacity. MR. DELONY: No, sir. If you will look over here at the capacity chart, required capacity for those population models. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What page? MR. DELONY: Begin at page 28, sir. If you'll look at Column 3. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. DELONY: That's where you take the population to be served and you multiply it times the level of service which is the demand in this case for this particular service area. Because of the nature of that service area in terms of being commercial, we have a higher level of service. That's 145 gallons per day per person -- per capita. In that particular service area, it's a different level, by the way, Page 135 January 25,2006 than, for example, in Commissioner Fiala's district. It's a little smaller there. That gives you your demand. That would be what you're required to provide in terms of capacity. That would be Column 3. Column 4 is what we currently have on line today in terms of capacity. And then out there, the next columns talk to the availability and when we would tie them on line, those capacities both in terms of constructive and reliable. So I -- I don't know if I've answered your question, but I hope I've outlined how the -- how the math works on the chart. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I'm seeing in Column 4, that must be available capacity? MR. DELONY: No. That's total plant capacity. That's what's out there. That's what's built in the ground in terms of service capacity. And if you go down to Column 7, that deals with the -- what is the delta between the constructive capacity and that which is demanded. That's the math up to this Column 7. So in that case, if we're looking at 2007, you would see right now available capacity at the north plant, 3.81 million gallons per day. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. DELONY: Now, it takes me eight years to change that number typically. If it's a plant expansion of existing plants, sometimes we can get inside that eight-year window; permitting, design, construction, commissioning, permitting again and then get it on line. So what we do is we look at these deficiencies out here in seven and make sure that our plans which are outlined on Column 5 meet demand. And balance the books of making sure that we have sufficient capacity constructed in those plants to meet demand in time and not get where we were before. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, Column 5, that 5.3, that's already added? We built that and it's on line? MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. It should be on line here. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's starting to add up now. Page 136 January 25,2006 MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I'm saying. Everything is so confusing because everybody used a different methodology about -- MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- capacity and the needs, the future needs. MR. DELONY: And I apologize if I didn't introduce this correctly that in public utilities concurrency modeling it's levels of service normally in terms of gallons per day per person. And then whatever population we have in the area of under consideration. For water we consider the area of consideration to be the entire water/sewer of this district because that's a totally interconnected system. For wastewater not built that way, not operated that way, can't. So we have looked at a more -- I think an excellent, appropriate way. I don't know if anybody else is doing it this way, by the way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I follow it now. MR. DELONY: I'm looking at service areas so we stay on track. And we -- we are in time with those services as populations appear as directed by Randy and his staff. I'm giving you a lot of credit there, Randy. MR. COHEN: I don't know if! want it. MR. DELONY: Sir, I hope I've answered your questions. I do apologize if I've been confusing today in how we present this. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A couple. Figures can say anything you want them to say, so I don't ever usually believe any of that business. You can come up with population figures, you know, depending on how you want to figure that. So how did you get to, you know, what -- what calculations did Randy use to get to whatever figures we're using? Page 137 January 25,2006 MR. DELONY: Randy, I'm going to let you answer that, but let me just be clear. The methodology for populations -- and this is one of the questions that were really asked hard of staff during the -- the planning board and I think it's the -- you know, you got to know where you begin. And the beginning is -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've seen -- MR. DELONY: -- which model are you going to choose. So, Randy, if you'll talk to her about where and how you became -- you gave me these numbers for population. MR. COHEN: And this differs a little bit from -- from the last six AUIRs from the standpoint that in the past we had just north plant and the south plant. So when we were requested to provide numbers for five different areas, so what we had to do is actually break down the different -- the different north and south areas into the five different areas which we did. David Weeks did the methodology for these -- for these particular population projections similar to what we've done in the past with respect to -- to all different areas. And as -- as Jim indicated earlier in his -- in his presentation using the high BEBR numbers, obviously, trying to meet peak demand which -- which we've done, Mr. Weeks started with the high BEBR numbers and -- and interpolated those numbers out based on -- on a myriad of factors including CO data. Breaking things down into traffic area zones which we do on -- on an annual basis. And in taking a look at past trends as well too. And interpolating that data on out. We realize that no population methodology is exact. We know that over -- over a period of time, you know, there could be growth that may be at a higher level. It could be at a lower level, but we use the best trends that we have available. That's why we come before you with different population projections as well as, you know, an AUIR that will reflect some different numbers. So when you get this AUIR back in this -- this forthcoming year, because we'll get different population numbers from the Bureau of Page 13 8 January 25,2006 Economic Business Research -- Research, you'll see a different set of numbers there. And we'll take a look also at building permit data as well as certificates of occupancy which will reflect the trends that are occurring in each of those areas. And it may -- it may affect, you know, a water plant, you know, being built maybe a year sooner or a year later or a sewer plant being built a year sooner or a year later, but COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to know how you got there, you know, because they seem to differ all the time and -- and depending on which department you talk to too. MR. COHEN: And the population data is going to differ based on not only the numbers that we get from the Bureau of Economic Business Research, but also the trends and what's actually transpiring in this county in terms of growth. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, figures usually say what you want them to say, you know. MR. DELONY: Well, Ms. -- Ms. Fiala, I know I'm -- you know, I know I'm different. I need to be. Because the only part of the county that I affect is on that map right there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want you -- MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to make sure we have enough water and sewer. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't get me wrong and I'm not challenging that. MR. DELONY: No, ma'am. I know you wouldn't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to know what the Pelican Bay Plant, it says -- I just was confused by this. It says, Pelican Bay Plant removed from service, but then it says -- but it's under the line that says, new plant capacity. So I wasn't -- if it's removed from service, how did it become a new plant capacity? I just don't Page 139 January 25,2006 understand. DR. YILMAZ: For the record George Yilmaz. Ma'am, there we have 6.5 million gallon day plant capacity added and we have decommissioned Pelican Bay Wastewater Plant at 1.2 million gallon capacity; therefore, net capacity becomes available for that service area customers is 5.3. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So you -- you took that 1.2 -- I'm -- I'm sorry, but I don't understand. CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's happened maybe -- maybe I hope I can give you guidance here. The Pelican Bay Plant was not in compliance. So that was taken -- decommissioned and then they added 6 112 million gallon capacity to the north plant to -- to take up the flows of the plant that was decommissioned along with the additional growth -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: So when they closed that plant and took the service that they offered there and put it into the north plant? MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And what they basically did with the 6.5, you had 1.2 that was already in back before 2000, it was already in the numbers. In order to -- in order to get the ledger straight, you have to take the 6.5 that you added and take the 1.2 that you took off line off of capacity. So, therefore, you only have 5.3 capacity being added in 2005 on page 28. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just because it was under new plant capacity. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much for clearing that up. DR. YILMAZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any other questions for staff? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the Page 140 January 25, 2006 wastewater CIE. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the AUIR report for wastewater for 2005. I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We have one commissioner that's presently off the dias and that was Commissioner Coyle. Why don't we take a 12-minute break here to give our court reporter some -- some time here and then we can decide where we're going to go, if we're going to continue this or can we finish this up today. I think we need to make that decision or are we going to continue this tomorrow. And I think a lot of us have appointments. So that's something we need to think about during the break time so we can discuss that after the break. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm in Orlando tomorrow for MCOAC. I leave here at 7 a.m. with -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Why don't we let everybody think it over and we'll get -- when we come back, that's the first thing we'll address, whether we're going to try to wrap this up today or whether it's going to be continued tomorrow. Okay? Twelve-minute break. (Short recess was taken.) MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The 2005 AUIR -- AUIR board is back Page 141 January 25, 2006 in session again. And before we broke we wanted to find out if we should continue on and what time we should possibly recess and pick this up. I guess we'll have to see what our options are here. Okay. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I still have a lot of questions and, you know, I mean, like I said, this is a very important meeting. And I think that we ought to have all our questions answered. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, I mean, I'm here for the duration. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- I'm sorry it didn't end just a few moments sooner but, I mean, if it's not going to be longer than three or four hours, I wouldn't mind just staying here and trying to finish it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know if I'll live long enough for you to finish it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the idea. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd rather do it on another day but, nevertheless, the majority rules here so... CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just stay -- I can stay till, like, SIX. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Why don't we -- do we need a full board to address all these issues? Do we have anything that needs a 4/0 vote? MR. MUDD: No, sir. There's nothing that needs super majority. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, in that case I'm out of here. See ya. CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. No. Okay. What we're going to do, Page 142 January 25, 2006 then, the court reporter -- the court reporter has requested -- MR. MUDD: Replacement. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- re-enforcements. And that's going to take place. And so whenever her replacement comes, what we'll do is take about a ten-minute break so that they can go through the transition. So we'll continue on here. And I guess we got a nod that we're going to go through the duration, try to get this thing addressed because I believe we have some real serious conflicts in the rest of our schedules in trying to get this taken care of. So at that, it's yours. MR. MUDD: The next idea item is county solid waste and Mr. Dan Rodriguez, your Director of Solid Waste will present. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your Solid Waste Management Department Director. The Collier County Public Utilities Division remains committed to an integrated solid waste management program that provides environmentally sound and cost-effective solid waste management services for all of Collier County. Over the past five years the county has developed and implemented the integrated solid waste management strategy that provides the framework for initiatives to preserve landfill airspace. The goal of this strategy as directed by the board is to map out an effective and efficient long-range strategy that provides solid waste disposal capacity and services for a period of 20 to 30 years and beyond. As we execute the strategy, we never lose sight of the need to stay in compliance, to meet demand with a high degree of reliability, to provide the best value to our customers and to plan for the future. Success of the strategy provides the context for the AUIR outlook that I will share with you today. Consistent with the county's growth management plan there are two concurrency management levels-of-service standards. The first is the two-year landfill cell capacity for operational compliance and Page 143 January 25,2006 concurrency. The second is the ten-year unlined landfill cell capacity for long-term readiness and concurrency. The two-years line cell capacity service level standard indicates that the county will not drop below zero-ton capacity in any given year. As you can see on the two-year line cell capacity chart, which is provided on page 40 of your binder, we are in compliance with the AUIR reporting requirements. It should also be noted that Collier County has contingency disposal capacity up to 900,000 tons in the Okeechobee Landfill as guaranteed in our landfill operations agreement with Waste Management for Collier County's use. The ten-year unlined landfill cell capacity for long-term readiness and concurrency provides the needed infrastructure for more lined cell construction. This level-of-service standard has dramatically improved using the last three year's average with the implementation of our integrated solid waste management strategy. Specifically through the county's efforts our estimated landfill capacity has been extended from fiscal year 2024 to 2028. Revised ten-year permissible disposable capacity chart, Chart No. 2 which is provided on page 42 of your package projects the deficiency for the next ten-year capacity requirement in 2011. This is the last year, though an earlier decision is recommended, for actions to be taken to ensure continued solid waste disposal capacity availability and compliance with the AUIR reporting requirements. In summary, the public utility solid waste management department is in compliance with both short-term and long-term requirements of the county's growth management plan. CHAIRMAN HALAS: A question in regards to this chart. This is using today's technology; is that correct? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. It does not include any initiative, the recycling initiative with the 64 gallon recycling -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Or any technologies that are presently-- presently out there to even -- Page 144 January 25, 2006 MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: -- extend the landfill even farther; right? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But on page 39 you're showing per ton rate of disposal is going down. Would it be fair to say that chart is using -- you know -- you know, recycling and -- and things of that nature? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's exactly what that depicts, the solid waste strategy. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the other question I have is, this is lined capacity and we have permitted capacity which is much greater than this. Is that a correct statement? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, you have lined-cell capacity which is available, ready to go. With the ten-year we still have to get permits though the -- the zoning and infrastructure is in place to get those permits. COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the -- at the existing sites? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now -- well, the whole landfill is permitted to go a certain height? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct, 108 feet. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One hundred eight. Not all cells are 108 feet. Even the ones we're using. Is that factored in here as between whatever that height is and 108 feet? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So this is a -- maximizing the present landfill? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely, the footprint at the landfill that we currently have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is there any possibility of taking the C and D operation out of there and they're recycling -- Page 145 January 25, 2006 both recycling? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, yes. Because it's on the footprint of a future cell that's planned for construction. And that's where your solid waste park that is part of your solid waste management strategy comes into play to build the infrastructure facility to continue to handle the C and D and horticulture waste process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do we do in 2028? I know Commissioner Coletta will still be here. I probably won't. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's actually a policy decision. If you like -- MR. DELONY: For the record, Jim Delony. Well, sir, as I said last year at AUIR and I'll say again this year, what we got is what we got. We have more board policy directed to me and to my department, my division in 2000 said there'd be no more new landfills in Collier County. And that we would embark upon a strategy of maximizing the existing airspace through programs of diversion and recycling to ensure what goes in the buried hill is that which absolutely cannot go somewhere else. We've been very successful in that -- in that endeavor. But at some stage of the game, you still backup against the fact it's only going to take so much fill before you fill up the available airspace. And that's what chart that you have on page -- this one that's on the teleprompter shows you that somewhere along -- along about 17 -- FY'17, '18 given the current projections of utilization of airspace is when we're going to have -- we're going to be down to -- the clock's ticking on the ten-year -- the ten-year clock starts ticking. So that's -- that's the answer to that, sir. I -- I -- and I don't know if I've answered it as much as I've probably lead into the next question from you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. MR. DELONY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And this is based on today's technology? Page 146 January 25,2006 We're not looking at something that could be cost-effective as far as utilizing other methods of getting rid of the waste? MR. DELONY: Sir, can I -- can I show you on page 39 of your book something. Let me -- can I -- can I -- I appreciate the opportunity to do this if you'll allow me. If you'll look at Column 3. That's the puck in the net. Column 3 says, per capita how much is the demand for disposal on our landfill? Now, that doesn't represent the total amount that we're going to -- people are going to put on the curb, but rather of per capita how much do we estimate is going to end up buried in the hill. Let's look where we were and look where we're projecting to be. Back in '94 -- and these numbers, by the way, up through the current year are actual numbers. They're not forecasted numbers. And you can see how through the last several years, particularly the last three, how we've been able to drive that actual number down. That's -- that's a good news story. That -- that means that the public's responding to your desires and ours that we -- we conserve that airspace. And, therefore, you see, given what we know today, we're at a generation rate or disposal rate rather of 0.82 tons per capita now. I think that what we will continue to at your direction -- I think this is the direction I have is to continue to drive that number down as best we can. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Yeah. MR. DELONY: The -- the yellow tops that you -- we've talked to, I've got a report coming to you. That's been a success. There's no question about it. We're only 90 days into it and we're seeing phenomenal numbers in terms of participation. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. The first month -- let me just give you a for instance. November was our first real month. Seventy-seven percent greater recycling numbers in terms of actual Page 147 January 25,2006 tons picked up than the November a year ago. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventy-seven percent? MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. I'm going to see each of you individually over the next week or two and show you and talk you through this, but the bottom line is they're right now a success. The public likes them. We've got people that want more of them. They're highly cost-effective in terms of conserving airspace. And so the way we derive the Column 3 generation rate is we look back, in this case, three years what the history's been and we take that number and we assume that's the number going forward. In some respects that may be worst-case planning. And I think in this area, worst-case planning is not a bad idea for concurrency. Because I think we're going to improve on those numbers as the conservation culture kicks in in Collier County. I really do. But this is what -- this is what this model tells us in terms of our concurrency. And that's really -- that's -- that's the number. The population number is -- obviously, it's the population number. It's a county number. This is a number now, Ms. Fiala, that talks to the whole county. We're franchised for the entire county in that regard. So that's where -- that's where the puck is. And that's where the focus of this board has challenged me to be looking at. And that's what we're continuing to do. Now, let me get back to your question about technology. You know, three years ago, two years ago Mr. Mudd and several others and Commissioner Coletta went off to Australia and took a look at what was then considered workable permitable technology. It turns out it isn't workable nor permitable. We haven't stopped looking. We haven't stopped looking at your direction. So that's where we're at in terms of answering your question. A little longer than you probably wanted, sir, but I wanted to -- a chance to tell you in terms of these -- these -- these concurrency models where the real concerns should be as we begin to look at how we utilize that airspace. We -- if we can't control the population, we can at least control what goes into the hill. Page 148 January 25,2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, what is the latest date at which the board can make a determination, a strategic determination concerning alternatives to this landfill? MR. DELONY: Sir, we come from a common cultural bias with regard to making strategic decisions so I'm going to tell you you never want to put one off and you know that and I know that. But looking at the charts and the concurrency model in front of you, it shows clearly -- and that's the reason you see a big orange dot. I actually know that's orange because I asked somebody what color it was. You know I'm colorblind. That says, hey, in 2017 you got ten years left. And you and I both know, sir, that ten years is not a long time to find, buy or condemn or whatever it takes the property or the processes, permit and put in place the operational methodology for question a solid waste stream -- solid waste system. So that's -- that's the short answer to a strategic decision in terms of our concurrency management process that we have in front of you here today. I think it's an excellent -- by the way, I think this is a really good model for you because it provides a big footprint picture that what's -- what's the airspace status out there, Delony. And then the second question is, how much of that airspace do you have currently lined which is really usable? If it's not lined and permitted, I can have all the airspace in the world, but that's -- that tells you. So it's big footprint, little footprint concurrency. It's probably as good a concurrency model in terms of actuals that we've got. It's certainly better than the water in terms of some of the guessing I got to do about wells and all the other things. This is a pretty deterministic model. So I think I answered your question. I don't think you put off a strategic decision too long, sir, given the challenges associated with this type of decision. Page 149 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, maybe there should be another orange dot here and that is the point at which we give you additional direction as to where we want to go, whether it's buying property in Collier County or taking a look at an incinerator or working out an agreement with a neighboring county concerning the disposal of our waste. And I certainly agree that the earlier we make that decision, the better off we're all going to be. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. The board direction was very clear to -- to us back in 2000. And you-all have been very clear since then in terms of what you expected me to do: Is manage efficiently and effectively at best value our existing inventory of airspace to maximize the potential for service to our customers. End of story. And we've been able to, then, therefore, to move through a series of ordinances that deal with mandatory recycling, issues associated -- implemented a voluntary residential recycling program, one of the best in the country, by the way. And other initiatives that have taken diversion -- diverted stuff, like, C and D and yard waste away from our Class A landfill. And we put that into our rates and we've moved to that -- to that march. However, at some stage of the game, Class A materials are going to be generated such that there's not going to be room in the existing footprint. The guidance from board has been clear, no new landfills in the Collier County up till now. And that's the guidance I'm responding to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I am -- I'm absolutely positive we can find some -- some property for a landfill in Commissioner Coletta's District and -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course you could find it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you'll -- why don't you -- why don't you schedule FY'08, next year or '07 a workshop and let's see if we can't kick that around. Would that be okay? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, good idea. Page 150 January 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's something we've got to address. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You better believe it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can't solve it today but, you know -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's excellent. MR. DELONY: I'm looking for my boss here so -- because he's usually pretty good at this. So -- but let me -- let me -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: He'll buy it. Believe me. MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. Let me -- let me see if I can restate what you've asked me to do so I'm very clear because as you know there is a history here. This is not the first time this board in years past has -- has -- has given staff some marching orders with regard to alternative disposal methodologies. And there's -- and there's been a lot of time and a lot of effort put into that today. This is not a new-news story. In fact, I've got folks that I've spoken to and I know many of your constituents have spoken to you that talk back into the '80s when -- when this really -- when there was a lot of hard work put into doing exactly what you say, sir. But what I understand that you've asked me to do -- and, Mr. Chairman, if he were here he'd say, give me three nods -- is that you want me to take a look at a workshop in the upcoming fiscal year, not this current fiscal -- next fiscal year, and look at landfill -- at the next landfill or something along those lines. Did I understand you, sir? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to add a new dimension, but I don't want to jump in front of Donna because -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, go ahead. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I don't want to get yelled at by the commissioner at the end of the aisle here, but we gave you directions back in 2000, no more landfills in Collier County. However, with that said too, there's been a lot that's changed since 2000. It's just been -- it's been remarkable how it's been turned Page 151 January 25, 2006 around, the problem. Not that the problem ever was totally fixed. Occasionally we do have a flare-up of some motors especially around the 75 access there near -- near the landfill. But for the most part it is no longer the problem in my neighborhood that it was. I mean, it was atrocious. I was being told it was because that's how I got my land cheap because I bought next to the landfill and I'm five miles away. I haven't had an odor problem in my neighborhood now in -- in four years at least. It is a nonissue in my area. I -- I don't think you're getting a complaint. Maybe a half dozen every now and then or so? MR. DELONY: Our complaints -- complaints are minimum, but they're just -- do we handle them as very serious -- very seriously. We don't -- one is too many and that's our standard and we've reacted to that very -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. The numerous complaints you've had, what is it to now? What does it run? MR. DELONY: It's -- it's -- it's very minimal to what it was before. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I say-- MR. DELONY: We've had -- I think the best I can document four specific ones in the last six months that we -- that we've had reports to that we responded to. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, I'm not asking us to switch parties or something. I'm not saying it's just -- when we're going to have that workshop, I think we ought to revisit the idea of the present location of the landfill utilizing it to its fullest as time goes on. CHAIRMAN HALAS: For the future. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be able to look at it one more time. I mean, at the time we were emphatically against ever expanding the landfill we had very good reason. I personally did not have any faith in anyone to be able to restore it -- remove the odor to be able to bring it under control. But this present administration has done so. They've done a wonderful job. I give you a lot of credit. I Page 152 January 25,2006 give Mudd credit too for preceding you and starting the whole thing going and you maintained it. And I would like to be able to at least go back and visit the possibility of maximizing that space. In other words, maybe going in and farming out one of the areas where it was a previous mound that we had where they recovered the metals. They recovered what's there. And prepare that for -- for another pit to be able to carry us for an additional 20, 30 years. You know, this new technology we're talking about, we looked into it. We were talking at that time 40-some-million dollars. And this was for something that wouldn't have worked. We found that out after a while. And now it has come a long way and it is moving forward. But I can assure you, no matter where they are in the process, the cost of doing garbage and -- and disposable garbage, if we ever go to anything as far as incineration or whatever process we want to deal with or even hauling it outside of the county, you -- you can expect to see that rate go right through the ceiling. I mean, we have one of the lowest rates in all of Florida and there's a good reason for it. Now, I -- I'd just like to visit it, take a look at it. Not that we would endorse it as another alternative. MR. DELONY: Sir, I think I've -- Mr. Chairman, if there's three nods to that, I'm kind of -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: You've got your direction. MR. DELONY: We got your direction, we can -- we'll do that. And I'll speak to Mr. Mudd. He'll put it on the -- on the calendar. Obviously, you know, there's some challenges. And I don't have to tell you anything more than what the good commissioner just told us in terms of where we've been and where we might go. Just a matter of background, you know, the whole history in Florida with regard to new landfills is -- is -- is pretty thin. It's pretty -- there hasn't been very many. I think that's the bottom line. I'm -- I'm looking here. We've had one that I can know for sure that came on Page 153 January 25, 2006 line in 2003. And then I have a record that the earlier previous one was in 1991. So this is a long, challenging process of decisions and permitting to get to a landfill decision. I'm pretty sure and I wasn't here in 2000, I know you were, that was one of the reasons that you-all wanted to look at alternative technologies to see if landfill reclamation could be permitable economical best value as an alternative to haul and bury. And -- and -- you know it better than me. You went to Australia. You saw it. And so, has it moved, no, sir. I'd be the first to come in and say I think I found the key to the kingdom. You know, I'd -- I'd love to find an alternative to haul and bury. And I don't really know if there's anything so far that's either going to be permitable or acceptable at this stage of the game, but with your direction, we can start looking in that direction and come back in a year and have that workshop. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I know there's some counties out there that are looking seriously at plasma technology, but that might not be cost-effective yet. And with that I'll turn it over to Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Y es. You mentioned tons per capita disposal rate and you gave us other tons that you -- you were mentioning here. What are the average community's -- average tons per capita disposal rate -- MR. DELONY: Outside Collier County? COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- high or low or -- MR. DELONY: God, do you know that, George? George, come up here if you would. We're going to let Dr. Yilmaz wear his other hat for just a minute here. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. DR. YILMAZ: Commissioners, for the record, George Yilmaz. In your AUIR package, as Mr. Delony indicated, that's a composite countywide per capita presentation. But also if you're looking at single home special assessment customer base, that's about Page 154 January 25, 2006 one to -- 1.3 -- 1 to 1.3 ton per year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Per year? MR. DELONY: Yes. Yes, sir. Again, you know, what that represents is not necessarily the total amount put on the curb, but rather what goes in the hill. So it's going to be over a ton per person per year typically. But I -- I don't have in front of me any generation rates from other counties. I could see if I can get that to give you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was curious to see how we weigh up with -- with other counties to see if -- if we're high or low. MR. DELONY: Okay. We'll get you something on that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And -- and this -- your projection in 2028, you say that you projected our population will be 778,000. But I just read in the paper recently, not that that's always correct, but that we had 1.3 million. And I was just wondering how did -- how did -- you know, that's quite a difference; right? MR. DELONY: Yes, ma'am. I -- ma'am, I tell you that's the tough part about my business. I think Norm said it recently. He says, What you're asking me to do is what's the price of a meal four years from now and what do you want on that menu when we take a look at some of these models. But, Randy, can you speak to that? MR. COHEN: Well, I didn't see the article in the paper, but you build a study for the entire county that was prepared this past year was a little less than 1.1 million people total. CHAIRMAN HALAS: One million sixty-six thousand, I believe. MR. COHEN: Correct, sir. MR. DELONY: The tough part, Ms. Fiala, if I may, when? When's buildout? I think that's what Randy's staff worked with every day is that we may be able to give you the big number in gross, but the slope which is critical to the kinds of questions that I've received today about timing decisions associated with levels of service, that's -- that's Page 155 January 25, 2006 the challenge. How fast do they come and -- and -- and where do they come in some cases when we spoke to the wastewater factors. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? Any other concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: We need to bring forth any items that the Planning Commission might have addressed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't want to address that? MR. DELONY: I thought we did. I believe that if you'll look in your packet, it said -- the discussion we just had referenced where to from here given that we have a finite life span to landfill. I think that was exactly what was in the packet. Randy, is that correct? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. DELONY: So that was it. The other thing, there was some discussion about the generation rate and I think we've cleared that up in our discussion as well is how we derive that generation rate. So your questions led me to answering those. If there's anything further, though, I'd be more than happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifnot, I'll entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve with the modifications or guidance we've already provided. MR. DELONY: I understand, sir. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There's been a motion and a second in regards to approving this with having a future workshop to be discussed in regards to landfill. Page 156 January 25, 2006 I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Any opposed by like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HALAS: I believe the motion carrIes unanimously. Thank you. MR. DELONY: That ends it for the -- for the -- for public utilities. Thank you very much for your time and questions today. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Thank you very much for your time. MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, the next element is your county recreational facilities and parks. And Ms. Ramsey will present. MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I wanted to start off by just telling you some of the changes that we've made to the plan this year. I'll start off on page 44 under the recreational facilities. In 2004 we used a $240 per capita as our inventory number. What we have done this year is that we have looked at the cost of -- building cost and we used the Engineering News Record as our guideline. Our last update in our capita was in 2001. In order to keep -- to make sure that a level of service stays the same as it was when we first introduced it, we're applying inflation to that 240 to reach 270. According to the Engineering News Record, in 2002 there was a 1 percent increase in the building cost index. In 2003, 1.4. In 2004, 7.8 percent. In 2005 through September, it was 2.8 percent which gives a 13 percent increase or $30 increase over the period of time. The recommendation would be in the future to do it on an annual basis rather than every three, four or five years just to make sure that we stay at the same level of service given inflation. Page 157 January 25, 2006 The other thing that we've done in the recreation facilities is we've gone to a weighted population calculation instead of permanent. Parks both in the recreational facilities and also in the -- in the land elements have always used a permanent population. One of the things that the weighted population has done, as you will see in five-year surplus or deficit, is that we have a $2,824 deficit over the five-year period. The reason that you don't see that in concurrence over the five-year period is that our five-year capital plan is done during our budget process. And the weighted -- and it was done on a permanent population this last fiscal budget. So what we would tend to do is if we go to the weighted calculations that we're using in here is that we would update our five-year plan to represent the weighted population and bring our facilities into compliance over the five-year period. I don't know if you want to do these in -- in recreational elements. If you'd like me to stop here or to go into the next community parks and tell you the changes at that location now or if you want to do them independent? CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think we ought to just do it independently. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: But we'll start off with -- I believe Commissioner Henning has a question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On your revenues I thought you were getting $2 million a year from TDC funds? MS. RAMSEY: We do get $2 million, but a lot of that is being utilized for refurbishments at the beaches themselves which do not qualify as a growth-related element. We also find that our TDC funds are being utilized to payoff the loan for the parking garage which is reflected in -- in this area. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Like grants basically, isn't it? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. We do have $2 million, but the other Page 158 January 25, 2006 thing is we also have some opportunity. When opportunities come up, as you know in the last year or so, we have looked at our beach access and boat access. And you have given some directive that we can go out and look for lands. And we haven't been able to identify too many lands so far that we can use the TDC dollars for, but we do have a little bit of funding available when that does happen. It -- it would not show up on this particular one because this is growth-related facilities. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next question, you're relying on impact fees. If the Board of Commissioners increase the impact fees, is that -- is that reliable? MS. RAMSEY: Are impact fees reliable? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the increase. MS. RAMSEY: I haven't used the increase in these numbers. This is the current impact-fee number projected over the next fiscal -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the revenues, this says, impact fees for existing debt on funds alone and then it has three asterisks. If! go down here it says, impact-fee plan to be increased. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. We'll be coming to you in February to look at an impact free -- fee increase to this. This is not included in this -- in this document, though, that increase. This is our current funding stream. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe we should have -- that's all right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you -- could you -- I know it says someplace in here, but refurbishments. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Refurbishments means, like, what? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Rebuild. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and -- and that $3 million, is that every single year, $3 million. MS. RAMSEY: That's over a five-year period. We've -- we're Page 159 January 25, 2006 just starting to look at our refurbishments. What we're doing right now is we've -- we've kind of allocated a half million dollars of ad valorem every year or so to replace some of our older facilities. For example, playgrounds or picnic shelters or things like that that are already in our park systems that need to have some replacement. If you look on page 53, the bottom of that chart, you'll see that there's general improvements. There's playground replacements. There's Golden Gate Community Park has some dollars in there and the Immokalee Airport Park itself. In that particular case the band shell up there, we're going to need to take that down and put up a replacement for it. And so those numbers are reflected. Old facilities that need to be redone. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I saw that. Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. MS. RAMSEY: And if -- just one more. Underneath the general improvements, Commissioner Fiala, just so you'll remember this. It will probably help you is we do have 1 112 -- $150,000 currently this year to upgrade some of the facilities in the East Naples Community Park. Because as our parks get older, they start to look used and abused. So that's what the general improvement funds are for. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So refurbishments is -- is actually like replacement costs and -- and updating and so forth. Okay. Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Marla, give -- give me a brief background on how do you arrive at the per capita inventory or cost for that level of service. MS. RAMSEY: You mean as far as each facility is concerned? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let's just talk about recreational facilities. MS. RAMSEY: Right. On -- on the very back page, page 55. Page 160 January 25,2006 There's a chart that's located there. And we have a list of our existing facilities, whether they be soccer fields or a shuffle board court or a picnic pavilion. And on page 56 which is the -- is the bottom of this two-page spreadsheet you will notice that we have a value per facility listed there. We update those on an annual basis to -- to what we feel is the new cost that -- that we are experiencing to replace that or to put a new facility on in our existing park facilities. For example, if we looked at underneath baseball fields, we'd have $656,000 in order to put in a baseball field. A basketball court is somewhere around forty-two, forty-three thousand dollars per. And then what we do is we take our existing inventory, multiply it times those figures and we come up with our value. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, actually I'm -- I'm more concerned about the level-of-service determination. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do you decide that $270 per capita is an -- is an appropriate level? MS. RAMSEY: It's -- it's kind of -- it's more of an artist element than it is a scientific element. And a couple of things that we do. First of all, we look at the facilities that we have currently and the participation use that we have on that facility. We also have guidelines. Is this the same spreadsheet that we had last time? CHAIRMAN HALAS: No. That-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. This is the landfill. Oh. Oh. Okay. MR. COHEN: Should be. MS. RAMSEY: There you go. And here you can see it here. I've actually got it on the -- on the screen here. Can you see it? CHAIRMAN HALAS: Not anymore. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not anymore. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We did see for a second. MS. RAMSEY: Sorry. Yeah. The computer, I think it's a better Page 161 January 25,2006 version of it. Thank you. Off to the side you'll notice we have the same types of facilities listed as we have on that spreadsheet on page 55. And we have a figure per thousand in the first column. And then what we've done is we looked at our population. And we have a population of about 364,000 right now. Anticipated in the five-year period it would be about 450,000 people. We then list our current inventory, what we think we're going to build in the next five years as according to the CEI (sic) that we have here currently. And then whether we have a surplus or deficit in the yellow column. We -- if we take this -- this first column which makes, like, no sense to most people because it's too hard to figure. If you take the column that talks about Collier guidelines and we go down to, for example, baseball, Little League fields. We have a ratio of about 1140,000 people. So we have one of those fields for 40,000 people in Collier County. The Florida Outdoor Recreation Guideline Book that came on in 2000 has a ratio of 1 to 30,000 as the number of fields that you should have for your recreational elements. So we use this as guideline. It's not necessarily a standard that you have to have the same guideline as the -- as the state has because each community's a little bit different. We have different trends or you'll have a different population base. For example, soccer is an extremely popular recreational element in our community especially as our Hispanic population continues to grow. So you might see that -- that we might add a few more of those based upon the usage that we're getting the number of participants that are coming out. We have over 830 different teams using our outdoor fields, whether they're softball, Little League or soccer or Lacrosse or cricket or, you know, some of -- some of the other elements that come into play. And we look at the usage of that and we -- and the amount of maintenance that is required in order to try and keep that grass green. And that gives us a little bit of a guideline. Page 162 January 25, 2006 We also then take into consideration our acreages that we have further on in this study to determine whether we have enough buildable lands in order to accommodate the facilities that we have listed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Marla -- Marla, what I'm -- I'm getting at and maybe I should be a bit more specific, how do you go about accounting for differences in the communities? We have a lot of communities that have their own recreational centers for their population. They have their own swimming pools, perhaps tennis courts and maybe even golf courses. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Well-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we try to take those kinds of things into -- into consideration when we're talking about Collier County? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. You'll notice that -- let's just look at aquatics or pools, for instance, there. You'll see that the Florida Recreation Guideline suggests that we should have one pool for every 50,000 people, but our ratio is 1 to 110,000. Because we have a number of planned unit developments that have their own facilities. So, again, that's why we use it as a guideline to determine the usage of our existing pools, to determine whether we need to add another one or a different kind of pool like a splash pool, you know, splash playground area instead of an actual pool itself. So there are variances. Even tennis is another one that we probably don't have as many tennis courts as you can. You know, we've got a deficit there of at least 13 tennis courts. But we don't necessarily think that we're at a 13 deficit, because some of those same planned unit developments have tennis courts. And so we add those in as we see overusage elements. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand that. That's good. Thank you. Now, the other question has to do with your use of the weighted Page 163 January 25,2006 population calculations. It would be helpful to me if we could see an actual population trend -- usage trend. For example, I don't have a good understanding of how much a tourist really uses our recreational facilities in our parks. I certainly know they go to the beach. MS. RAMSEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I know that they go boating, but I don't know how many of them spend time on basketball courts or soccer fields or anything of that nature. And -- and my concern would be if you're using the adjusted population to adjust for the tourist population, it might result in -- in an inflation of the estimates. So-- so I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit on that. MS. RAMSEY: Well, I'll try to. I will note that our facilities during season which we would consider, you know, like, December through April, May, our actual recreational facilities are heavily used with bridge or different types of -- of groups that aren't there in the summertime. We have a seasonal usage inside our facilities as well as externally on our fields. Beaches of themselves, of course, are heavily utilized by that. But what we've done in our -- in this particular one in the recreational element, we have used weighted population countywide on the facility use because some of our facilities are regional in nature. So, for example, in the aquatics are regional in nature. They draw from more than just the community. And so when we find that people are coming all the way from Bonita, for example, to utilize our pool, we do know that we are far reaching and -- and that our numbers during season both in our fitness facilities and in our aquatic complexes, when the numbers are rising during the season, we do know that there is an impact by that population that's coming in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You -- you don't have any trend figures, however, do you? MS. RAMSEY: We probably can get trend figures. I don't have them with me today but -- you know, I know park users were over Page 164 January 25,2006 1,026,000 last year that came into our parks. We had 1,084,000 that came out onto our beaches. So we have -- I have general numbers. I don't necessarily -- I can't necessarily tell you that it was a tourist or a resident or a, you know, a renter or anything like that. We don't normally track that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you could show us the year-to-year changes and usage? MS. RAMSEY: We can show you year to year. We can actually show you month-to-month usages that are going on in our facilities. And, again, they're seasonal because during the summer we'll have a huge number of facility users because they're children with our summer camp programs. And so they're different users at different times of the year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if you could get me some of those trend figures afterwards later. MS. RAMSEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would appreciate it. Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: No problem. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I think the other thing also is that we have a lot of residents that use baseball fields and so on in the early spring before the heat of the summer. And I think that also has a reflection because that's the same time of the part of the year that we have the highest number of tourists too. So baseball -- or baseball grounds and basketball courts, I'm not sure about shuffle board, not sure, but depending on the type of the season and where it falls in as far as the heat of the day using the facilities, I think that all plays in a factor there too. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. And we -- we can get a little bit of the numbers of the number of people that take out a monthly versus an annual fitness membership or a tennis membership because those people aren't here for the full year so they'll do a month to month rather than an annual. And so we do have -- we do know that our -- Page 165 January 25, 2006 our facilities are definitely more crowded during season than they are during permanent populations during the summer. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do we have soccer teams that come here from other areas and use our soccer courts? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, we do. And some of it's good and some of it's not as good. We do have a number of traveling teams who have their team's home games here. They'll play teams from Miami, et cetera. But we also know that there has been usage from people who will drive all the way over here from Fort Lauderdale or Miami area and utilize our fields especially Eagle Lakes because they can't get a field over on the coast. They will drive an hour and a half because they can get on a field over here. We do have some problems. We've been working on that. We've got our rangers out now enforcing that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of problems, yes. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we -- are we building -- are we planning on building new soccer fields to accommodate these people and do we use impact fees -- our impact fees to pay for their soccer fields? MS. RAMSEY: No, we do not. We do not. There's not -- there's not that much of a usage that would -- you know, that would be an indent there. We find that in East Naples where there's about 55 teams right now in -- in soccer, they're playing off two and a half fields. So they play the entire facility. I mean, all our -- all the way out to Orange Tree to playa soccer game or out to Sabal Palm in the Estates. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But there aren't that many teams in East Naples, 55 -- MS. RAMSEY: Fifty-five teams. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we don't even have that many people to have to -- to man 55 teams; right? Page 166 January 25,2006 MS. RAMSEY: There are 55 Hispanic mens teams in East Naples. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Period? MS. RAMSEY: Period. That doesn't include the Optimists or the over-40 leagues in the north or the Naples Youth Soccer Program or the youth program that we have on the south side. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And these 55 teams, that doesn't include all of the ones that are coming from the other coast; right? MS. RAMSEY: Well, we don't -- we don't count them if they're not part of our inventory and not part of us. And, like I said, we were having problems with them about three years ago coming over and utilizing our fields. But over the last year or so, we've got our -- we've got a few more rangers that are able to -- to prevent that from happening. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I worry for also, of course, are our local teams' safety and so forth. MS. RAMSEY: Mostly usage, yeah. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think the bigger -- the more we build, the more we encourage people to come over which then can create more of a problem, but I'll stop at that. Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: I would just like to mention that the less number of fields we have, the more maintenance it takes in order to maintain those fields. And that is definitely an issue that we continue to grapple with every single season on our fields. Our fields start in August and they don't come off of them until June. Almost constant play on those fields. Optimist itself has 1,500 children and they all play on the Vineyards field every week and practice there for the most part. That's a lot of stress on those fields. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Show me where you calculate population and -- and put in regional parks, community parks and neighborhood parks for their uses to come to total. Page 167 January 25,2006 MS. RAMSEY: I wouldn't have a neighborhood park level of service. We only have a community park level of service and we have a regional park level of service. Our neighborhood park policy is by exception only. So when we put in a neighborhood park, it's because you as the Board of County Commissioners has asked us to look into older neighborhoods and put in a park. And during that period of time we use a -- we use an ad valorem dollar in order to provide that facility, not an impact fee because it is not one of our level of services. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But those neighborhood parks are in use for recreation; right? MS. RAMSEY: Every -- every great system of parks is going to have a number of levels of services. According to the Florida Guidelines there should be a neighborhood park within a quarter of a mile of every single home in Collier County, which there isn't. But when those PUDs come on -- those planned use development come on, we are recommending that they provide those services for their -- for their residents within their facilities. That's your first line of recreation. Your second line of recreation is your community park facilities where you'll have more of your active fields, the facility itself, so you can do dances and -- you know, dance lessens and karate, et cetera. Your third level of recreational system is -- is the regional element, which is your pools, your aquatic facilities, your beaches, your boat ramps. And all of them together make a great system. But Collier County a long time ago stopped providing a level of service for -- for neighborhood parks. Even if they had it, I don't even remember there being a service level for that at any given time here in Collier County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not talking about level -- so much level of service, but you have to count that acreage or the uses within that park as fulfilling needs. MS. RAMSEY: You will find all of the playgrounds that we Page 168 January 25,2006 have within our managed facilities, because that's what we're talking about here, managed facilities, all those playgrounds we have in our neighborhood parks that we maintain are included in here. Whether they have a pool or a tennis court or a whatnot in a PUD or planned unit development is not included in here because we have different levels of services. Again, we determine that through this guideline looking at the amount of use that each one of those facilities are getting and the demand that we get from the public itself. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, going to the community parks myself -- I mean, I don't see a mass amount of people in there. And it's probably because maybe they're at their community park or maybe those little neighborhood parks that we provided. So what's the need? MS. RAMSEY: I guess it really depends on when you go to the park, Commissioner, because if you go to the park on -- I'll pick Vineyards -- Veterans Park, for instance. We don't have enough parking spaces there. We have hockey going on. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could believe that at Veteran's Park, but Vineyards Park, I go there, unless there's a specific activity that's generated by the park, there is no activities. I mean, you just got a few kids on the playground and some playing basketball. MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, from August until probably the Christmastime, that place is humming with Optimist kids all over that facility. And then off season we have softball -- co-ed softball on the two fields out there on a regular basis. Each one of our community parks has a little different theme to it. In this particular case Vineyards is a big soccer facility and softball as well as playground and community building. So each and every one is going to have a little bit different. If you went down to Eagle Lakes on a Sunday, it's hopping with -- with soccer all over the place. And it's a big family event down there. And I will agree that most of our parks are starting -- they start Page 169 January 25, 2006 getting utilized at five o'clock on. And that's when -- that's -- and whether -- it doesn't matter that they don't use it the rest of the time. When they want it, we have to have it available and that's evening -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're building it for Sunday servIce. MS. RAMSEY: We're building it for the working population in Collier County to keep up with that need, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But we don't count any -- anything for -- I think that's wrong that we -- that we don't count those neighborhood parks because that is a recreation provided by government. MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, it's not recreation provided by government. It's recreation provided by the public, by the private source. MR. MUDD: I think -- maybe I'm wrong, I've listened to this. I think you're talking about that the county -- the county purchased a playground in the Isles of Capris or the one that was going to go in the district, but they didn't want to have it in the district. And the one that was going to go in another commissioner's district, it didn't go there. And I believe you said that you count those -- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. MR. MUDD: -- as -- as community parks; is that correct? MS. RAMSEY: All of those playgrounds and most of them are playgrounds, they are counted in our children's playground on the list that you have here in front of you. The land is not included because it is not a community park. It is a neighborhood park and we do not have a level of service for neighborhood parks. CHAIRMAN HALAS: For instance, the Connors Park, that's a linear park. There's no playground. How -- how do you justify that? Is that -- MS. RAMSEY: That's -- that's actually a regional park. That's how it was built. Page 170 January 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: That's called -- considered a regional park? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All there is, it is just the linear walkway and through there? MS. RAMSEY: And parking -- and parking for beach access. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Parking for the beach access on the north side? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. That's -- that's how that one is in our inventory. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: As you -- you probably know, Marla, the state's new Growth Management Act places a higher concurrency requirement on parks and recreational facilities than it does on roads. Now, you've got quite a lot of money here planned for the CIE. Is there any doubt in your mind that we're going to have a problem meeting those requirements either from funding or from timing? MS. RAMSEY: I don't think we're going to have any problem with the funding element of it. Timing is always an issue because we don't know. I mean, I've been working on Manatee now for probably close to four years trying to get through the permitting process. You know, some of these -- the North Collier Regional Park from inception to -- you know, we started in April of 1997 and we'll finally get it open. And there's never been any -- any delay in any of that. It took us two years to find the land. And then we started design and went into the permitting process. And -- and it all does take time. The facilities that are listed in here currently are all based on lands that we have in inventory as we speak. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you had -- you had facilities planned in the CIE. Okay? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. Page 171 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you have, what, about -- about $25 million there programmed out from 2005 through 2011. Are you confident that you're going to have the money to acquire that land out in 2010, 2011 at that price? MS. RAMSEY: Well, are we talking about just the recreational element now or have we gone to land prices? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm looking at parks capital facilities. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page 40 -- 45. MS. RAMSEY: Forty-five? MR. MUDD: You're talking about the 270 per capita inventory. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. These are -- that's not land purchases, Commissioner. That is just facilities being developed on existing lands that we have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now-- MS. RAMSEY: And that list is located on page 53. If you go to page 53, you'll see how we have it broken out by the different facilities and the years that we have them coming on line. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're confident that with increasing costs of construction that we will still be able to do that in the -- in the years that you're expecting it? MS. RAMSEY: I -- as I had stated earlier, this happens to be a five-year plan based on the permanent population. And I will have to adjust this in the next fiscal year as we look at the weighted population. And every single month that we go by we also have to keep looking at our costs for development especially if we're looking at fill. Fill when we started at North Collier was $7 a load. It's at 21 now. So, you know, it's a guessing game. It is. It's roulette. And we're doing the very best job with the -- with the expertise that we have available to us. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's just a snapshot in time. Page 172 January 25,2006 MS. RAMSEY: That's exactly right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but the CIE is not. MS. RAMSEY: I -- I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And you're making specific reference to the CIE here. And all I'm concerned about, although they're not the same severe penalties associated with the state's growth management plan for recreational facilities as there would be for roads MS. RAMSEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- it still is expected that we will meet our goals. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. If -- if you look at the 200512006, the one that we're into right now, the biggest nut of that 25 something is going to be that parking garage which is almost ready to open, you know, next month. That's $8 million of this facility inventory. So based upon that number you reference in here is very doable. And so we move forward. Manatee is our next big one that we want to come in and make some facility changes on and we're also looking at the Goodland Boat Park trying to get that one up and going as well. Those are probably some of our higher priority facilities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Goodland is going to be finished 2008,2009, is that what you're saying? MS. RAMSEY: We've got -- let me see the line here. Well, we're doing that one in phases. We -- we've put some dollars up against it as we think it's coming in because -- because in that particular one, we're going to be refurbishing some existing facilities down there. And so we've put them in small bites to get at that particular one. As soon as -- that particular one can open at any point in time and we'll continue to have some kind of refurbishments going on. And I think the biggest thing we want to get in there is a picnic pavilion and a playground to get it started and then continue to grow it over a period of time. And we've had to do this because our impact Page 173 January 25, 2006 fee at -- currently is extremely tight. You know, a lot of it's going for debt service. And so our actual cash available to us is extremely slim. Now, when we get -- you know, if you approve the new impact fee that's coming up in the next month or so, that's going to give us a little bit more wiggle room here so that we can -- you know, we'll have a lot more comfort, I feel. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's assume you don't get that impact fee approved. MS. RAMSEY: Then you're going to have a hard time making-- making the growth levels, not just in the recreation but also in the land-use needs that we have. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- so you're comfortable that based upon everything you know now with respect to funding and costs that everything in this five-year capital facilities improvement plan is doable as you have scheduled it? MS. RAMSEY: Again, we're going -- we're going to have to clarify. Because as we went through the library which we just went through, this document was done prior to that. And this document was done based upon this is when we let -- this is when we let it. This is not when we complete it. So if the direction is to put these numbers as completion dates, then we may have to move them out one year based upon the permitting process that we're currently seeing. So -- and, again, we're coming back with this fairly quickly, big turnaround here on this one in the next six months before we send it up to state for the 360 bill so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what action would you suggest we take? And let -- let's -- let's deal with the whole package of parks and recreation. What -- what action would you suggest we take to permit you to -- to re-evaluate where you are with these things and -- and then permit us to approve a plan which is realistic? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Well, I think that -- you know, because it's a five-year plan, you always have an opportunity to update it on an Page 174 January 25,2006 annual basis. And I would then assume that each year that you put that in, you -- even though you're showing a five-year stint out, you're being evaluated on what you did the previous year to make sure that you stay current. So you have an opportunity every year to update and use more accurate data than you had -- you know, when you started the process. So in that regard I feel comfortable that we can continue to stay within our guidelines in order to meet that. If -- if we talk about, again, lands. Lands are a little bit different thing for us because, you know, we buy fairly large amounts of land. And as we look out into the Estates, there's not too many large pieces left. We're going to have to start to piecemeal those together in smaller parcels. They are going to take us a lot longer to accumulate a 20, 30, 50-acre parcel and they're going to be odd shaped and that's going to take a little bit more time. And right now when we get to that point, you'll see and I'll talk to you about that is that we're tight right now today. We're tight. We're at zero, right now, surplus as we stand here today, zero surplus in community park lands. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I -- I guess, I don't -- don't share your optimism that we will just be permitted to change these things if we fail to meet our deadlines from the five-year plan. I just don't know how much flexibility we're going to have in the future or whether the state is really going to hold our feet to the fire each year and resist letting us move things out as each -- each year comes by. I have the feeling that they're going to expect us to do these things and might take a fairly hard line about moving them out which -- which requires us to find additional sources of income which is property taxes. And I'd rather not be placed in that box. MS. RAMSEY: Or it could be impact fees. I mean, again, we haven't updated the impact fees in over three years for parks. And the next one is somewhat substantial and I think it's going to help us a lot. We also, as you look at our lands, we've been as creative as we possibly can with our lands. We currently use our relationship with Page 175 January 25,2006 the school system. They buy the land. We update the facilities. We count that in our inventory because those are facilities sitting on lands that we manage. We've worked with -- you know, we're working with the Airport Authority in Immokalee to try to get an additional seven acres which is already in the county coffers. We've been having conversations with the fair grounds trying to get some of their lands which are adjacent to the new park that we're bringing out in Orange Tree. So that not every single park that comes on line is coming from -- you know, from actual dollars out of our pockets. But looking at creatively lands that we currently have and how we can utilize them to the fullest. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of the inventory is the Caribbean Zoo property? MS. RAMSEY: Correct. It's underneath regional park lands. One hundred twenty-nine acres, the full amount that we purchased. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Why can't you use Conservation Collier's lands for part? MS. RAMSEY: If -- if we feel that there's access to them and we probably can. What we found, though, is that we also have to be careful as we look at these inventory that you have up on your screen is I have to have buildable lands. And I can probably meet my need in land, but I might not be able to meet my need in facilities if we put all the conservation lands into the inventory. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there are supposed to be some passiveness on these lands. MS. RAMSEY: Correct. But they -- they probably won't fall into a facilities category which is a field or a, you know, shuffle board courts and playgrounds. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not going to do that at the Page 176 January 25,2006 Fleischmann property, the Caribbean Zoo property, are we? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. We do have plans for picnic facilities, kayaking, canoeing, walkways. Yeah. We've got a lot of recreational elements planned in there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And-- MS. RAMSEY: And some of that will fall into our operational. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Walking in some of these Conservation Collier lands is not considered recreation? MS. RAMSEY: If there is a multi-use path according to our list that we have it's multi-use in nature, so a mulched pathway doesn't necessarily meet that level of standard. It has to be able to be utilized by bikers, roller bladders, walkers, strollers, et cetera. So that's -- that's the difference between the two. And, yes, they are -- some of those inventories are included in here including the Caribbean Garden Zoo and some of the other recreational elements. I mean, the North Collier is included in here and we have pathways through wetlands and all the wetlands are included as part of that open recreation space as well. We just need to be careful that we don't overburden the recreational element so that we don't have enough land to build the facilities that we need in order to stay concurrent as well. And especially as we look to try and buy additional lands as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you could use some of that? MS. RAMSEY: And have. And we have. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Conservation Collier? MS. RAMSEY: Again, remember only parts of the Conservation Collier land has public access to it. Some of them don't have access to the entire amount. There's three acres that was built up in the wetlands. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I need to ask are you? Maybe -- maybe -- MS. RAMSEY: There -- there is one, yes. We've done one at Page 177 January 25, 2006 the Veterans Park. There is a three and a half acres that's right up against the park that the Conservation Collier purchased and has a mulched pathway and we've included that in our inventory. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When do you want to get into your cost per acre? MS. RAMSEY: That's totally up to you. That is -- came to us from an appraisal as part of our impact fee. He looked at 150 different parcels. He selected 58 of them that meet the criteria that we were looking at for an impact fee and came up with three levels of service. One for beach at $4 million. One for boat access at 1.4. And the rest at Community Regional Park at $200,000 per acre. I will say that if you know the last pieces of property we purchased, Caribbean Garden being one of those, it was over $450,000 an acre. The Bayview property that we just bought for 1.16 acres was $285,000 an acre. The staff feels that $200,000 is probably reasonable. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it reasonable to get a park in Port Royal. MS. RAMSEY: It doesn't -- doesn't have anything to do with Port Royal, Commissioner. What it had to do with is trying to find lands that have been purchased or sold within the last four to five years that you could use as comparison if you were to buy a piece of property on the beach which this board did direct us to go look at. What would the cost of that be and should we put that in our impact fee? If you don't want to put the -- that land cost into your impact fee, I think that you should discuss that during the impact-fee process. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, part of that -- your analysis ofland costs comes from that impact-fee analysis. MS. RAMSEY: No, sir, not the $200,000. The $200,000 does not include the Port Royal elements in that dollar amount. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- that's what you have here. MS. RAMSEY: I can ask-- Page 178 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER HENNING: The cost for community parks and regional parks. MS. RAMSEY: That's $200,000 an acre but does not include the -- the ones that they received that they looked at to get to the $4 million beach element or the ones that they looked at to get to the beach access or boat access element of it. It was separate pieces of property that they came up with the $200,000 element. And remember that as we watch and buy our land cost have been going up appreciably over the last year. Month by month by month they go up. And so that documentation, that of $200,000 takes into account the existing sales that they had over the last few years as well as a projection of what they think it's going to go to in the next. And the appraisal is -- appraiser is -- you know, he has to be able to defend it in court and that is the number that he's given us. If you'd like to have more specifics, Amy is really the one to ask that specific question for. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the -- the analysis of putting a park in Port Royal or the Moorings or down Commissioner Halas's street is not reasonable. MS. RAMSEY: If you recall during our beach access element, we did have some properties that we were looking at along Vanderbilt to try and put in a parking -- a -- a bathroom facility so that we could utilize the access points. So, yes, we have been directed to look at those things. We were also directed to look at lands on Keywaydin. And so they did that as well. And so that was the direction and that's what we told the -- the appraiser and the impact-fee study consultant that was our direction and that's what they've done for us. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- where -- where do you anticipate you're going to be building regional parks and community parks? MS. RAMSEY: Well, if you look at the list that I have for you Page 179 January 25,2006 here, Commissioner, on page 54, I have a listing of all of the regional park lands up until 10/11. And I might add that over the next five years we only intend to purchase 2 112 acres of regional park land. Of the $167 million that's slated on that sheet of paper, we're only looking at 2 112 acres of actual purchase in the next five years. And that would be one acre over by Wiggins Pass and an acre and a half in the Bayview area. All the rest of that is either on inventory with the state or with the county or to be given to us as a promise from South Florida Water Management. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Cost per acre is in here. I just seen it, $200,000 an acre. MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, yes. It's in there $200,000 an acre, but it really has nothing to do with our level of service. Our level of service is acres per thousand. And for -- for the purposes of showing what we might need for dollars, we've done an average. The average of the community regional park is the $200,000 number. But as far as level of service, how much our land is inventoried at or even the cost that that land would be in the future is not really part of the AUIR level of service. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page -- page 50, I mean, it's -- it's just multiplier numbers that you're putting in here to get at your needs. MS. RAMSEY: Well, in this document it's used as a multiplier but in the impact fee it's used as the derivative to determine what the cost per house is going to be. And that's why we picked the number off the impact fee to stay consistent with -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you going to charge for impact fees? MS. RAMSEY: Correct, per-house-impact-fee cost is derivative of the land cost. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, if! may interject. I think this was a point of confusion with the Planning Commission as well too with Page 180 January 25, 2006 respect to the properties that were included in the calculation of the $200,000. I think it probably would be prudent at this point in time to have Amy Patterson explain which lands were included in there for your edification. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to have a rundown of exactly how we're going to address the upcoming impact fees. I think it's very important. MS. RAMSEY: This is a discussion, though, you will have again in about six weeks. MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Amy Patterson. Again, I'm your Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager. When we undertook looking at the parks on its regular three-year update, it was recommended by our consultant that we do something different than we've ever done before with parks and go out for an independent land appraisal which is this document I have in front of me. It's a big, thick volume. As you can see there's many pages of research that went into this. And the reason being we wanted to have a solid basis when we went forward with our per-acre amount that would then become part of the impact-fee methodology. Now, the confusion I think arises because also when we started looking at this impact fee, the beach and boat access element was included. There's always been a beach and access element in your parks impact fee, but the direction was given for that to be examined and, if appropriate, for it to be maximized. So what the appraiser did was he looked at several different things. He looked at the cost of beach and boat access lands in specific locations and he also looked at the cost of regional and community park lands in various locations understanding some of the things that Marla said that we're going to have to assemble larger parcels. There are few large parcels available and when they become available, there's competition to buy those parcels. All of these things contribute to the cost per acre of this land. Page 181 January 25, 2006 Further the -- the consultant, as Marla said, knew going forward -- the land consultant I'm speaking of -- that his work would become entwined in the impact-fee calculation. And if required, that his work would be scrutinized in -- if we were to be challenged. So he stands behind this study 100 percent and -- as does our consultant in the impact-fee methodology. They worked together through the entire process as well as with staff from office and staff from parks and recreation. The confusion also on the part of the Port Royal lands, there were lands in Port Royal that were looked at as part of these 158 parcels. But the Port Royal property or the Vanderbilt property or Moorings property are not part of the $200,000 an acre. That is simply regional park and community park lands, not beach-and-boat access. Those are three -- there are three separate values that were established by this study. I don't know if that provides any clarification, but -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm still not done. If we're using real dollar costs, today's costs and you're looking at your five-year -- actually, it's a -- it says FY'02 through '011 on page 45. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifty-four. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifty-four. Thank you, Commissioner. You're looking at Immokalee Airport 60 acres east of 951, 60 acres -- another 60 acres east of 951. You're getting all these properties east of 951 for community park lands. And on page 48 you're saying that the cost -- the value cost is $200,000 an acre. And I just -- you know, can't see that even at rising costs of Golden Gate Estates east of 951. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think all these 60 acres east of951, I think they're all the same piece of property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, it doesn't matter if it's -- if it's the same or not, the valuation or the cost of that is not $200,000 an acre. Page 182 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it isn't. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- it's more like $100,000 an acre, the most expensive in Golden Gate. So where this $200,000 per acre cost come from community parks that you're going to buy east of 951 or around Golden Gate or around Immokalee, where's that cost derivative from? MS. RAMSEY: I think we've already discussed that. That came from the impact fee, the appraiser's numbers, and what he feels is going to be cost as we move forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not today's cost? MS. RAMSEY: It's not today's cost. That's correct it's not today's cost. He put an inflation number into that based upon where it's going to be as we move forward. CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'll be challenged -- we'll find out if this is a correct number anyway, because we're going to be challenged probably in court. I'm sure that we have a dual rational nexus in regards to addressing this impact fee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I ain't going to be a part of that because I can just see this as a real disaster of counting on how we evaluate property. MS. RAMSEY: Well, Commissioner, sometimes we look at our lands, though, as an opportunity. And when an opportunity comes up, we purchase. For example, we didn't have in our five-year plan to buy the Caribbean Garden, but we have. And the cost per acre was over $450,000. Now, granted, we didn't pay for that out of impact fees. We paid it with ad valorem through a referendum, but had -- that is the cost of purchasing lands. So if -- if we end up with 60 acres that's closer or around or south, we don't know what it's going to be like. And I think you have to -- you have to look at it from what we've currently done. Our historical number says that it's a lot higher than $200,000 to date. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not today. Page 183 January 25,2006 MS. RAMSEY: To date. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not east of 951 to date. Now, we can guess. We can guess that property values will keep on climbing like they historically did, but the experts say they're not going to. The experts say that we have a leveling off. And, actually, this year we have housing prices coming down. Houses on the market are coming down. MS. RAMSEY: Again, though, the cost per -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what we're looking at what the cost is today, like Mr. Feder was, on what it costs today. MS. RAMSEY: On -- on your level of service for community parks and regional park, our level of service has nothing to do with costs. It only has to do with acres per thousand. There is a cost element that's been sitting here, it really has nothing to do with the cost per acre. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not talking about a delivery of service. I'm talking about cost per acre and that's what we have, whether it be transportation or anything. It's -- it's the cost, the cost it is today. Whose guess what it's going to be four or five years from now. MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, I'll have to leave that with the consultant when he comes to talk to you about the impact fees. He'll have to justify his number. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're -- you're asking me to approve a plan based upon not factual estimates of costs of land east of951. MS. PATTERSON: If I could -- could speak for a moment, if that's okay. Amy Patterson, again, for the record. I think we have two things that perhaps need to be addressed separately. That's your AUIR and your -- your impact-fee study coming forward. And certainly we can have the land appraiser here when we go through the public hearing for the impact-fee study. But Page 184 January 25,2006 the purpose for the $200,000 in the AUIR is to assign a value to what we have and, therefore, a value to what we're going to need in the future. And if you change those numbers, what you need is still going to be the same. It just may cost less. All this is doing is preparing parks and rec to be able to buy what they need for their existing level of service. They're making no attempt to improve their level of service or do anything else. And to -- if we want to change the dollar amount that's been found by this study in your impact fee, that's certainly something that can be addressed at the adoption hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Patterson, it sets up the needs for the dollar, these figures here -- MS. PATTERSON: I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for the capital improvement plan. MS. PATTERSON: And if she ends up-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if it's off, if the dollar number is too low than the actual, then we're going to have to find the money in those different categories where it comes from. If it's too high, then we're collecting money that we don't need. MS. PATTERSON: I don't -- I -- I don't think we're going to be in the position where we're collecting money that we don't need. We've never -- our impact fee has never been 100 percent. It never -- it never can be in that way. Because the time lapse between the -- the creation of a study and even the adoption creates that window that doesn't allow you for it to be 100 percent. If we don't go on the consultant's recommendation which mirrors that of the land appraiser, then you're guaranteeing yourself that you don't have an impact fee that comes close to 100 percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what -- what I understood is the future impact-fee study is not in here. MS. PATTERSON: The revenue derived from the future Page 185 January 25, 2006 impact-fee study is not in here. The $200,000 an acre -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. PATTERSON: -- generated by this report, the land study, was all -- was done in conjunction with the impact-fee study and the impact-fee consultant. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: It's just the revenue piece because it's not approved. So if there were something that were done to change that -- that piece, then the continuing discussions on the land is -- is a prime example of that. We did not project revenue based on -- on that number as of yet. Of course, when you see your impact-fee study come forward, there will be revenue projections associated. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jim, do you know where I can buy land in -- east of 951 for $200,000 an acre? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I tell you what-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I tell you what, I have an acre and a half I'll sell you then. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. But I also understand since you gave me a chance to open it up where we're going with this. And I -- I agree. We want to make sure. When the final decision comes what we're going to buy land for, we're going to use our best judgment and best practice at that time. We're not buying land here. We're coming up with what prices of land is based upon what they've done in the past. Before any purchases are ever made before this commission, it has to come back before us for a final decision. No, I'm not going to buy an acre of land in Golden Gate Estates for $200,000. However, I'd love to be able to buy five acres of land for a half million dollars today. That's quite difficult. I might suggest that, you know, if you've got some idea what you'd like to do, go ahead and make a motion and let's move forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to -- I -- it's just too lofty. And I -- I think that -- let's hear what the Planning Page 186 January 25, 2006 Commission recommended. Twenty-one million in both parks and recs category are requesting to exceed the level of service. So if we want to meet the level of service, we can -- we can cut out $21 million. MS. RAMSEY: I think that what you're referring to is the -- what the Planning Commission recommended is that at the end of the five years that we may add a zero surplus. That's how they -- they got to reduction of going to $16,000,500. And the question, I guess, that comes to the Board of County Commissioners, are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with at the end of five years having a zero surplus at all? And as Commissioner Coyle was -- was stating just a few minutes ago is, are we going to be held to that level? What happens if we have a hard time putting lands together? We have no surplus at the end of that five years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have opportunities to recognize other kind of recreation that takes place in Collier County. MS. RAMSEY: Well, our community park acres, which is what we're talking about currently, that is where we put or facilities -- most of our facilities we put them on our community park acreages. So I can't go into a Conservation Collier area and put a ball field. And as we continue -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we can put a zoo on lands that we're counting as recreation? MS. RAMSEY: We could put it under regional lands, that's correct. It's a regional facility and it's county owned and it has recreational purposes to it. And so, yes, we did include those. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, again, even the recommendations on the valuation of property is -- is a big deal and whatever we approve sets up the budgetary process. And I don't want to set up a lofty plan that in my mind is -- is -- is padded. So either we -- we can adjust the acreage amount down -- Page 187 January 25, 2006 MS. RAMSEY: That's your prerogative as the -- as the recommendation of the Planning Commission was as far as the $200,000 is that they recommended the accuracy of the $200,000 estimated land cost be validated as part of the upcoming BCC impact-fee-adoption public hearing which will take place in the spring of2006. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But what we have here today is based upon the impact-fees study in question. And I would say that in Golden Gate Estates it's 100 112 an acre. And if we were looking in around Immokalee, Commissioner Coletta -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would be it be fifty -- fifty thousand an acre? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Believe it or not the building lots in Immokalee in the worst possible neighborhood the minimum price now is over $50,000. That's a building lot in Immokalee. The land outside -- MS. RAMSEY: That would be 200,000 an acre. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Huh? MS. RAMSEY: That would be 200,000 an acre. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's a building lot. You know, when you get outside of Immokalee, any kind of real acreage you got is tied up by about four or five families and Collier being one of them. And I assume they're going to be asking whatever they can get for them. And we're going to be dealing with them when they come forward with PUDs and all that. I -- I really can't answer that question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the impact-fee study I'm sure based lands around Immokalee; correct? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the price per acre then? Page 188 January 25, 2006 MS. RAMSEY: Only in those if they had sales on them. I don't know how many acres outside of the city limits there was in that particular study. CHAIRMAN HALAS: If we can get to a resolution. Either we pass this or we -- or we -- if we're not satisfied with this, we make a motion to disapprove this. I think we've got to move on here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to disapprove it, but I don't think you can do that, Commissioner. I think we either need to approve it as is or modify it and approve it with modification. MR. MUDD: This is -- this is -- this is Category A. The reason it's Category A, the best I can determine -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: It's going to be mandated by the state. MR. MUDD: Well, the reason -- the reason the state mandated this is because the first thing you're going to cut when you've got to make ends meet are parks. And they didn't want the community standard and the State of Florida to -- to be -- be influenced based on -- based on financial decisions by particular local governments. So they basically made parks a Category A. CHAIRMAN HALAS: A. MR. MUDD: And it -- right up there with water/sewer, you know, there's a lot of things that I would think are Category A, like, sheriffs deputies and EMS, but they're Category B, but you have parks. And, you know, I asked the question, why are we here? And -- and it's because that was -- that was kind of a litmus paper test for them to tell -- to tell everybody else, Hey, you're not going to cut -- you're not going to cut and get the easy way out by taking parks out or whatever. You're going to have a good quality of life and so -- so they made it Category A. But Commissioner Henning is dead-on. Category A, I don't really think you can disapprove it. If you disapprove it, we have to come back with something else to you and -- and it would be good to have guidance. Now, if you -- if you tell in the particular item that Commissioner Page 189 January 25, 2006 Henning is talking about, if you're saying you don't want to go get those 240 acres that are east of 951 that are -- that are spelled out there, then we can take those out of the plan. And -- and I will tell you that when opportunity arises for those particular acres, I'll come back to the board or Marla will come back to the board and say we have an opportunity and can we get reserves in order to buy those particular properties. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm fine with that. MR. MUDD: We can-- MS. RAMSEY: Well, you can't take the whole amount out. You have to keep at least 82.5 in there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. What are we talking about? MR. MUDD: I understand. You can't -- you can't go all 240 acres. MS. RAMSEY: No. MR. MUDD: You've got to get at least 82 of them -- MS. RAMSEY: Eighty-two and a half. MR. MUDD: -- in order to stay concurrent based on your level of service. But we could do those particular items and assume we could adjust it down, but -- but understand, I've told all the staff already and -- and this isn't a CY A on my part -- I told all the staff, I said the one thing I'll tell you about Collier County is that land isn't getting any cheaper. And I don't believe anybody on this dais will tell me that they've seen anything go down in price as far as land is concerned. It's all -- it's all -- it's all gone up. And it's better to get it now than it is to wait till later when it -- when it is so hard to get and so hard to find. And -- and you only have to go take a look at what happened on the coast here as far as beach access and -- and what happened to boat access in the county. Now it's so hard to get anything toward it and anything new because it's so costly that you can't find it. Page 190 January 25, 2006 So I've told the Public Utilities Division. I've told parks and rec, libraries where -- EMS, wherever you can -- if you think you know the location you want to be located at, you need to determine where that is and we need to go after that particular parcel now rather than later because I don't think it will be available in the future. At least where you want to put it. There might be something available, but it'll be real close to Hendry County up on the line when you need to be providing service some place down on Marco Island. So -- fine. So if you want to take out some -- everything except for about 82 acres we can do that and -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And come in as they -- as those parcels become available and let us make that decision. That's not -- and I think we'll actually get a snapshot of what the actual costs are. Because we don't -- I don't have that book of comparables. Usually don't get it when we update impact fees, but I think a few people might request it. MS. PATTERSON: That's absolutely fine. We'll provide copies. It would be -- it would have been provided anyway when we come forward at adoption hearing for the -- the parks and rec impact-fee update. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner, if you feel comfortable with what you're saying, why don't you make a motion on it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I make a motion that we direct staff to purchase up to 82 acres of -- of park lands. MR. MUDD: Community park lands? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Community park lands. MS. RAMSEY: Eighty two point four. Because when you say 82 -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Eighty-three acres. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. I'm just clarifying that you said up to, so, I mean, I do have to get 83. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Up to 83 acres and if any lands Page 191 January 25, 2006 become available come to the board and let the board make the decision of the purchase at that time. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll second the motion. MR. MUDD: That's above the 83 acres. MS. RAMSEY: We come to the board every single time we make a purchase. MR. MUDD: No. But if there -- ifthere's an opportunity -- and I believe what Commissioner Henning -- MS. RAMSEY: Over and above the 83. MR. MUDD: -- if there is an opportunity to advise it where we can get a good deal on land above the 83 that you are mandated to get based on level of service, we bring that opportunity to the Board of County Commissioners to purchase. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. MR. MUDD: Is that what you wanted, sir? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I -- I had thought that I -- I must have just tuned in at one point in time or something with the CCPC. I thought they had recommended using $150,000 and-- MS. RAMSEY: They -- they discussed that, but they didn't make that as the recommendation. They said that they thought that whatever we approved for the impact fee ought to be the -- the acreage cost that we utilized on this study. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we ever add in, like, we've been lucky enough to get some acreage. I think Commissioner Coletta helped us to get, like, 90 acres over in the Fall property. We do get some acreage that is free; right? And our goal is to get more. MS. RAMSEY: Our goal is to be as frugal as we possibly can and -- and that 90 acres -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that figures into it. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. It's in there. It's in as the 200412005. Page 192 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just before I go on to my other questions, when we -- when we come back for the impact fees, you'll give us a total recap of what they really use for this; right? I mean, where -- I can understand where Commissioner Coletta -- or Henning's coming from. The figures that we get anymore, you know, we -- there's no proof that those figures are correct. And -- and what he's trying to do is prove that there is some validity to them. I'm -- I'm sure that that's what he's going for. Anyway, on page 53 you spoke here of the North Naples Regional Park. That's the $53.8 million park, but I see here it's only $30 million. What happened to the other 23.8? MS. RAMSEY: Unfortunately, Commissioner, that you only get to count the facilities, not necessarily all the infrastructure that goes into it. And so the fill and all the other stuff is not any credit in this particular plan. This is a facilities capital dollar plan, not an infrastructure plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all this stuff that goes under-- MS. RAMSEY: Parking lots-- (Multiple speakers.) THE COURT REPORTER: Wait. One at a time. MS. RAMSEY: -- and all that kind of thing aren't not necessarily included in that. We do a rounding in -- in our facilities. For example, the $650,000 is going to have -- for a baseball field is going to have so many parking lot spaces up against it. But, you know, if you -- if your land costs are going up, then we adjust them each -- each year, but -- but the actual cost of putting something out there may not be reflective of the actual dollar you have. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I had -- I had no idea. It would be nice if somewhere it said that so that then I think it would make that a little more clear to us. With the Manatee Park, I know that that's going to be some type of soccer park; right? MS. RAMSEY: It's got a lot of different elements into it. It has Page 193 January 25, 2006 softball in a small community area, a dog park, a picnic facilities, walking trails. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, people can't wait to get that dog park in there but, anyway, if -- I know that we've had that land for, what, 25 years now? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and that's great. But at the time we've been planning the soccer fields there, but -- but now it's kind of nestled in between, you know, Fiddler's Creek and the -- the retirement community and now Triveso Bay's coming in. And it seems like it's probably not at all nestled near any of the soccer players. And I was wondering if we were going to make an effort to maybe buy land that's more by 6 L's or A. Duda. There's a lot of land right there right now where the players can get to the fields easily. They live around it. Rather than be in a community possibly where, you know, people just don't use that. MS. RAMSEY: We've -- we've been in conversation with 6 L's, but it was part of that 60 acres that's -- that's on the list. And I don't know when they're coming forward, though. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, is that all your questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my last question. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Because I want to take a break for the court reporter. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm sorry. Maybe you can tell me afterwards and -- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I'd like to take a ten-minute break for our court reporter. Thank you. We're in recess for ten minutes and we'll be back at 4:38. (Short recess was taken.) Page 194 January 25, 2006 Page 195 January 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. We're back on. We're back off recess to continue the 200 -- 2005 AUIR report. We have a motion on the floor and the motion was made by Commissioner Henning, and that was to limit the amount of land to be purchased, I believe, 83 acres. And I had a second by Commissioner Coyle. And I believe we're just about complete with discussion on this? Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coletta. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. Two -- two things, if I may, before we go forward. First, I'd like to touch on just a clarification here, if I may, on Page 53. And just -- just help me out with this, Marla. The Orange Tree park, that's that Bass Lake? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Well, it's -- it's not the Bass Lake yet, but it -- it's the -- it's the lands surrounding it so that we can get to Bass Lake. It's in phases but, yes, it is. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I -- I guess the question, going back to it, and I know we tried to resolve this before and we had to wait, I guess, a year or so before we could get to through Brian Paul's property was access to this lake that we now own so people could start to avail themselves of the fishing that's on that lake. MS. RAMSEY: I still don't have easements for the school system to get to the lake, nor do I have an easement over the canal to the north to get to the lake. So, we're packaging that altogether and trying to bring that forward with the design element. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What we've got here, commissioners, and, you know, and I'm not blaming Parks and Rec or anyone particular individuals, we have resources, but given to the Page 196 January 25, 2006 county as a gift. It's a tremendous bass fishing lake. And -- but the problem is, is we can't access the bass fishing lake even though we own it. We're trying to get access through several different ways, but we don't seem to be quite successful at anyone point in time to be able to bootstrap the next point. And I just want to bring it up to your -- your attention there because I'm sure you all have constituents that -- that love to bass fish and it would be a tremendous resource for them to be able to use and it's just sitting there foul right now. The amount of improvements that we would require is next to nothing. It's just a matter of finding a way to be able to get from Oil Well Road to the lake. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a long distance by the way? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I could sneak through there in no time at all. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Well, what are you saying, that we -- we don't have any easement? MS. RAMSEY: Not yet. We don't have an easement yet. We're still working -- it's a complicated deal. But we're doing some land swap element and then with that is some easements to get to -- to some lands that will get us closer to the lakes. And it's a little more complicated than that but we are definitely working on that with the school system. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm sure you are. Now that you mentioned the word "land", you just led up to my next -- next question. The motion is, is to limit the purchasing to 80 -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three acres. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- 83 acres. The only thing I -- I'm not too sure of is what is the total amount of acres we were talking before we started this -- this motion? MS. RAMSEY: 187. Page 197 January 25, 2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow! From an 187 down to 83 all in one jump? And that -- but I know the right to come back later and to be able to address it is wonderful, but if the -- if the motive is to be able to cut back on the ad valorem tax, the money won't be there later, kiss the parks goodbye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: The other thing that I'm concerned about is the fact that we've gotten ourselves into other predicaments in years past where we can't -- we don't have the beach access because we didn't have the forethought or the vision to address the particular issues that need to be addressed, and we as commissioners have been put in a box as far as addressing additional beach access that's made it almost next to impossible. So, I think that's also something that we need to look at very closely also. Now, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many acres do you need to -- in a capital -- five-year capital improvement to meet the level of service? MS. RAMSEY: We need 82.4 acres. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's -- and that's five years. MS. RAMSEY: That's the five year -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And every year we do a capital improvement plan. Okay. MS. RAMSEY: You'll do an update to the AUIR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. You know, I don't see where we're falling behind if we need 82 and some change, we're allowing 83, and always have the ability to change it every year, I don't see the issue. Commissioner Coletta, I'd be more upset of your park in Immokalee that was supposed to be on line last year, has been moved on to the following year. Page 198 January 25,2006 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I do know the circumstances and I don't particular like it, but one of those things that would be one of our district we've had setbacks. I don't want to compound the problem anymore if I can avoid it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my concern. I -- I understand where you're coming from and you're trying to put more power back within the commission itself. But I -- I just -- I'm scared that when the time does come and we need funds, we're going to find ourselves without those funds to be able to act with. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And their -- these moneys are to come from -- imposed from impact fees? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct. So, if gross stops -- MS. RAMSEY: Assuming that we have a-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- your -- your answer IS absolutely correct, commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I hope I'm wrong and the growth stops, but one step at a time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does this change anything with the impact fee collection? MS. RAMSEY: Well, currently, what we have on this particular book is only the current level of impact fee we are collecting. And we will come to you in February, end of February, with an update to that which could increase our revenue stream. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the other thing, why I mentioned the airport park, this is a Category A thing, and it's just like Commissioner Coyle said, is whatever's in the plan you got to do. We don't want to say, well, we -- we wish that we can do it this year and it actually doesn't happen. That's my point. MS. RAMSEY: I do want to caution one other thing and -- and Page 199 January 25, 2006 it's not really in here, but there are times when parklands become used by other agencies to be -- you know, and some of our lands are reduced of over some years and we have had some reductions in our lands over the last five years. So, you know, road right-of-ways take a little away -- away from it and other things in order to help other departments, so -- so we need to 83 right now, but if we lost, say, ten acres or -- ten acres or something to a road access, we would have to make that up somewhere. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just -- I just wanted to emphasize exactly what Commissioner Henning just, is that this is from impact fees. We will be considering an increase in the impact fees which should provide you some additional funds. And I don't think any of us would be adverse to approving purchases of land in advance if you've got the impact fees to do it, and it's a good deal and you can get the land cheaply. So, the other point to be made is that -- is that this is a budgeting item and we will be considering it at the budget so we'll have a chance to vote on that at that time and -- and -- and make those decisions, so I don't see the down side risk here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I might amend my motion, and, Amy, I have a question for you. How many lands were considered under the estimate? MS. PATTERSON: 158 -- I'm sorry. Amy Patterson again for the record. 158 originally in -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And how many -- MS. PATTERSON: -- the full study. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many were estimated for the calculation of this -- of this figure of200,000 an acre. MS. PATTERSON: I believe it was 58. It was in the fifties Page 200 January 25, 2006 when -- when they called down all the parcels and he took it -- because I'm not a land appraiser, but it's my understanding that for various reasons he took parcels out or added parcels in and examined them from all different scenarios to decide which were the best that suited our needs and the parameters that we and the -- we, as the county and the consultant, provided to him. But there were fifty something parcels that were considered. MS. RAMSEY: And I do know that part of that -- when -- if it were bought in 2003, for example, he increased the percent to make it, you know, what it would have been in 2005. So, there was some adjustments to those older purchases and that's might be why the numbers don't add up to you looking at them on the sheet because he may have adjusted those according to today's pnces. MS. PATTERSON: There was some concern that there wasn't-- when Commissioner Strain was looking at the numbers, he was adding some columns and dividing them and there was some concern that the numbers didn't work out and that's because, just like Marla said, it wasn't a straight average of the numbers. He did have to back things out and add things in to -- to do what the appraisers do to get to the final number. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to vote. MS. STUDENT -STERLING: You need to amend the motion to accept the community park portion of the AUIR with the changes that you recommended. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The 82 and a half -- change acres is the total acreage we'll need? MS. RAMSEY: For the community parklands. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just for the -- for the community parklands. MS. RAMSEY: For that level of service. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Page 201 January 25, 2006 CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is it 82 or 83 acres? MS. RAMSEY: Well, it's -- yeah, 83 acres. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. That was in the motion. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And that's what I had stated, so I just want to make sure that -- okay. Yes, commissioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, we've still got a little dialogue going. Let's -- let's go back to this. The-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Can you make it short? We're trying to get this wrapped up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll try. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll really try. The downside of this whole thing, speaking very honestly from your perspective from where you are and I know staff hates to be put into a position like this, but I'm going to do that because Halas is making me be short. MS. RAMSEY: Downside to doing the 82 acre -- or 83 acres? If you give me the latitude to come back to you at any time and -- and exceed that, then I think we're okay. I just wanted you to know that as the reason that we set it up this way is that we do think it's going to be difficult to put together large parcels in the estates and we're going to need to piece them together. And that's going to take time. And I just want to make sure that we stay current on that and if there is an opportunity and it's 120 acres -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to -- MS. RAMSEY: -- that we should pick it up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have to follow it up with a quick one. If you -- if this only authorized you for 83 acres, how could you Page 202 January 25, 2006 go back and do the research to try to put together a future block without, you know, coming to the commission when you have the authorization to do it? I mean, who's going to quote you a price if you're going to them and say I might be able to -- I might. This is no longer in my plan, this is over and above, the commission said I could come back if there's funds available and we can talk about it. But my concern again is, is that once we agree to this, we go through the budgetary process, we trim this off the budget, that you won't have that ability to come back. Am I wrong? MS. RAMSEY: Well, I'm hoping you have that in your motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is. You're coming back. MS. RAMSEY: That allows me to come back and -- and exceed 82 acres if an opportunity arises. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But where would the money come from? MS. RAMSEY: Well-- CHAIRMAN HALAS: We'd have to approve the money at that point in time. MS. RAMSEY: It could come from a number of different ways. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Groups, anyplace. MS. RAMSEY: Right. We would -- we would look at it on a case by case basis at that point. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Ifwe have the reserves, then that's where we take it from. If we don't have the reserves, we go someplace else. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if we did it the other way, we would have to have the reserves to be able to have that hundred? MS. RAMSEY: Well, yeah. I think you would have to show the revenue source for it. I mean, even -- even at this amount, without this impact fee, my best guess is we still need $2,000,300 with our existing stream in order to make this happen. Page 203 January 25,2006 And, so, the impact fee is going to be important to make up that shortfall even if you do the 84 -- 83 acres. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the impact fee won't be able to pick up that slack over and above the 83 acres though, will it? MS. RAMSEY: It may. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Even though we don't have it down on the plan? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. It may. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. MS. PATTERSON: You're -- you're looking at a -- a pretty sizable increase in your impact fees assuming that you adopt them at a hundred percent. So, you're going to have a -- a healthy increase in your revenue stream. I'm sorry. I don't have a number for you right now, but I can tell you that the numbers are -- are -- they're -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staggering. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Substantial. MS. PATTERSON: No. That's -- but they're substantial. That's a good word, substantial. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. With that, is there any other -- further discussion? If not, we'll call the question. And I restated the motion once. Did the court reporter get it the first time when we were discussing this? THE COURT REPORTER: I wasn't here. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Oh, I thought I gave it to you when we opened the -- reopened the session. Okay. Just for clarification, a motion has been made by Commissioner Henning, seconded by Commissioner Coyle, that we're going to cut back the -- the lands from 160 down to about 83 acres. 83 acres, I believe, is it. Page 204 January 25, 2006 And then we'll address this issue as the -- once they obtain the -- the 83 acres, if there's a possibility of us acquiring something over that at a reasonable price, we'll come back before the Board of County Commissioners to address that. MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Halas, the purchase was up to 80 -- up to 83 acres. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Up to 83 with regard -- or I said 83 acres to make it precise, okay? Yes, the county -- MS. STUDENT-STERLING: For the record, Marjory Student-Sterling, Assistant County Attorney. I thought the motion was being amended to accept the community parkland component of the recreation facilities or parks and rec facilities' quotient of the AUIR with those stipulations or conditions in it. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Is that the motion? Okay. Does that go along with your second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So, everybody is clear on what we're voting on then? Okay. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign? I guess it's passed unanimously. Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is it you need for your regional parklands to meet the level of service for the five-year capital improvement plan? Page 205 January 25, 2006 MS. RAMSEY: Well, commissioner, there -- most of that land is already in our inventory or being dedicated to us by outside agencies and there is two acres, two and a half acres, in that plan that we have looked at as opportunities for us to purchase. And that has to be along in the -- in the Bayview area where we're still trying to put together a parking facility and a facility up by the Cocohatchee River Marina for some additional parking there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In 0607, you have Bayview Park, which we all know that you clearly have direction to continue that. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have nine acres, Rookery Bay. MS. RAMSEY: We're working on an agreement with Rookery Bay that will include the nine acres on the -- on the corner of 951 and Isle of Capri and Shell Island Road and Keewaydin Island all in one element and we would look to put that nine acres into our inventory. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want a motion to approve that element? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve that regional parkland five year capital improvement plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN HALAS: I have a second. Okay. Commissioner Henning made a motion and it was seconded by Commissioner Fiala. Any further discussion on the motion? And the motion is -- restate your motion again, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To approve the regional park plan, capital improvement plan, for the next five years. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. And I've got a second. Page 206 January 25, 2006 Okay. Call the question. All those in favor, please signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Those opposed by like sign? Motion carries. MS. RAMSEY: Did you vote on the recreational facilities element? MR. OCHS: Yeah. We would need a motion on that, too, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER FIALA: What page? MS. RAMSEY: On Page 44. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I have a question. What -- what do you need to meet the level of service? Well, this is a summary form on Page 44. MS. RAMSEY: Page 44, yes. Go over to Page 45. It will show you that in our period of time we're going to be actually have a deficit in the five-year plan as we've got a plan currently, but as I stated earlier this was based upon permit population and during our budget process, we're going to reevaluate the five-year capital plan and we will bring it into compliance with the five year as we move forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I didn't get what you just stated. MS. RAMSEY: Our five-year plan was based upon permanent population and we've increased it to waited population, which is a larger population, so you'll see that we're $2.8 million short at the end of our five-year plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Short in capital? MS. RAMSEY: Short in capital, that's correct. Page 207 January 25, 2006 And, so, our gain plan is during the next budget process to take our five-year plan and use waited population and accelerate or make changes to our -- our plan in order to meet that five year based upon the impact fee study that you give me to work with. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So, what you're saying is the impact fees that we've been collecting on waited population, we're actually going to do it in our capital improvement plan. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. We're going to do it in our capital improvement plan. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: On Page 45, the note at the bottom is not complete on my copy. It cuts off at the end. Can you tell me what that says? CHAIRMAN HALAS: The notes? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the note. CHAIRMAN HALAS: It says, planned capital facilities-- MS. RAMSEY: I don't know exactly what it says, but in the gist of it, what it means is that the -- the $3,400,000 in refurbishment has to be paid for out of ad valorem, not out of impact fee because it is a repair, not a -- a gross related item. And it is not reflected in this. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the -- the funds that you have programmed here for the five year subtotal, are those funds absolutely available and are you sure that you can prepare those facilities for that cost? MS. RAMSEY: Nothing is absolute, sir, but based upon the estimate that the budget process -- budget department gave us, the -- the numbers that we have on this page is the projection of the current rate of impact fees that we are collecting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you -- you really can't pin down the -- the capital costs out in five years. MS. RAMSEY: No. It's almost impossible. But we are phasing, and by doing phasing we might find we put a million dollars into a Page 208 January 25,2006 park and, you know, we might not get as much as we thought we would get to begin with because, you know, the cost of construction goes up. So, we're still going to put a million dollars into the park. What we actually get for it is going to be determined by the conditions at the time that we do it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- and will that meet your level of service standard if you do that? MS. RAMSEY: It will meet our level of standard once we've relooked at the five-year plan with the waited up against it and based upon what you give me for impact fees increase when we become forward. That is not included in these numbers at all. So -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: The increased revenue from the increased impact fees, it is not included in any of these forecasts. MS. RAMSEY: None of them. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's a staggering sum according to -- to staff. MS. RAMSEY: Substantial. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like staggering. Because that's where I am about this time of the afternoon. MS. RAMSEY: I agree, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Question answered? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you trim any of this? MS. RAMSEY: No, sir. I'm already going to be at a deficit at the end of the five years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: At the end of the five years. But you're -- you're going into a new five-year capital plan. I make a motion to approve. Page 209 January 25, 2006 What did the planning commission recommend on this one? MS. RAMSEY: They just approved it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll take your word for it. MS. RAMSEY: Well, there's no comment on the bottom. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion for approval the way it stands and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Is that correct? Okay. And any further discussion on this item before we take a vote? If not, I call the question. All those in favor of -- of the way it stands, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Motion -- and anybody that does not favor this also signify by saying aye. Motion passes. Thank you. MS. RAMSEY: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Before we go on the next segment here, it's coming up on 5:00 o'clock. And we've got the category two that's in -- in front of us here. My question is I believe all of our calendars are open for the 6th of February and should we adjourn at this point in time and pick this up for Category B on the 6th of February? I believe it's an afternoon session. Is that correct? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The commissioners have a strategic planning session with the staff scheduled in the morning from nine till noon on February 6th. But Mrs. Filson advised that the afternoon schedule looks fairly Page 210 January 25,2006 open for most of the boardroom. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. So, do I have a motion that we should -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. CHAIRMAN HALAS: And the second -- or on the -- excuse me. On February the 6th. Okay. And I'll second that. So, a motion has been made and a second -- MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I think Mr. Cohen had a comment. MR. COHEN: I think you need to have a motion to continue the meeting to February 6th at 1 :00 p.m., I believe is the specific time. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what? I would just suggest you say 1:00 p.m., but if the other one doesn't end until noon and say, for instance, we go 15 minutes over and everybody needs to have a break, why don't you -- why don't you say 1 :30? CHAIRMAN HALAS: 1 :30. MR. OCHS: Fine. Whatever the pleasure of the board. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. 1 :30 seem fair to everybody? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to continue this meeting until February 6th at 1 :30 p.m. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. There was a motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala to continue this meeting starting on February the 6th at 1 :30 in the afternoon. Okay. And I'll call the question. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN HALAS: All those opposed? Page 211 January 25, 2006 We are adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was recessed to February 6th, 2006 by order of the chair at 5:05 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~~-2-.q-- FRANK HALAS, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGHT E...BR.oc~, CLERK "',..:' ':; . J. ". ; ":~'" ",~ ., ~: WJ 'n~ ;". """" I')' 't By: lO~:" ',' /., () JJ2 . ",: .<; ~ - ~j'i.~ 1.\:'(-'~"~~~' ' l These minutes approved by the Board on cQ -,;f6 -OCiJ , as presented V or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CAROLYN FORD. Page 212