Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/09/2006 EAR March 9, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, March 9, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Lindy Adelstein Tor Kolflat Donna Reed Caron Russell Tuff Paul Midney ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you all rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the Pledge of Allegiance was united in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome everybody back to the third day of the review of the EAR amendments. This is for the transmittal hearing. This is our continued meeting from yesterday. So with that, if the secretary could do a roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Caron is here. Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is not here. And Mr. Tuff. COMMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As we had to start all of our other meetings in the past, I don't mean to be a broken record, but I want to remind the panel that we have a court reporter who can only type as her fingers will let her carry, and that means we have to keep our discussions one at a time and at a pace that she can accurately record things. Also, please, to keep consistent, is to be recognized before you speak. And with that, let's go forward. We'll start -- we're going to go back to the beginning of the book and start with the capital improvement element. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, is it your preference again like Page 2 March 9, 2006 with the CCA meeting with the future land use element just to go through it page by page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be the simplest. Save time and we know what our questions are. We can just go right to them. With that in mind, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question on the staff comment before we start off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In your comments on the capital improvement CIE, you mentioned that just explain the remove the pay as you go and replaced it with pay as you grow. What does that really mean, that statement? MR. COHEN: The change in the statement was made because of Senate Bill 360 contains that particular language exactly verbatim, and we wanted to make sure there wasn't a 360 connotation associated with our capital improvements element because it's in there. And that's why the change was made. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But prior to that you're saying we had pay as you go, essentially is impact fees as you go and then you're changing it to as you grow. MR. COHEN: What page are you on? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on page two, the staff report. Not in the CIE. I'm up front in the staff report. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Inside the CIE it's on page seven. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the tabs is staff report, page two of the staff report. MR. COHEN: I'm looking for the specifics in the CIE itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's under 124. MR. COHEN: Okay. We just struck the word pay as you go Page 3 March 9,2006 financing, and it wasn't replaced with anything in one point -- in 2.4, and the rationale there is we didn't want to be confused with the mechanism for proportionate share that got integrated into Chapter 163 as a part of Senate Bill 360 because of the County Commission's perspective on proportionate share. That's where they directed us from a policy perspective to draft language. Then it was prepared and forwarded to the legislative delegation. Now we have bill language that was drafted by a representative of Goodland, Senator Saunders that tries to address County Commissioners' concerns. So that's why the pay as you go financing was struck in that particular provision. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. MR. COHEN: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that can we start on page one of the CIE? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, we're going to what time today, 12:30? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure. Before the day is over, say after our first break, maybe we can discuss the timing of our events for next week. Okay. Page one, does anybody have any questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We spoke at the AUIR about an item such as helicopter, which is not in the EMS budget. And I just wondered whether or not that is a classification. When you look at public facilities, towards the bottom there where it speaks shall include land structures, et cetera. Et cetera. Then it talks about other capital cost such as motor vehicles and motorized equipment, it's considered in the county's annual Page 4 March 9, 2006 budget. So I'm just wondering, where would that hang out? Where would we concern ourselves if we had to have a -- MR. COHEN: It would be part of the AUIR in the EMS section of the AUIR. Or if it was the sheriffs helicopter, that particular area, but it would not find its way into the CIE anymore because of the direction to take out the category E facilities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But there would be nothing set aside of funds for that. It would just be a notation, a memo, right? MR. COHEN: It would take place as part of the AUIR. And then if was going to be budgeted, it would take place in the budgeting process for that fiscal year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the AUIR? There is no budget for the AUIR. MR. COHEN: Well, the AUIR would lead to a budgetary item as part of the next fiscal year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. On that same paragraph, I think the two sentences seem to be in conflict. The first sentence says that initial furnishings and equipment are considered public facilities and are okay. And then the second sentence says that office equipment and furnishings are not to be considered. So does that just mean replacement equipment isn't considered? MR. COHEN: I think that the initial furnishings in some particular instances, impact fees can cover initial furnishings, but like you just indicated with replacements, it cannot. I believe that's what the intent of the language is. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that's what that language is meant to say? MR. COHEN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Page 5 March 9,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you look into the EAR, the review we had, we didn't discuss getting rid of category B. Why is that happening all of a sudden? MR. COHEN: That was a policy directive of the Board of County Commissioners as part of the AUIR. And as part of that direction, the vote was to incorporate those changes into the capital improvements element. And the reason that they're included as part of the CIE is the direction from DCA was to include the CIE as part of the EAR. So, in essence what you're doing, you're reviewing the EAR based amendments and the CIE at the same time based on the AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we won't be reviewing these anymore? You're taking them -- the CIE -- MR. COHEN: This is your CIE review as part of the update from the AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the future, next year's AUIR will not have category B in it then? MR. COHEN: Next year's CIE will not have category B. The AUIR still will have category B facilities and you will review them accordingly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think, why were they taken out? What was the philosophy behind taking them out? MR. COHEN: The reason they were taken out is the requirement before category A facilities is based on concurrency related items. And as a result, the only things that are required to be in a CIE are the things that are listed in Chapter 163.3180 dealing with capital -- with concurrency items. Those would be, you know, your water, your sewer, your transportation and the various other items that are in category A. Schools will be added in 2008. Then in the past we had the category B Page 6 March 9,2006 facilities in there because of our impact fee ordinances. And the consultant's rationale was, well, you need to have them in the CIE or another equivalent to have a rationale nexus for those particular impact fees, and he opined this year that it's okay as long as it's in the officially adopted AUIR you can leave them in there and they don't need to be in a category B facilities. If you put the category B facilities in the CIE with financial commitments there, it kind of hamstrings the Board of County Commissioners with respect to policy decisions if budgetary items come on up as part of the normal review process. That's the rationale. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you go through the AUIR next time, you're going to go through all the growth management plan elements? MR. COHEN: When we go through the AUIR, it will have the normal category A and category B facilities just like they did this past year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One other thing that doesn't come up is housing element, for example, is never reviewed. Will that be reviewed? MR. COHEN: Housing is not part of the AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER okay. MR. COHEN: It's not a capital facility. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Development and Environmental Services Division, Administrator. Category B facilities. We had a legal opinion basically that clearly defined a legal premise for at least the legal foundation for not including category B in the CIE. As Randy said, if it's in the CIE, there's a financial committment. It's not saying the county Page 7 March 9, 2006 is not going to make a financial commitment, but category B facilities by definition are deemed -- well, they're not from a standpoint of concurrency. They're not a mandatory requirement for concurrency. But, they're going to be in the AUIR. It is part of -- certainly is part of the A UIR and is part of the budget cycle based on how the Board defines what needs to be funded. But as taken in the CIE -- the only reason we left it in CIE for years was because of the idea that it had to be in there related to the need and the rationale nexus -- do a rationale nexus for collecting impact fees. That we now have an opinion that is not necessarily the case. We can still collect impact fees on category B facilities without having it specified in the CIE. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: That was a lot of double talk and hopefully -- MR. COHEN: Sounded like my double talk. MR. SCHMITT: -- it made some sense. But the bottom line is it's not needed in the CIE to go up to DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on page two? Randy, at the bottom of page two, item C, it talks about three percent of the adopted level of service standard volume of an impacted roadway. In order to determine the impact it says, in the first sentence, a county wide population greater than three percent of the population projections for parks, solid waste, water, sewer, et cetera. What population statistics are you using, since we have so many? MR. COHEN: Looking at, you know, for parks -- this is one of the things going back to the AUIR. Because now for parks, you know, solid waste, we're using weighted population, but for water Page 8 March 9, 2006 and sewer we're using a different standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. How are you going to deal with that three percent when it comes down to figuring it out. What statistic will the public need to know to use? MR. COHEN: We probably should clarify it based on the changes in the AUIR. We have to make a note to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page two? Page three? Page four? Anything on page four? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. On page four. The list of roadways is not the same as page five of the transportation element. (Whereupon, Paul Midney has entered the room.) COMMISSIONER CARON: The list of roadways is not the same as page five of the transportation element, and I was just wondering why. MR. COHEN: Don Scott is coming up to address that particular issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He might as well park himself there for quite a while. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. Me too. I don't know why it's the same. Why it's not the same. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. SCOTT: I was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Which one is right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One at a time, guys. MR. SCOTT: I put together a list of what I assumed, based on the time frames that we have projects done. I'd rather not have a list in there. Because one of the problems is the policy is to, when a roadway gets widened to six lanes, go to a level service C standard. The problem is, you do, you know, a GMP change, it takes quite a while to get to that process. At the Page 9 March 9, 2006 moment, this would be the list that I would have in there. One of the things that I talked to Randy about for the next cycle was updating it again. And we can either -- what I'd like to say is that roadways that are six lanes be level of service E standard. All others be level of service D standard and cover it that way. But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, why is it when a road is six lanes it automatically goes to E. Why are we going to the lowest standard instead of an acceptable standard? MR. SCOTT: The policy by the board was essentially realizing that you can't -- you know, you're not going to widen it to eight lanes and that you can't to anything else to that roadway but go to E. But then yet, obviously it raises the issue that you guys raised before whether, is that a standard you want. You know, the other side of this is looking at the long-range transportation plan. You got a lot of needs. We can only afford cost fees. We can't afford to get to level of service E on every roadway in the county as you go out to 2030. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you put a level E, that means development can proceed until it fails at level E? And until it fails at level E, development will not look or have to provide to you alternatives around that road system. Basically, as long as it's acceptable and it's working at the level of service it's adopted, the alternatives that they would have to provide aren't necessarily sought as eagerly as if it was a level of service C or D, because then at that level, they'd realize, uh-uh, to get on this road system and not see it go below C to D, we better find some alternatives. And all of a sudden what you'd be having is a lot of people looking for a lot of alternatives and funding alternatives so no road segment is as badly -- at such a low level of service as we seem to be wanting or accepting all of Page 10 March 9,2006 them to be right at the get go. MR. SCOTT: I don't disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. SCOTT: We've discussed this a lot. I don't believe -- say I want to do level of service E standard. DCA is not going to accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not going to accept-- MR. SCOTT: No because -- if I can't get to a level -- you're not going to be able to get to a level of service C on every roadway. Should we have an unselected corridor, D, E, you know . We've -- over the last couple of years, we've pretty much beaten this to death. This is where we're at right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but what I was suggesting, Don, is if we started with a preferred higher level and people seek and come back with ideas and you get peoples' brains working to find alternatives. Now I don't mean your departments, I mean, some creative ideas that the development industry could only do with the lands that they own. And they come back in with suggestions so that if we have to go to level E, let's force it to go there not just roll over and give it up right from the get go. Maybe you could find more alternatives if we were pushing the envelope a little harder in that front end. That's kind of what I'm trying to say. MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, it's a discussion we have had before, 100th hour versus 250th hour versus, you know. It's somewhat the same thing. It's setting a level that -- is it's attainable, feasible, cost feasible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well-- MR. SCOTT: But as a Board, obviously you can make recommendations towards where you want to go. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. Page 11 March 9,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Let the record show Mr. Midney is here. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm sorry. Let the record show, I left home two hours ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're driving on a Level E service road, so be happy. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Exactly. That's my point. I just had to drop a patient off at the Cleveland Clinic so I didn't really go out of the way. But the roads are extremely slow, and I think we're shooting for too low. I think that if we don't expect -- if we don't have any higher expectations, we won't do anymore. But I also realize that this is a Board of Commissioners decision, it's not your decision. It's finding the best that you can. MR. SCOTT: In the end it's financial. Can you afford to do a level service C on every road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Exactly. Yeah. MR. SCOTT: You know, understand I read letters that say, it took me this long to get from here to here. And the first thing I'll do is I'll measure it out and I'll go, well, it is whatever speed it is. And it might be level of service E. Now, is that what anybody expects out there? No, it's not. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I mean, there's such a huge deterioration and drive time since I have been out there. And it really gets bad when you start getting near Naples. And I don't have the answer, but I think if we don't try to set our standards a little bit higher, we're never going to get any improvement. It's only going to continue to deteriorate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, you had said the DCA wouldn't let us change this to a different level of service. MR. SCOTT: I won't pretend to guess what they're going to Page 12 March 9, 2006 do. But I'm -- what usually will happen is, well, okay, I'm going to set a level of service down on a certain thing, and they'll say, okay, over what time period do you think some of these things are going to fail, and that development would get stopped or can't go forward. And I would project, like I did before, ten years' worth of what I think is going to be able to go -- you know, what road is going to fail, what road is not going to and they'll probably be even more roads on that. And that raises flags with them. That's why, obviously, that's why we got the TCMA's and TCEA in some areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but wouldn't we be in a better position to simply say no to new rezones if the level of service of say a C or a D was not going to be sustained if that particular development came on line. Rezoning is an entitlement that's not an obligation of us to approve. So, wouldn't that give us a better opportunity to say no until they came up with solutions to make the road system better? MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but in some areas -- when you're talking about, and obviously, the conversation to the east. I don't care what I set it at out there, all that development is still going to go keep going. The only thing I will stop out there is commercial development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is -- all of the unzoned development out there is going -- MR. SCOTT: No. I mean the platted estates. Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you, but I would like to see us figure out a way to not make it any worse than it already is, because we have no ability now, or it's harder now to say no when we set such a low level of standard on so many roads. And especially if it's policy that everything is E right from the get Page 13 March 9, 2006 go. MR. SCOTT: Well, E when it gets to six lanes or you can't widen it was really what that was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your comment about DCA -- let me go back to my original question. If you look on the next page, State and Federal roads are able to state higher levels of service. Those roads have all failed. We know I75 failed. So, why are they allowed to do that? Why are we allowed to allow more traffic on a failed level of service on their road but we can't do the same thing for ourselves? MR. SCOTT: Well, I think you made the argument right there. I75 failed so that has a level C or D standard? Nothing is stopped by that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, exactly my point. Why isn't it? Why is it that we know everybody in this county needs to go on I75 to get out of this county to go anywhere. And if there's a hurricane evacuation to go anywhere, and you know what 1633180 paren 6 says. Why then do we keep allowing it all to happen? MR. SCOTT: Just as we went through before. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you can't answer this. Sorry. MR. SCOTT: I have though in the sense that when we put forward what we put forward before for concurrency, we wanted to do a shorter time frame. We wanted to do some other things. I had to show what roadways I thought in that amount of time based on funding and everything else we could get to and what roadways would fail. And the first iteration of that was, you know, we got a report saying you can't do this. And there was negotiations and back and forth and we got to where we're at now. Now, is everybody totally happy with where we're at? No. But in the end, they don't want us to stop development. You know, to totally stop development they want it to be timed. I mean, we Page 14 March 9, 2006 are in the same issue. We want to kind of time improvements to it, but you are touching on some of the issues. Can you build everything to make, you know, to even have acceptable level of services in the future and construction levels. We've done easy projects to date. And I say that, they haven't been that easy but we've widened existing roads and things like that. If you want to get more capacity in the urban area, there's no easy way to do that. And as you've probably seen in the newspaper and TV and whatever, the stuff out in the Estates is not easy right now and there's new corridors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what though, stuff out in the Estates happening is because the Estates is not a gated community . You wouldn't dare take a road through the middle of a gated community. MR. SCOTT: It might. If you -- Livingston, you think Livingston stopping at Radio means that nobody ever brings that up about bringing it south through all the development? No. It comes up every day. As it gets -- but I don't believe that if you go out project out to the future, that some of those hard choices aren't going to have to be made. They are going to be made. So it's not going to be any different than the Estates in that respect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly don't agree with your policy of labeling everything E to start with. I don't see where that policy is addressed in that. And these documents though I think you're limiting the E to the ones listed. Am I correct in that statement? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That policy you stated about -- is a self department policy? MR. SCOTT: It was board directed. Page 15 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So for the discussion that we're on page four, basically what Ms. Caron brought up is a need to correct the table that's on page four? Randy, is Don's proposed correction something you can take care of if this Board is recommending it? MR. COHEN: Yes. We'll take Don's directions and report them and we'll import them into the CIE and also make sure they're consistent with the transportation element as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that fine with everybody else on the panel. (All affirm.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page four? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, this is pure renumbering. If you look back at 1.4 on the previous page, where you start off, public facilities, I think that should be an A. In other words, normally you go from numbers first subheading would be a letter. I know you're getting rid of the category A concept. But, for example, instead of 1.1 under 1.5, I think it should be A, and level of service D should be a B. Or, anyway, renumbering. I think it's going to get confusing when you actually see it in numbers. In other words, go back and look on page three where you had 1.4. The subcategories of that start out with letters. MR. COHEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On this section 1.5 you're continuing numbers first, and I think if you -- I mean, I know there's a lot of scratch outs, it's hard to see, but I think Page 16 March 9,2006 that's not going to be what you want. MR. COHEN : We'll take a look at it and make it consistent with the previous page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions on page five? Don, the top of page five, you acknowledge in the GMP, or in the AR for the GMP, that I75 in its worse case is C. But you also acknowledge, as everybody else has, that it's F in reality. How can that happen when we know that every development in this community is going to be hitting I75, yet it's failed by at least from C to F, but we still approve. How does that approval process work? How do we keep approving things to go on a road system that so badly failed? MR. SCOTT: Our concurrency system doesn't include I75 as a big picture. You've mentioned, yesterday I think it was, about the no de minimus on a failing hurricane link. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOTT: When this was raised with our outside legal before, they essentially said it's not something that could be enforced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we have a GMP that tells us what it's supposed to be, but in reality and acknowledged on public record, it's not. But it means nothing, even though a state statute said it should be addressed. I wonder how our legal system puts all that together. MR. SCOTT: I guess on the positive side, it's programmed to be six laned starting next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Each direction? MR. SCOTT: Three lanes each direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On I75? MR. SCOTT: On I75. Page 1 7 March 9,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That won't help at all. By next year the three lanes will be full, and we'll be right where we're at today. MR. SCOTT: And next month I am scheduling, I hope, the first toll authority meeting for the ten lanes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My God. Okay. I don't know what we can change on five to do anything if it's routinely ignored, is basically what you're saying. MR. SCOTT: Well, FDOT would say we don't approve development. These are our standards, meanwhile try to -- try to apply it all across the county and have DCA come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Don't we have an obligation if there's such an important thing that failed to try to compensate some other way. MR. SCOTT: With a parallel route? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. By making the standard stricter on the roads that aren't failing. MR. SCOTT: I mean, you're getting to the point of saying that a moritorium essentially. Because even if I -- if we apply the de minimus on the Interstate, or let's go to level of service C on Livingston, which is a parallel route, I think you'll end up at the same place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, we can sit here and beat a dead horse, but I'm not sure our voices are going to do any good since everything seems to be against common sense. And I know you're not, Don, but I know that's what you're stuck to enforce. MR. SCOTT: Well, you know, the Board at the -- obviously, we're talking about the CIE. The board decided to move all of the roadways out of the concurrency window until we have an approved contract on projects. So that will at least hold up Page 18 March 9,2006 approval of developments until at least we have an approved contract instead of within the first two years. So, in some respects, yeah, you are being heard. Is there other policy changes you could make? There's only so much the Board can do too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I ask you one thing? We have a series of PUDS and rezones coming before us at our level. And every time they've come before us in the past, with the exception of the one on Davis -- and that one only came back after a challenge -- your department has always recommended approval for everything. Does that mean based on your statement in the policy by moving all these out, that the new PUDs and rezones coming forward will be recommended inconsistent or not approved by your department? MR. SCOTT: Well, hear what I said here. Out two or three years is not out of the five years. If it's consistency would be five years. It depends where it's at. Will there be more inconsistent projects, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I thought you said the policy was that if you don't have a contract in and the funding in place, then the rezones aren't going to be approved. Is that -- MR. SCOTT: No. I'm talking about site plans for that purpose of two years. Consistent concurrency. Consistency looked out five years. So if the project is still within the five years, like a fifth year, for instance, then that might be consistent. Now, concurrency wise, what's been happening is, if it's within two years, that's considered capacity of the road. Obviously, one of the discussions that we had during the AUIR is, are you really starting the project, you know, next year versus maybe it slipped a couple of months and then you get more months on time and you're approving, let's say, site plans whatever to Page 19 March 9, 2006 go forward when it might not have been within the two-year time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, even if something is consistent, it may not be concurrent -- MR. SCOTT: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- therefore, your reading would be it's consistent with the GMP, but when they come in for their SDP, they wouldn't be provided with the concurrency to -- MR. SCOTT: Perfect example, at the last board meeting was Rock Edge on 951. It was consistent, but it would not be concurrent right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps -- that understanding helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless he gets to the speaker, I don't think we can have it on record. . MR. SCOTT: Joe is touching on it. I mean, the bill, the senate bill talks about proportionate share. Some of the issues with the legislature is trying to do essentially is what can take away even some of what we're talking about here. Essentially, make a proportionate share. Doesn't matter -- and as long as the construction is within the five years, which I know we've had a debate as to whether that's even to be stuck to five years. because if you're showing a process that shows PDE design right away, but maybe construction is in the sixth year, they might end up pushing that even further, that envelope further. But, essentially allowing things to go, even though it might be four or five years away -- and that still didn't mean the project is delivered because if you have a two to three year time frame for construction, you know, it could be seven, eight years out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: GMP section of transportation, policies 5.1 and 5.2, a lot of times they're generally cited in regards to Page 20 March 9, 2006 traffic. Isn't those one of those deal with concurrency and the timing of it? And if they do, wouldn't that make it inconsistent to approve it if it's not -- if it's a concurrency driven issue? MR. SCOTT: I had it in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MR. SCOTT: 5.1 and 5.2 are more for consistency, I thought. But maybe I'm, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm checking it myself. I don't mean to belabor the point. I just couldn't understand how the top of page five fit with the reality of what we're dealing with. I think you thoroughly explained that. Although, it doesn't make common sense that the State turns the cheek in one direction and we turn it in the other and nobody looks at the reality of the whole picture, but I understand. MR. SCOTT: All along they'll say, we don't approve development, you do. But then try to stop it. It's the other side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Any other questions on page five? Page six? Any questions on page six? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the top -- let's see. I have a note to myself, explain? Two years of constructed line cell capacity at average disposal rate for the previous. And it went from five to three years. Is that based on efficiencies or other changes? MR. COHEN: If you recall from the AUIR, the presentation that was made by Mr. Deloney's department, they had looked previously at five years of line subcapacity. And they looked at their recycling efforts that took place, and they found that by looking at the previous three years, it gave them a more accurate depiction. Page 21 March 9, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this is an AUIR piece? MR. COHEN: It's the exact language from the AUIR. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I have another question on seven. The $270 capital investment per capita -- that's the impact fee, I believe -- was that approved? MR. COHEN: That was approved as is part of the AUIR, yes, . SIr. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I have down under objective two, I guess it is, financial feasibility. Future development - - in the middle of that paragraph -- future development, was there a proportionate cast of facility improvements necessitated by growth? Have we yet determined what a proportionate cost will be on any of these things, or is that still in question as to how that would be arrived at? MR. COHEN: That proportionate cost pertaining to proposed and new development, bears that rationale connection with our impact fee ordinance. And right now we're in the process of updating the parks and recreation impact fee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we don't -- I guess my question is central to the issue of proportionate cost of whether or not that's been determined yet, whether that's been qualified. Because now all of this is associated with 360, correct? Bill 360, or Growth Management Act of2005. MR. COHEN: Well, the proportionate cost provision right there has been in there all along and had no interrelationship with 360. It was there and put in there to tie in for basically new growth, paying for new growth. And that was the rationale for that particular statement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hadn't realized that we used proportionate cost previously. Page 22 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only the underlined words are-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I appreciate that, but that jumped out at me and that's why I highlighted it. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page six? If not-- MR. KRASOWSKI: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you register? Okay. MR. KRASOWSKI: I just want to ask a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, from now on if you could just let Randy know, but we'll let it go his time. Go ahead. MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, I signed up with Randy to discuss the solid -- excuse me. I signed up with Randy to discuss the solid waste issue and I heard it mentioned, so I'm curious to know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First can you-- MR. KRASOWSKI: My name is Bob Krasowski. I'm curious to know now that you're discussing some aspects of the solid waste AUIR if somehow by doing this prior to discussing that you're locking into any policy decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Just that the AUIR discuss the three year line cell capacity from the past in order to judge the future instead of five years. That's the only thing. MR. KRASOWSKI: All right. You know, I'm not as familiar with this process as you are, but I guess I still remain signed up for -- MR. COHEN: You need to fill out another slip for today. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. But you do have my one from yesterday? MR. COHEN: Yes. And I turned that one in to the court reporter, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, you are as familiar as we are because this is our first time. It happens once every seven Page 23 March 9, 2006 years, so new for us too. MR. KRASOWSKI: I'm not as talented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page seven. Any questions on page seven? Randy, on the bottom of page seven, policy 2.7, the county shall continue to collect impact fees for parks and recreation. It crosses out EMS and library. Obviously, because they're not category A or category B. Does that prevent us from collecting impact fees? MR. COHEN: No, sir. The rationale -- and when you see any category B facility crossed off in any of these provisions is because they're no longer part of the CIE, but they're still part of the AUIR and will be collected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure by that policy we weren't limiting ourselves not to collect impacts fees. MR. COHEN: We're fine, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page eight. Any questions? Just for the informational policy, 3.2 certainly strongly brings the AUIR into the EAR for discussion. Which also means it's in our GMP, in which also is the strong reason why I believe that CCPC will always and should always need to be reviewing the AUIR from here and in the future, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I second that, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Page nine any questions? In policy 4.3, this isn't a question about a change. It's about an application because of some of the issues that are further in this document. In the middle of the policy it says proj ects for which appropriations have been made and the annual budget will not be removed once they have been relied upon for the issuance of a final site development plan, final plat or building permit. My question there is, as we learn in the traffic issues involving Page 24 March 9, 2006 the A UIR, there are a lot of accepted road systems that I believe were budgeted, the money was not spent and carried over. Does that play into this sentence at all? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I think this is an inconsistency that has been pointed out as part of what we're doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we need to correct it? MR. SCOTT: I know I'm meeting Friday or something like that regarding inconsistencies and I don't know the end result of that yet, but with our county attorney's office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The inconsistencies in this EAR? MR. SCOTT: Well, based on what we're trying to do with the CIE and push the projects out within the first three years and then back to what's in the growth management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this panel as the LPA is in a position to have to approve this to move it forward to the BCC. If you're meeting to change language, how would we know -- how could we possibly review it for approval? MR. SCOTT: It's obviously, it's happening right now. I mean, the AUIR was when that was, that decision was made to push the proj ects out, and then now we're finding the repercussions of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, any language that's changed after we meet on this CIE would have to come back to us for re-approval based on a clause 250 -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I think it would come back. And you have a meeting -- it's not with me, it's with someone else in our office, is it not? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And actually someone else from the outside set it up, so -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. So what I think could happen because we're still going through this process, we could bring Page 25 March 9, 2006 that back to you because we're not done. The meeting is Friday, is it not? MR. SCOTT: I think it's a week from Friday I think it's the 17th. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. Well, our meetings with the Board are not until towards the end of April. So I believe that we have plenty of latitude to bring that back to you and you could make your approval of this element at the time you do it contingent on that being brought back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess we'll have to keep a note of that, Randy, that this one won't get resolved today then. We'll just continue it until this new language gets in. MR. COHEN: For the record, just so maybe Don has some indications of what your concerns are, maybe you can provide that to him as he moves forward going into that meeting. MR. SCOTT: I know what my concerns are too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll keep going through it. Page nine, anything else on page nine? Page ten. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. This is perhaps a tidbit, but it starts out at the top to insure, but if you look at page eight, policy 3.3, they struck the word insure. I know there's a difference insure versus ensure, but I'm just wondering, are we trying to eliminate the word insure? MR. COHEN: I think it's in two different contexts, Mr. Murray. If you look at the context and the top of page ten, that's to insure the public facilities are in place concurrent with development. And I think if you look at our currency management system, that's the intent of wanting to insure that those capital facilities are there. As a point of emphasis it Page 26 March 9, 2006 was left in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I have no problem with it then. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page ten? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, it's for the County Attorney's Office, so I'll wait for Margie to get done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry, I was having a sidebar with Mr. Scott. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if you heard, Ms. Caron had a question. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Margie, on page ten down at the bottom 4 B. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: The necessary facilities and services are under construction or the contract for such facilities and services has been let. Let is arcane legal term. If you look it up in the legal dictionary it tells you it's an arcane term. Is there a better word that we could be using? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a very common term in purchasing. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I've always heard that. I can look into it, but I've always heard that term especially in dealing with government type contracts. I've always heard the contract has been let, but I'll be happy to look and see if there's another term that we could use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page ten? Page 11. Page 27 March 9, 2006 Mr. Scott, I would assume that C and D are going to be part of your discussions with the County Attorney's Office in regard to the timing of those events? MR SCOTT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will save me asking questions about them. Thank you. Page 12, there's a note on page 12, see capital projects under separate PDF page 14 through 27. I'mjust curious what PDF is that? Why is that note in the CIE? MR. SCHMITT: The document that's made up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Better tell us who you are. MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Corby Schmitt, Senior Planner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCHMITT: The printed document has been from two different files. And the following pages, those tables, the five year scheduled capital improvements and the summary that follows is simply separate and that's a reference knowing to insert for those who make up the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the tables that follow in the book that I have start at page 16 actually. That's what confused me. I didn't know if there was another set of PDF's. MR. COHEN: For practical purposes, it should be removed because it's an internal note. We'll have it removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on page 13? In the middle of the first number one, development order review, there's some changed language. After the changed language -- first of all, let me read this sentence. As part of the review for all development owners, other than final site development plans final plat and building permits, for those having negative impacts on public facilities, our first questionnaire is, how is public facilities defined? Because it's not capitalized and it's not bolded. I'm not sure if there's a definition for it. Then it goes on, the county will Page 28 March 9,2006 determine whether or not sufficient capacity of public facilities. And I'm just wondering if that opens all public facilities up to capacity or just ones in the former category A or former B or where we're at. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, if you look on page one under policy 1.1 where category A used to be, you'll see the definition of what public facilities are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then should we follow through -- don't you normally capitalize a definition or something so you know you're referring to the definition? I wouldn't know that the definition you referred to here is that public facility. I'm just wondering is there a way to tie it back? MR. COHEN: Maybe we can reference page one as set forth on page one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would -- because your language that you added is certainly going to be more intense than what was there so I think -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just a minute, it may be better instead of referring to page one, because pages change, we could refer it back to the policy number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 13? Page 14. Again, in the body of 6A towards the bottom, first public facilities -- and I know you do a lot of times. And, Margie, how do we normally know that when they're referring to public facilities, they're referring to that public facility as defined in the beginning of this document? Because this document is riddled with references to public facilities. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think that historically we've known that the public facilities that are caught by the AUIR have historically been the category A and category B public facilities. I think now because of the change, we may need to, you know, Page 29 March 9, 2006 wherever we reference it, we may need to clarify public facilities that we're talking about or add something that says for purposes of this element whenever the term public facilities is used, it means these public facilities and make it for purposes of the entire element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be helpful. Before when we had category A or category B it was very easy to reference category A public facilities as this one did. Now it just put a little level of confusions into it. This has got to come back to us anyway, so maybe staff can get it cleaned up in that regard before it comes back to us. Randy, is that -- was that a change you can implement? MR. COHEN: Yeah. I think the appropriate place would be in policy 1.1 to use that reference that it would be the definition. And 1.1 is applicable throughout the rest of the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to have to re-review this when Mr. Scott gets done with his meeting anyway, so maybe we can see all that language at one time. Page 15. MR. COHEN: Can I point something out on page 14 because there's language that was added? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MR. COHEN: If you look under 6A, you'll see language added notwithstanding any other provisions in the capital improvement element. And then there's the stuff that follows. But the final paragraph that basically says the AUIR will go into effect immediately upon approval by the Collier County Board of County commissioners. In the past that's how it was interpreted. And in this last AUIR cycle, the County Attorney's Office opined differently, and that particular sentence was added in by our staff with the intent to address how things had previously been interpreted. So I just wanted to point that out because it's Page 30 March 9, 2006 something that hasn't been there, but was added there for that express purpose. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: and I would like to comment on that. Our office jointly opined Mr. -- myself and Mr. Klatzkow that if there are moratoria, you don't have automatic moratoria. There's case law that tells us you have to go through a process to do a moritorium. But in discussing this provision further with Mr. Cohen, we understand that this has -- what this has the effect of doing is, if it takes something out of the five years then when you do the consistency analysis for, and 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation, it would not meet consistency. And also if it was moved beyond the two-year window, it would automatically be stopped by real time concurrency. So -- and I also belive there's some provisions in our land code that are going to need to be cleaned up after this because -- and I don't have the language right in front of me -- but it talks about an ASI or interim development control. So with that understanding, I don't have a problem with this language now because it will be automatically caught by our system without, you know, doing the moritorium. MR. COHEN: And the reason the language was inserted is if you have, like, a constrained road facility and you know right at the time of the A UIR, and you're not going to adopt the CIE until eight or nine months later, you're adding additional capacity to that additional trips on those roadways during that nine-month period while you wait for an amendment to the comprehensive plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or maybe it can work in reverse, is that the fact that it's in AUIR for improvement within a two-year cycle, then you can move ahead quicker and faster than if you had to wait eight or nine months to get it adopted. Well, it could Page 31 March 9, 2006 work either way. The fact that the both of you brought it up, and we didn't is there a conflict between your departments? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't think so. MR. COHEN: Not at all. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think us having had the discussion with Mr. Cohen, but you can't do an automatic moritorium. But the way the system is set up on the consistency review, it's already set that way in the comp plan. So, with consistency and concurrency. So we have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Scott? Is he still here? Oh, he's hiding beyond that big fellow. Don, in your -- in the A UIR, you had a series of ten existing deficient roadways that made it into the AUIR. If the AUIR did not go through its normal adoption process and become effective until it normally does versus what's happening here, how would the development approvals along those ten existing deficient segments have been reacted to should they come in for some more capacity means? MR. SCOTT: And Randy has touched it in the past when the boards, or if it was separate, said, okay, the AUIR is adopted. I go back and change all the numbers in the concurrency database and that's what we went with starting from that day. Now, based on the fact that it was -- and I guess at that point it didn't matter that you are ahead, you know, because you were giving something that you -- this is the way it's come out. You were given something that wasn't there before. The opposite is that I was going to go in there and pull all those proj ects -- you know, essentially capacity out and say, okay, it's not six lanes, it's four lanes until that time point so you have less capacity on it. The decision was that you can't implement that right away because you're taking away something without, I guess, Page 32 March 9, 2006 enough notice and other issues like that adopted through the CIE. So it wasn't the way we did it in the past. So, one of the things -- and I was talking to Randy about this yesterday -- I don't even have the new traffic counts in the concurrency system now. Because, we've been told to wait until the CIE process before we put in the new capacities. Unfortunately, one of the things I was just thinking about while I was sitting there is, we were going to address the AUIR again in June I guess. I'll still be on the one before at the rate we're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. SCOTT: Based on finding out what happens with DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This particular sentence, does it do more or less for capacity on our road systems at an earlier or later time frame? MR. SCOTT: It would give you, I guess if you had a project in there. Say we're back at former times and you say, next year we're starting a project and whatever. It would give you more capacity earlier on. N ow the way that CIE is though, it would be that I could do it right now where I'm not able to do it right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Can you explain that? MR. SCOTT: Where we push the projects out of the concurrency window. I can't apply that yet. I'm not applying that right now in the concurrency data5base because it has to go through the adoption -- the CIE has to be adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this particular sentence-- MR. SCOTT: Is helping me for what is reality right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But once this is adopted, it says that way so the future is going to be more exposed, but the present isn't, only because this first time it has to go through adoption. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. You know, if we get to the end of the Page 33 March 9,2006 year and the CIE is not adopted by DCA, do we change it back again in January? I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this helps you right now but it hurts us a year from now basically? MR. SCOTT: That's what we do a year from now. If the CIE is adopted by DCA and they're okay with what we're doing, we might leave it the way it is and it helps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions about this nice confusing issue? MR. SCOTT: Hey, imagine how it is for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if you change -- we'll get another shot at this because you're going to come back with this whole thing anyway, so maybe between now and then we'll understand it a little better. Page 15, are there any questions on page 15? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Randy, it's just a matter of timing. What is the -- when is the third evaluation going to occur and are these evaluations supposed to occur every five years? MR. COHEN: It used to be five years and then it got changed to seven. We had one in 1997. The last one was finalized in 2004. Normally in that schedule we would be 2011 doing another EAR, but my understanding is that DCA is going to come out with a modified scheduled I think again based on, you know, after Senate Bill 360 goes into place. I'm assuming we're going to be 2011, but it could be a year one way or another probably. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But should we put a time or just let it float? MR. COHEN: I think we should let it float for now until we Page 34 March 9, 2006 know the exact timing of when our next EAR is going to be required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 15? Ifnot we've got a series of tables. Before we go into the specifics on the tables, I have a general question for the county attorney. And I had thought the County Attorney's Office had recommended not to get into specifics -- specificity in the GMP. Are you aware of this exhibit eight table and the specificity, not only of the various individual projects, but their dates, the monetary values for each one and how they span over a four or five year time frame. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, in the capital improvement schedule, that's what that is. That's a part of the comp plan. When talking about specifics, I was talking about some of the languages in the plan that were required to have a capital improvement schedule as part of the capital improvement element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's part of the plan, what happens if, for example, number one is Collier County Boulevard, Davis, South US 41. It's scheduled for fiscal year some work done in 2005 to 2006 of -- was it $2,741,000? I'm assuming there's three zeros at the end. Or is that two billion anymore? MR. SCOTT: Two million for right of way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If this comes in at 3.2 million, do we have to change -- do we have to change the GMP? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm going to have to defer to the financial -- the folks that work on the capital improvement schedule. It's required in the comp plan, and I don't know what our practice has been if that happens. MR. SCOTT: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know this is an impractical result, but if we're looking at this as literally as we've been told to look Page 35 "" , 'March 9, 2006 at it before, ifit's in the GMP, it's locked in unless YOU' change the GMP . We have multiple 'pages of very definitive information, by the way, that does not correspond to the :~ UIR which is going to be my next question. But if these values don't hold, how do you c;harige them? Ifwe can't change the GMP except for the GMP amendment, IS .tl1~re an exc~ption' for Exhibit A? .',. i MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, there are some -- and I don't know this plays into it, but in the past there was an opportunity to do annual updates to the capital improvements schedule without going through, you know, a full blown amendment process. And I think that's -- MR. COHEN: As long as you're not removing the project as a provision -- and maybe Ms. Student can you correct me if I am wrong -- you can actually do it by ordinance. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Right. And we have done that in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if Don goes over -- say instead of $2.741 he's $2.742, can he spend that $1,000 prior to getting the amendment through some kind of ordinance or process, or our hands are tied? I mean, this seems pretty impractical, this kind of detail in a conceptual document. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, we are required to have a capital improvement schedule to send to DCA as part of this plan. And, you know, if it comes in over, I don't know that our hands are necessarily tied. I would quite frankly have to look into that and report back to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This whole element has to come back to us. Would you do that? My question is possibly maybe we don't need to put the values in. If you just got to put a general schedule In. MR. COHEN: We do have to put the values in because we have Page 36 March 9, 2006 to demonstrate that it's financially feasible. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: To demonstrate financial feasibility. MR. COHEN: All I can tell you from history wise is we've always had a capital improvement element. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: We have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can tell you history wise since 1989 we've always had a provision that says you've got to -- you're required to do a PUD in a barrier island, but we found out yesterday that ain't true. So, maybe there are changes to this that we don't know about. MR. SCOTT: I know. And I always applied the AUIR when I went back to the office too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, on these tables, they don't -- have you reviewed the input on these tables in detail? MR. SCOTT: Well, what happened was, after the AUIR the work program was updated based on the direction of the Board to push proj ects out two years, and that was done by our budget EL T office. And then it went back and they take -- comprehensive planning took that data and put that into this table. So the AUIR that you had previously is not the same based on what happened with pushing out the projects two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the projects that are listed on this table, don't, from my review, correspond to the projects that you listed on page nine of the AUIR for 2005. My question is, could you check that before you come back to us with a rewrite and make sure they are consistent and that the values you have in the AUIR correspond to the time frames on here? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On these notes there's a column that says notes. What are those notes and what do they refer to? Page 37 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us what page you're on, sir? MR. SCOTT: It's the third column over. Those are the years for -- in the right-hand column you put the money by year, but essentially when it says '06 that's right of way. It's our designations, like R is for right of way, CI is for construction and construction inspection. I don't know what else is in there. Design is D and those are the years that we're doing design right of way or construction. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, because we're going to have more time in this, I will probably go back in and compare each department's entry under this table for the next meeting. It would be wise if you guys did that and came back with any corrections so we haven't got to redo it at the meeting next time. In particular, if you turn to page six of the table, it starts there. And I notice now that Ms. Student said that we should have values in here, why doesn't the utility department put their values? MR. COHEN: The utilities department will explain that as part of their presentation dealing with public utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would rather have a legal explanation. Ms. Student, if the values are required, do you know? And is there an exception for utilities? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: As far as I know, there is not. MR. COHEN: I can answer the question in brief. Is there an exception? No, sir. Is it required to be financially feasible? Yes, sir. The reason that the numbers are not there is the public utilities department is updating its water and sewer master plan and they don't have the final numbers. And they wanted to put in accurate numbers. That plan is scheduled to go before the Board of Page 38 March 9, 2006 County Commissioners for adoption, I believe, in the first meeting in June. So they felt that to transmit something that was inaccurate to DCA, okay, with numbers, and then come back with numbers that were totally different, might raise the red flag. So at transmittal, they felt uncomfortable putting the numbers in there. But when you saw the document for adoption purposes, you would have their final numbers as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners as part of that final water and sewer master plan. So that's why they're not there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I certainly would like a legal opinion as to whether or not that is -- first of all, we're going to have to approve this. If we're approving a blank check, I don't see how we can do that. And I don't see why the utilities department can't play ball with the rest of the departments in this county and provide the information everybody else has. MR. COHEN: And the concern is duly noted because DCA will be reviewing the document for financial feasibility and how are they going to be able to review it for financial feasibility if there's no number present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be pretty silly of us to send something to them that we know is incomplete, so, I don't know what the legal department has to do to make this happen, but it should be -- MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Well, I don't think it's just the Legal Department. I think it is the Comprehensive Planning Department in concert with the legal department, you know, discussing this with the utilities folks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Not only are we going to be asked to vote on this sometime but so is the BCC before they have any numbers as well. Margie said they get it in April and they're Page 39 March 9, 2006 not going to see the master plan until June. MR. COHEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR MURRAY : Yeah. I have a question on page five of the tables there. Right at the top. First one is Keewaydin Boat Shuttle. What are the impacts if that doesn't go forward? What are the implications here because I don't remember this project being in the AUIR, although it very well could have been. MR. COHEN: The implications with respect to any item that's listed in the five year scheduled capital improvements in any area, if we remove it, we have to provide DCA with the substantive rationale as to why it's been removed. Okay? For example, you couldn't get permits, okay, for whatever it would be. And you're never going to get them. That's justification to have it removed. If the rationale was just financial, you say you didn't have the money at a specific time, that isn't a substantive reason that they would say, well, you can take it on out. So if there's some substantive reason for taking it on out and something happens like in a road proj ect, you know, Don can't acquire his right of way in the specific time period. Then we can push something on out. Or ifhe has a permitting issue. Those are the things that can be removed as long as we can provide the substantive rationale. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we know whether a motion was made and passed to include the Keewaydin Boat Shuttle in capital? MR. COHEN: That was provided from Parks and Recreation. As part of their presentation dealing with their element, maybe we can address that question there as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you open that question because I don't Page 40 March 9, 2006 have a recollection of it having -- I know it was requested, but I'm not sure that I remember it being -- MR. COHEN: Mr. Schmitt dealt with Parks and Recs with that particular element, and he'll raise that issue with them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions in the CIE before we move onto transportation? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. On page five under the project. Vandy Inn beach access and Vandy parking garage. Are we to presume that means Vanderbilt? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Why don't we just say Vanderbilt rather than Vandy? MR. COHEN: We'll make the change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if there's no other questions in the CIE, then let's move to the transportation element. Court reporter, we'll take a break at 10:30. Unless Mr. Scott -- unless you have another better approach, we'll just move forward like we have? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all, the meetings that you're going to have with the County Attorney's Office, are they going to be changing anything that's in this element? MR. SCOTT: Not sure at this point. I would believe, yes, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this element's final review by us will be after you have your meeting on the 17th? MR. SCOTT: That's fair. We'll be back anyways, so -- Page 41 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any questions on page one of the transportation element? Hearing none, we'll move to page two. Any questions on page two of the transportation element? Okay. Then page three? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could you help me, please. In the series that you have, the bulleted series it's the -- let's see. The third one down. The use of the word protection, what do we mean by protection there? I'm assuming it might be like acquiring property way in advance. Is that what that means? MR. SCOTT: Well, in some respects too it's land development code items. Anything that we could do to -- or as we review site development plans, things like that, that we know we're going to widen in the future, try to have setbacks, issues like that, protection of, not at least buying buildings, besides buying land. Trying to protect the fact that you're not allowing, or at least putting on record that this is going to widen and not all cases you know exactly what it is, but you try to get, you know, through corridors. Even the long range plan, you're raising issues that, okay, these roads are going to be widened in the future and there's a possibility that this will be a four-lane roadway, please set back your house as much as possible, or buildings, whatever. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that internal only, or is that public notice? MR. SCOTT: We do it in both cases. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We do public and -- okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein. Page 42 March 9, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Maintaining a county-Wide major roadways in an acceptable level. What are we calling that acceptable level? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's the first bullet. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. MR. SCOTT: D and E. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: D and E? MR. SCOTT: Level of service D and E. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should we use the word adopted level instead of acceptable? D and E is not acceptable for some people. MR. SCOTT: Funny thing is, I'm not sure it's exactly just standard oriented. It might be resurfacing and other issues like that. When you think of policies, but -- objectives. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I also have another one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, before we leave that one, does that mean the word acceptable is what you're suggesting leaving? Because again, I think that's a subjective determination. I don't know of any commissioner that said the accepted level of service shall be. I think it's the adopted level of service that they address; isn't it? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When Mr. Cohen gets back, we need to make sure he's aware of this change. MR. SCOTT: I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as one of the planners has it then. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On the seventh bullet down it says, providing for safe and convenient access between adjoining properties and insuring safe and convenient traffic circulation within Page 43 March 9, 2006 and between future developments. I know that you encourage in PUDS for the interconnectivity, but can you really effectively insure that this can be achieved? MR. SCOTT: No. I mean, we lose more than we gain. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that. MR. SCOTT: We've talked about-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This language is locking you into a failure situation by stating that it is a provision. MR. SCOTT: We've talked about doing land development code where we're requiring, but obviously you know there's issues of certain places you're not going to get interconnection either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Change the word insuring to encourage? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think -- That's what I'm driving at. MR. SCOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for everybody? Hearing no nays. Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I want to point out that, again, this is descriptive of what the element contains. So, as long as we say encouraging, we want to carry that through wherever the other parts of the element are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Some of them actually say encouraging too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page three? If not, we'll move on to page four. Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Policy 1.1, second line. No less than five years. It should be not less than five years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I have that marked. Page 44 March 9, 2006 MR. SCOTT: It's probably a typo. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page four? Page five. Anybody have any questions on page five? Well, this goes back to -- MR. SCOTT: Same thing as the CIU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to redo that table accurately. Page six. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 3.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In policy 3.1 just for qualification for me. It says, the county has implemented and maintains an advance right of way preservation and acquisition program. We would have called that paper streets in the northern climbs. Is that what you're referring to here, where you're requiring it in advance? Is that what that means? MR. SCOTT: It's not always just that. It's also in the purposes of knowing something is going to be widened in the future, and an opportunity to buy and things like that too. We can't -- for instance, we can't go out and use eminent domain to purchase if we don't have a design done. But we can do a purchase at a corner, for instance, if a seller is willing, you know and we're a willing buyer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So, that's essentially what I thought it might be. Thank you. That qualifies it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on page six? Mr. Scott on policy 3.3, you have a new word added, six. I just was wondering in reading that, if you're going to require sufficient right of way for six lanes of traffic, you need to define what types of roads you're going to get that for. I mean, do you know arterial, collector, rural? Page 45 March 9, 2006 MR. SCOTT: Arterial and collector. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be clearer if you added that to the policy. Do you see a problem with that? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I mean, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Somebody is making note of that. Does anybody have a problem with that? Panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page seven. MR. SCOTT: We have actually some changes on page seven we'd like to make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might get ahead of us then. We've got some too. Go ahead. MR. SCOTT: Well, we've gone through the certification process, and understand some staff that reviewed and wrote this previously doesn't do this anymore. And through our certifications process with the MPO, some of the things that are said in here and not consistent with FHW A standards for doing what we can do. Besides the fact that we have now a 20, 30 pathway plan. And the attorney can address those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Cadel Scott. I'm the pathways project manager for the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you his better half. MS. SCOTT: I am his better half. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: His other half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very good. MS. SCOTT: No, I'm the better half. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I know. Page 46 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your hair has been cut since the last time we've seen you. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's good to see you aboard. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. As Don mentioned, the MPO just went through their certification process and federal highway. In the past, we've kind of --the county has coordinated their pathway program along with the pathway advisory committee which reports to a totally different board than the Board of County Commissioners and Federal highway for dollars that are used for their planning purposes. Really would like to see a line between that. So we proposed a few changes. And policy 4.1, the only change in that is that the MPO shall periodically update the pathways plan. That's actually an MPO document, not a county document. Did you want me to continue on with our proposed changes, or? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm thinking, we're going to have to have this entire element come back because Don is going to be meeting with the law department next week. MS. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's going to be a rewrite. It might be better if you tell us what policies you're changing, not get into the changes and just bring it back in written format so we have time to think about it after Don's meeting. MS. SCOTT: Sure. It would be policy 4.1, 4.2 we would be proposing totally removing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. That was good. I had that one highlighted too. MS. SCOTT: Policy 4.3 amending just the year. Policy 4.4, Page 47 March 9,2006 we would be amending just language. And I believe that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well then-- MS. SCOTT: So, did you have any other suggestions while we're going back to rewrite? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did but I'll defer to the panel first. Does anybody have any issues they want to bring up? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Just on page seven right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, no. I'll go to the next thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On policy 4.7, the way it was written before, it was safe movement of motorized vehicles. Now we're making it a safe movement of non-motorized vehicles. Does that mean we've abandoned the motorized? Should it be -- MS. SCOTT: No. But I believe this policy references all of your bicycle/pedestrian elements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it was a mistake in the past? MS. SCOTT: I would believe that that was probably a mistake in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you're going to strike policy 4.2, so I'll defer my questions on that. On policy 4.3, the last three words were struck, as funds permit. Why was that struck? I mean, we can't build things without the funds, so I'm not sure why you'd want that out of there. It actually provides protection. MS. SCOTT: I don't have a problem with it being included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it helps. That way it's a caveat or a criteria that we could use. Policy 4.4. The last sentence talks about the order in Page 48 March 9, 2006 which such projects are to be constructed. The criteria for that order as how it's established, is that going to be implemented through the LDC? Is that what the idea is? MS. SCOTT: Well, actually my proposed rewrite of this language actually takes that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well then we don't need to discuss it. MS. SCOTT: Right. It's prioritized in our comprehensive pathway plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I had on seven. Anybody have questions on page eight? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is just grammatical, I believe. The very first one. The county shall incorporate bike lanes and roadways, resurfacing proj ects as -- and I deleted is -- physically possible, as physically possible, and that will not result in a safety or operational, or you could leave and will not, as is physically possible, and modify the balance of that sentence as you please. MS. SCOTT: So we're going to put it -- just strike it as? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think -- MS. SCOTT: We'll leave the as, strike is? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. SCOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is just a grammatical change? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all regarding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And on the second one, the one below that, 4.9 now, I think I crossed out which is physically. In other words, Florida Department of Transportation to the extent physically and safety possible. Which is I think is unnecessary there. Page 49 March 9,2006 MS. SCOTT: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page eight? Okay. MS. SCOTT: That was easy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Trinity. Nice to see you agaIn. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page nine. MS. SCOTT: He's trying to pawn this off on me now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 5.4. Concurrency exception. What is it? MR. SCOTT: TCEA was where essentially you have an exception to concurrency in that area as long as you meet criteria, you can go forward, as we said, no matter what. It was criteria based on, you know, mixed use development. Other improvements like operational bicycle/pedestrian improvements, transit improvements, things like that. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have a question in my mind though, how does that affect concurrency itself? And it just doesn't seem to add up to me. It should be concurrency, period. Now we're saying there's a way to do it and I can't understand how it's being done. MR. SCOTT: Essentially in that area specifically just on 41, if a project meets that criteria, they can go forward no matter what the trips are on 41. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There's nothing I can say about that. MR. SCOTT: And that goes back to -- that goes back to when we originally submitted and identifying that there were certain areas of the county that were going to fail and them saying, Page 50 March 9,2006 well, you have to do something else. You know, essentially being allowing somebody to go forward if they do certain things. That's where the TCEA and TCMA came out of. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So the road will actually get worse again, get further worse? MR. SCOTT: Well, in reality, some improvements down there are going to help but, long term, do I have, you know, a parallel road improvement for 41 that is the silver bullet for it, no, I don't. I know we've talked about eight laning in the past, but that, obviously the right of way was never set up for that and that would be very impactive too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Is there any thought to perhaps rethinking the list of things that you can do to make it right? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I've actually, with DCA -- well, with DCA they actually have contacted us and they're looking at all the TCAs across the state. And looking at, is it being effective in, you know, in what we're doing. And I believe there might be changes that come out of that. I had initial consultation with them. I haven't had follow up since, but that's something we'll be looking at. MR. COHEN: Let me add on to what Don is saying with respect to TCEAs. In Senate Bill 360, there's actually a requirement that we put into this particular element TCEA guidelines. The reason you don't see them is DCA is still working on the TCEA guidelines. So, I wanted to put that on the record that those are going to come forward, probably not as a part of the transmittal, but prior to your adoption because they anticipate them being done in July or August. And as Don indicated, that's the concern that the guidelines are not being effectively utilized to actually properly administer TCEA in the manner in Page 51 March 9, 2006 which it was involved. MR. SCOTT: And obviously the hard part is that, whatever you want to say. Say you did car pool parking or whatever. I mean, you can go and see if someone put that in there, but how is a certain business or whatever meeting those requirements. Very hard to go back and check all those. And that's part of the things we're discussing with them. COMMISSIONER CARON: You'll have input with DCA on this issue? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wouldn't one of the penalties under a TCEA is the loss of one unit for density, is it not also? Or TCEA. I'm talking about when we look for rezoning and they're looking to benefit an area they lose, that's the penalty. I know there are no -- none of the details. MR. SCOTT: Well, and there's mixed use. It's do a proper mixed use project instead of something -- I know that we've discussed in the past to because the original intent was to do it during site plan and it's not realistic to do that. Those are the things you're trying to apply at that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have some other questions. And this may -- I don't know, it struck me under one and two. It speaks to by more than five percent. Number two says, by less than five percent. But five percent -- I don't know, I don't want to be silly here, but it struck me five percent is not touched, so I can have less than five and more than five. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I know because it's DCA language. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I shouldn't have touched that. MR. SCOTT: Down on 41 -- let's put it this way, we don't Page 52 March 9,2006 have enough FIHS facilities to impact, beside the Interstate is the closest one for this and five percent would be a lot for any development based on infill essentially is what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't mean to be picky. It just jumped out at me and it seems a little odd, but okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't need to be corrected. MR. SCOTT: I think they're referring to less than five percent -- more than five percent of the capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it's simple in the first one, you just say by five percent or more of the capacity. MR. SCOTT: We can probably say more than five. I mean, we can strike and see what they say, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, say five percent or more and if they come back -- MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page nine? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually it starts a little on eight. It's policy 5.3. Would we be wise to strike out everything except the sentence that starts with all previously approved and goes up on page nine? In other words, why are we telling that story? Is there any benefit to that? MR. SCOTT: At the time we were telling it, there was, but is there any benefit now, probably not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern is, I wouldn't want somebody to go back and say I was before 2003 and then muddled around wasting everybody's time. MR. SCOTT: I mean, obviously, we look at that as it comes Page 53 March 9, 2006 In, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd cross out anything and then just say all previously approved projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody fine with that? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Could I return to page six to objective four, please, at the bottom? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page six. Yes, sir. Objective four. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The term pedestrians there, how do you classify someone in a wheelchair or a youngster on a motor scooter and so forth. Would that qualify as a pedestrian? MR. SCOTT: For wheelchairs, yes, you would. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Even though they might be motorized? MR. SCOTT: Yes, yes. Motorized, obviously some motorized things are slow speed, others are high speed. And that's an issue with pathways or, you know, wider pathways. It's for the most part it's wheelchairs and walkers. We're not talking about, you know. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back on page nine. Why did you strike -- did policy 5.4 in its old language, did you meet the criteria there? Did that get accomplished? MR. SCOTT: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first time something has been struck because it's gotten accomplished that we've had in three days of hearings. Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: A little applause. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Congratulations, Don. MR. SCOTT: I have to update it again because of a.m. analysis, but we met it. Page 54 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page ten. Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On D it says, including affordable housing. Work force housing. Are we -- does the term affordable embrace work force now or -- I thought that was still -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In our last discussion Mr. Cohen indicated that they will amend all the references to affordable to include the new definitions that were adopted in the last development code site plan; is that correct? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you may want to -- you don't want to bold this now, but that's one of them that you may want to include, correct? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on page ten? Don on the top, items F and G the words were added to be expected to. Now I'm assuming this might be some of the language that's changing, but as you said, if people come forward with a proposal and they're going to include all these elements that are expected to improve the transportation, there's no way in monitoring to see if their elements in effect did that. MR. SCOTT: Obviously, there's something we can do to monitor. You know, personally, I like the TCMA better than the TCEA because I have more control over it. Particularly if they say, all right, I'll give you money to do intersection improvements, things like that. Yeah, that's a problem and that's one of the things we're going to be discussing with DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that language going to be given to us before adoption at some point so we can fix this, if Page 55 March 9, 2006 possible? MR. SCOTT: For changes you mean when we deal -- oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 11, any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Under policy 5.7, I have a note here explain how and by whom. Let's see. Shall maintain -- okay. Down in here the portion of the sentence -- let's see where it says -- development shall not be permitted where such condition occurs unless modification of the development is made sufficient to maintain the level of circumstances with TCMA. Development shall not been permitted. That would be you? MR. SCOTT: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And how would you know that? How would that part of it be known to you. Were you aware of that? MR. SCOTT: When we analyzed during a site plan, essentially if they ask for say 300 units and we only have so many trips left, it might be 100 units, that's what you're talking about where you reduce the scope of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's why you like the TCMA a little bit better? MR. SCOTT: Well, it's one of the things when we were setting this up with our outside attorneys, was that with the TCMA we could do proportionate shares or other things towards intersections, and that's not something we could do with the TCEA yet. And it was -- obviously, it's easier to control some of the things we're doing when we know we're doing it versus having someone else do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. Page 56 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page II? If not, we'll take a 15-minute break until 10:45. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll resume our meeting. If everybody could take their seats. Let the record show that Mr. Murray had to leave. Our first point of discussion that was not a continuation of the EAR at the moment, but a schedule. Randy, has a couple of available dates when this room will be open, but we need some consensus from this panel as to the time frames. So, Randy, if you could tell us what those are. MR. COHEN: The two dates that this chamber is available is March 30th, all day, and April the 4th from 8:30 to 5:00. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: March 30th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a Thursday. How's that? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thursday is okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thursday's okay? Mr. Murray seemed to feel anything after the 16th, so we'll work with him. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What's the other date? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other day, Randy, is what, April 4th? MR. COHEN: From 8:30 to 5:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What day is that? That's a Tuesday. Come up with the rest of us and we'll have a quorum. The 4th is tentative, meaning, I think we can finish this up -- if we're going to go next Thursday after our regular meeting and we go on the 30th of March, we should be able to finish it up. Just in case we can't and there's any overflow, the 4th will be held in reserve. MR. COHEN: Yeah, keep the room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Keep the room. MR. COHEN: Just in case. Page 57 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to put both days down just in case. Okay. Both dates then, Randy, we'll have a quorum. We'll have a quorum on both dates and we'll just move forward once we have to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, next Thursday when we have our regular meeting, we will not go into these issues? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next Thursday after our regular meeting we'll move right into the continuation of today's discussion. Between -- well, let's talk about that. Ms. Student, do we have to have a time certain for going into these discussions next Thursday? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Okay. Let me just think a minute. I think as long as it's duly noted that the meeting begins when the meeting begins at 8:30 in the morning and this will be taken up immediately after the completion of the other items, if you want to set a time certain. I think we've had some issues with that before with that because they're finished up early and then you have a big amount of space. So, if you announce that the regular meeting is at 8:30 and this will be taken up immediately after you complete the regular agenda, that puts people on notice that they need to be here at, you know, at 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think I asked Sharon to add it to the agenda, and she should have gotten together with you, Randy. I'm assuming she has for next Thursday's agenda. It should already be on there. MR. COHEN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At the end of to day's meeting, I'll ask for a motion to continue and we'll continue, like Margie just said, until next Thursday. Page 58 March 9, 2006 MR. COHEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on -- we've finished up on page 11, I believe, and we were on page 12 of the transportation element. Any questions on page 12? Okay. Moving ahead. Page 13. Mr. Scott, policy 7.6. The county shall use community impact assessment techniques. I had never heard of impact assessment techniques. Do you have -- are they available or do you know what those are? MR. SCOTT: It's funny, Randy walked out of the room and he called me about adding it in, and I had a little discussion with him but not a long discussion with him. I mean, we do, like, for project development environmental studies. We do impact analysis of cultural and resource and other things like that. I assume that that fit into that. We also do that through quarter planning. But I don't know specifically why he was added in, but I know we do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I would assume that whatever techniques you have, there will be an implementation policy in the LDC that would probably list them out. Is this -- do the policies that are in the transportation element get implemented by the land development code? MR. SCOTT: I tell you when you talk about some of the things we do through our PD&E study, or quarter study -- I'm not sure it's actually identified in LDC, but there are other documents like PDE manual and things like that that talk about what we have to follow to do that through Federal requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my concern then is how would the public, and somebody reading this, know what your impact assessment techniques are? I mean, that's why Randy asked you what they were so you can list them. MR. SCOTT: And maybe by reference we can do that to other Page 59 March 9, 2006 documents if that's what is required as part of that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you clean that up when you bring this back to us after the 17th, which will probably be the 30th? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to page 14. Are there any issues on 14? Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is a neighborhood traffic management program? MR. SCOTT: It's our traffic calming program. It got that name through a committee that was assigned to do the document. The language that's in here was changed by actually my previous traffic calming coordinator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any others? Don, policy 9.2, third line that's been added. Talks about -- second line actually -- starts as, develop strategies and measures designed to discourage traffic from using local streets to travel between two arterial or collector roadways. MR. SCOTT: Sounds conflicting, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I'm going. I know if Mr. Murray was here, he certainly would point that out. The interconnections that we normally try to strive for are being discouraged by this particular policy. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, it's a balance between trying to -- if someone has a local street, I mean, it's really a local street, you don't want to use it as a cut through versus allowing traffic go between two areas. That's why I tried to make the point that was my previous traffic coordinator that put it in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, maybe this ought to be looked at to be -- well, you're going to have to come back so it's just a suggestion. I know we don't have to reinvent the wheel at today's meeting because you have to come back. But would you Page 60 March 9, 2006 take a look at a way to make that coordinate better with your interconnection requirements? And while you're at it, I would hope that in the praising of what you've got here, you're not encouraging gated communities as a solution, because we already have that situation with Fox Fire and I wouldn't want other people to see that this policy lends to more Fox Fires closing off public roads to access. MR. SCOTT: And that's unfortunately the balance we play during traffic calming too because you make it more inhibited for people to go through then, yeah, you have a roadway that you cut off to somebody that's trying to cut between two areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're talking about having a more intensive police present and a greater allocation of patrol time devoted to enforcing the speed limit in particular neighborhoods. That's nice you're saying that, but do you have a committment from the SO to do that especially when their budgets are cut up every year? MR. SCOTT: You know, we've had discussions with the Sheriffs Office as part of our traffic calming program. And we have used them, or, you know, suggested, police force in certain areas based on that, but is that something that you have a lot of control based on budget, no, you don't, besides hiring them ourselves off duty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is a viable element that you can approach, I see nothing wrong with it, but if it's just some words to pacify people to make it look like we're trying to do something but really can't because it's not properly addressed between departments. MR. SCOTT: Well, enforcement is always an issue because we can -- I can go put in speed bumps somewhere and the speed might go down three miles an hour. And if someone is still going 60 in Page 61 March 9, 2006 a 35, it gets back to enforcement in those areas. And we do have those issues where we have speed bumps and someone is still doing 60 miles an hour on it, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you're reviewing it, if there's a way to make it a little bit better, you might want to look at it. Page 15. Anybody have any questions on page 15. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Don, in the neighborhood traffic management program, is there anything to study where these locations are? MR. SCOTT: What usually is raised is, we do it by -- it's more of a, you know, customer driven where someone says I have a problem in this area then we have a process that we go through to identify do you meet criteria or not meet criteria. That's what they usually go by. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But if you look at the top of page 15, you're establishing criteria for interconnections. You should be able to spot where these things would occur without waiting for the neighbors to complain, right? MR. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, you know, should we be developing some sort of a standard to prevent these kind of designs to be caused? I mean, you're looking for designs on how you connect it wisely, but do we have something to prevent it from -- MR. SCOTT: More of our issue is in where over time congestion is built on a certain -- say, take an intersection and we haven't improved that intersection, and then you make a lot more trips go on the local system to avoid the intersection. And the point is we should probably just fix the intersection. And Page 62 March 9, 2006 that's what through -- I know through at least the manual it talks about that a lot. Some of the intersection improvements are not as easy to fix. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, you don't look for these short circuits ahead of time? MR. SCOTT: We try to, but obviously funding and other issues come up, and timing of projects, you know. My example right here is Davis and Airport. A lot of people to avoid that intersection cut through the back side of Palm and Harrison, or through ST and areas back over there. We need to fix the intersection with proper turn lanes and things like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the community character study, the kind of complaints is we didn't have enough of these shortcuts, so we're also in conflict with the smart growth plan? MR. SCOTT: That's the balance side of it. I mean, I don't believe anybody -- you know, some areas somebody doesn't want to have outside people cutting through, but it's not really the, you know, here and there. It's the constant traffic trying to get around. That's the balance side of it. You know, they do conflict. Because in reality if I can get more collector roadways connecting up, it's better for the major system, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it may not be because I live in an area where there's a closed passage which we could take, a neighborhood road to get through to our place staying in the neighborhood, and now everybody in that neighborhood is out on the main intersections, bad intersections, bad roadways. So you essentially force a neighborhood to go through, you know, arterial roads. MR. SCOTT: I know. Even people living in it. Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, what I'm looking for is, do you have any standards of what not to do? I mean, 9.3 establishes Page 63 March 9,2006 standards of what to do. And 9.5 -- well, I think enough said. Move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 15? I have one on 9.8, Don. Last sentence, primary funding for such plans shall come from local funding initiatives such as MSTU sand MSBU s, that is the area that is to benefit from the traffic calming. I would want to make sure that if there's any grants available on other things that are outside that funding source, they could still be utilized. So would the word shall changing to may work okay? MR. SCOTT: Yes. And they're not always consistent with MSTUs anyway. The MSTU is written a certain way, it doesn't necessarily mean you can do it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 9.8 shall go to May. There's no objection? Page 16? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: 10.1. When are you going to do it? You have to develop a program to examine and maintain. Are they going to start it now or is it something that's going to happen in the future or maybe years away or what? MR. SCOTT: Well, I mean, the long-range plan identifies major roads. And then we also have the east of 951 that's ongoing right now, which is what I'm doing from a standpoint of different levels. Like if you had this much money, what can you do. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm saying the county shall develop a program to examine. Are they going to develope it? Is it something that you're going to sit down and start working on now, or is it going to take years before we get into that actually doing it? MR. SCOTT: If I am referencing that, it's over the next Page 64 March 9, 2006 probably year-and-a-half. If the other side of this, I don't know if this is referring to -- I mean, we have maintenance for like road paving when it gets to a certain level. That's done too. Obviously, there are issues out there of the limerock roads to be paved, which has been -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: But you're developing a program to examine. I'm just wondering, if it's going to be an actual program to develop -- MR. SCOTT: I don't know what it specifically refers to. I'm looking at it as the big picture of the roadway system because at the end of it, it says mobility needs, the rural to urban travel. So, I'm assuming it's the long range plan. Sounds like the model to me, but -- it's been around for a while. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, that's what I was looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 10.3, Don. MR. SCOTT: We would like to strike that based on previous MPO action in 2005. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going. Thank you. Page 17. Any questions on page 17? Top of the page, this talks about the transfer of the Sea of Everglades Airport, I believe, to the city instead of the county. The county currently retains that airport? If the county is selling or disposing of land, why is it an issue of the transportation element of the CIE, or of the GMP? Why isn't it simply done like the county disposes all land? I'm worried -- MR. SCOTT: Why does it elevate itself to a policy? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I'm worried it's going to bind the Commission, because any sale might want to be linked to a reverter clause so that if it's not used for an airport, at least the county may have some access, public access for boat ramps or Page 65 March 9, 2006 whatever else because right now, Everglades City is virtually shut out of public boat ramps and they're condominimizing them down here so it's kind of hard to get a boat in the water. I would hate to see us give this air park away without absolutely no restrictions, any reverter clauses or anything, or any future possibilities of a public use for county residents. It would be like shutting off the beaches in Naples. So this is pretty strong in a sense it ties the hands of the board to be able to do anything else, but this if it's in the GMP. MR. SCOTT: And I cannot recall the reasons why it was added -- obviously it was something that came out of the MPO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe the MPO wants to dump it, but the manner in which they dump it ought to be -- MR. SCOTT: Well, I'm not sure they did, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think this policy ought to be in the GMP. I think it's more of a county policy involving their ownership of lands and how they dispense those. I don't think -- COMMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, it's over in that area because, you know, the county was saying we're going to drop it and make it into something like what you're suggesting, but -- so they wanted to keep it as an air park and that's why they took it over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why a reverter clause becomes handy. If it doesn't pan out as an airport, which, in reality, it may never, then eventually, if they want to do something else with it, the county would have a say so and what's done and access to it. And that's the concern I have. There is no -- we complain about access in Marco Island and Pelican Bay and other parts of the county and here we are given the only access the county has away in another locality. And once we give it away, Page 66 March 9,2006 we can't get back in the water down there. COMMMISSIONER TUFF: Should Everglades City make those decisions or the county? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county owns the property. MR. SCOTT: It seems like it's an airplane-related issue as to why it was added through the MPO which deals with all modes of travel. Concern through the Airport Authority or something about where this was added at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think maybe by way of background, the transportation element is supposed to concern itself with airports as well as roads and so forth. And also it's supposed to address the airports in the county. And without knowing more, it would seem that this probably is too wordy, but it's to indicate that, you know, the airport or air park is going to be somehow not under the county's jurisdiction. And that's what I would think. I wouldn't want to make it too specific because you don't want to, as you say, kind of hem in the county on its negotiations for how this is to be accomplished and whatever instrument transfers it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't see in this paragraph where there's any indication the county would have any leeway once it's transferred. For example, if, like -- if we have an opportunity to transfer -- if the City of Everglades wants this, then maybe we ought to have some county, some property donated so the county can create a county park down there and the residents of the county can utilize within that city because there isn't one right now. COMMMISSIONER TUFF: Except the city gave it to the county to use as an air park and now they're not going to, so the city wants it back. Page 67 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine, but what's wrong with a reverter clause to limit it to that use? COMMMISSIONER TUFF: Then it should revert back to -- the City of Everglades had it to begin with. They said, you can have it if you're going to make an air park. The air park - the county is threatening that so they say, well, give it back then. I just don't think it's our -- it's the city's stuff originally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when it comes to beach access or gulf access, I think every opportunity we have to make sure we don't lose more of it, we ought to scrutinize. And by having this in here, I'm concerned that this level of scrutiny -- MR. SCOTT: Since we are coming back, let me check into Everglades Airport Master Plan which is referred to in here and when this might have been added. Could have been the previous airport director too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's fine with everybody, bring it back. Any other questions on page 17? Hearing none. On page 18? If there's none on page 18, Don, I think we've gotten through your pages and we'll just wait for you to come back to us on the 30th of March. MR. SCOTT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just is the transportation question general? Don, when I watch on the news like you're working on getting the Vanderbilt extension and there's a homeowner complaining that, you know, I've lived in this neighborhood 20, 25 years and he didn't know the road was coming. What are we doing with the planned roads -- I know we have a plan for 25 years out, but obviously, it didn't help this neighbor and that road wasn't even included on it, I guess. MR. SCOTT: No, it was actually. It was actually not only just the long-range plan that we just adopted, but the previous Page 68 March 9, 2006 long-range plan. And how -- this issue has come up in other parts of the county . We do a lot of public meetings. We advertise everything else and nobody seems to care until you're actually widening in front. I had issues on Santa Barbara before where, hey, we never knew Santa Barbara was going to be six lanes. And can pull up old articles out of the Naples Daily News where, you know, it was in the headline that this was going to be done. How do you get to everybody? It's a problem. There's a public petition actually at the BCC meeting about this Tuesday about Vanderbilt Beach and they talk about more public involvement. You know, the one -- one aspect of everything we've developed, even through design. We do 30, 60, 90 percent design meetings, have the signs on the side of the street. Unfortunately, I don't know how you get to everybody. Was it in the plan 20 years ago when the person moved there? Probably not. Twenty years ago I don't think anybody believed a lot of that was going to develop out, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess my question is, what planning should we be doing now so that, you know, maybe in the year 2030, 2050 the people know -- I mean, do we have a plan? I mean, we see build-outs, we see horrible population, do we have a road system that handles that population? MR. SCOTT: We have what is an adopted 20,30 year long-range transportation plan. And I know we've discussed at some point having presentations to the Board. I know at the orientation meeting you were talking about cancelling Planning Commission. That's probably the time we should do, okay, let's do an LR TP presentation and some of the other things so you know some of the documents we're talking about. Beyond that, for east of 951, I've gone to modeling the build out, which I put a, you know, a year at it 2050. Essentially looking at, okay, if you Page 69 March 9, 2006 have that population, $1,066,000 and you model everything, where would I need roadways to meet that demand. That's the process that we're going through right now. And I believe you'll probably want to get involved with the east of 951 study as that moves forward too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I want to make sure that the Planning Commission is doing what they're supposed to be doing in that process. I mean, I think -- MR. SCOTT: I think you've raised as a body that from a planning, that's probably the things that you want to start getting into. In the past you haven't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Don. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll move on to the sanitary sewer sub-element, next one up. Let's see how fast we can get through ten pages. I don't know what preference you have in going forward, but -- MR. VAN LENGEN: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple comments -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You need to identify yourself for the record. MR. VAN LENGEN: I'm sorry. This is Chris Van Lengen, Comprehensive Planning Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. VAN LENGEN: A couple comments that apply to the next five sub elements. And this may make the process just a tab more efficient. The two comments are less than weighted, will be some of your easier decisions. But one of them is that within these next five elements there is a single goal so that during the EAR process, a decision was made to not number a single goal and Page 70 March 9, 2006 therefore each objective would have a single digit. Each policy would have two digits. It's simplified since there's only one goal. On the other hand, the downside is that since all other elements of the plan have three digits in their policy numbers, there's a bit of an inconsistency there. The EAR report called for eliminating numbering a single goal. That's what we've done. But if you have a different idea about that, we would certainly love to entertain it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You're basically talking about the format and the way the different paragraphs are labeled. MR. VAN LENGEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not at all concerned about it myself. I like the substance of the paragraphs is where my obj ectives are. And I'm not sure, maybe others in the panel right now would have a concern over the issue. If they do, please express yourselves. Otherwise, what's your second issue? MR. VAN LENGEN: The other relatively small issue is will and shall. I think most of these elements use the word shall instead of will, or in place of will. And in the next five elements you'll see them interspersed. We've had differences of opinions over a historical period of time. My impression at this point in time is that the county prefers shall in all instances. We're happy to change all those references if that's your direction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think it would be Ms. Student, you previously opined on these issues. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. If it's mandatory then you would use shall, and if it's not mandatory, may could be utilized, and then will sometimes carries an ambiguity with it. But, under our land code historically shall was defined as mandatory. So if it's not, I'd say mayor will. But I think may is more clear that Page 71 March 9, 2006 it's discretionary and not mandatory. MR. VAN LENGEN: Thank you. Then the other overall comments about the five goals in general is that most of the changes were words missing in order to hopefully achieve greater clarity in the statements. They include updates to reference documents and updated programs as well. And with that, if you want to go through page by page starting with sanitary sewer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be the best. Let's start with page one. Does anybody have questions on the introduction on page one? Well, I do. And I notice you consistently use this terminology in the third line down. I see the new term environmentally sound. And I notice it's used in the beginning of some of your other policies as well. And dropped out in some of them. What is environmentally sound? I mean, how is that -- do we have a definition of that? Is that going to be implemented or spelled out somewhere? Because I don't believe this gets into the LDC. So, how would someone know what environmentally sound is? MR. VAN LENGEN: I think it's descriptive and it comes directly actually from the goal itself, which talks about providing sewer facilities in a cost effective and environmentally sound way. If you look at the goal that is actually in the title of the goal, and it has been, I don't know if there's a definition for it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would think sustainable would be more specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Environmentally sustainable? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Sound to me doesn't really convey any meanIng. Page 72 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, how would you know what that means if you were looking at this as someone who had to meet the criteria? MR. WEEKS: Well, first comment would be that the fact that -- oh, for the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department. First comment is that it's, first place it's just an introduction, which has no regulatory effect. Secondly, being within a goal, it's a broad provision, and so it's not something that we -- that I would say comes down to an enforcement issue. Because the goal, which is broadly stating what you're hoping to do. Usually it's when you get down to the level of the policies that we see the regulatory impact where it says we shall do a certain thing, or shall accomplish a certain thing. Having said that, I think staff will have no obj ection if you want to use the term environmentally sustainable, or just sustainable as opposed to environmentally sound. I would agree that that's a rather loose term. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my only concern is we've seen different challenges to our codes and system based on interpretation. Some people may feel that just using recycled cups in the restroom is environmentally sound. Somebody else may feel the way you dispense the water into percolation ponds is not environmentally sound. And it could get you into some trouble. And that's all I was trying to do. The ambiguous language in some of these are concerning. And if you guys feel it's comfortable, you don't think it's going to be a problem, you're the professionals in this. But I was just raising a flag at this level to let you know. MR. WEEKS: Put it into context, of course, times change, but this has been in the plan since its adoption in '89, and so Page 73 March 9, 2006 far has not been an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions on page two? Hearing none, questions on page three. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Policy 1.6, what is budgetary emphasis? MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, I think it means the county better spend some real money on the problem. They're really is a way to state that it should be at some level of priority type of project and the budgeting process, but it's certainly not quantified in terms of where in the budget or what priority it should have. COMMISSIONER CARON: My question would be why did we take out priority if that's really what you want is for it to be a priority and use the word emphasis? I just didn't get it. MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, in my view budgetary emphasis would be a bit stronger in the sense that a lot of times we have priorities that go unfunded, and this would at least tie into the budgetary process. COMMISSIONER CARON: So budgetary -- I'm sorry. Budgetary emphasis is a stronger phrase than budgetary priority? MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, yes. I see what you're saying. What is budgetary priority. COMMISSIONER CARON: It was priority. I mean, I understand what you mean by unfunded priorities, but I'm not sure budgetary emphasis actually makes it any stronger. And you can tell me if I am wrong. MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, the only concern I would have is the word priority suggests in comparison to something else, and I'm not sure what else it would be compared to. So, budgetary emphasis just simply says let's find some way to fund it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The top of the page, policy 1.4, the new Page 74 March 9, 2006 language, the last line refers to looking for utilities to provide a letter of adequate capacity at the time of building permit. I seem to recall that -- I thought we see those letters occasionally during PUD process for rezone, other times during SDP. Is this consistent with the way we operate today? That we wait until the building permit to look for capacity? Our COAs, don't they deal with capacity? Aren't they -- what stage do we hit those at for all proj ects? MR. VAN LENGEN: I'm flagged here by personnel from Public Utilities and they'd like to make a statement on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I note that this is for private sanitary sewer facilities. And I think that somebody could correct me if I am wrong, but I believe our COAs deal with the public, adequate public facilities. And this would be the private provider. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So at the time a PUD comes in and we're looking at improving huge amounts of density for a project in an area that isn't serviced by the county, we would have to approve it, and they wouldn't have to approve they have capacity, or they're going to put a sewer system in that's going to have capacity until they actually went in and applied for a building permit for their housing? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's what this appears to say. I would have to defer to utilities, either the utilities staff or -- MR. GRAMATGES: May I attempt to answer that, please? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Certainly. MR. GRAMATGES: My name is Phil Gramatges, Principal Project Manager, Public Utilities Engineering. We do hydraulic analysis at the time the PUD is proposed. Part of our review we do hydraulic analysis to determine whether or not we have enough utility capacity to handle the new development, or you know, the new construction that is coming aboard. And that's how typically Page 75 March 9,2006 we do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, now I've got a name to the face, Phil. Thank you for all your help -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and the documents you've sent me that led me to hopefully understand this better, and I appreciate your time and effort on that behalf. But this is for -- they're talking here about private systems not the county systems. MR. GRAMATGES: We're talking private systems, but of course, as far as public systems is concerned, we do the same analysis naturally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think the question focuses on if someone has a private system, when do they have to submit to the building department that their private system is going to have capacity to utilize whatever is going to be placed -- MR. GRAMATGES: Well, as far as their capacity is concerned, yeah, that would be at the time that the permit is reviewed. But we analyze whether or not we have capacity to provide services to them at the time of the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well that kind of helps. David, should there be some consistency if it's used -- if the county does it at the zoning stage, would it be better to require a none element such as this to be revealed at the zoning stage, or is there a reason that's put off to the building permit stage? MR. WEEKS? I don't know the reason why its deferred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I can shed some light from a historical perspective. First off, I don't know that we have that many private providers left, but I do know that in the past whether it's old PUDs before the county had its system more centralized. The private provider wouldn't come on board -- they would provide Page 76 March 9, 2006 services to that PUD. So they wouldn't be there yet when the PUD was approved, but there would be language in the PUD document that this said they would provide a package treatment plant, or they would provide some kind of water supply facility as part -- as a condition of getting the PUD approval. And then -- I don't remember specifically what all that language said, but supposedly it would be on line to serve the impacts of the development when the impacts occurred. And now with the centralization of the county facilities, you just don't see that so much anymore. I don't know that there aren't any out there. But I think that's probably why because it's not there when the PUD was approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're getting to the right answer. I think -- as a example, I know when Ave Maria, when they came through with their DRI, they told us basically they're going to provide their own system. That system may not be up and running, but when they come in for building permits, I think they'll have to prove that it is. That's how this is -- now this makes sense. This dovetails to that. MR. WEEKS: Just to go over Margie's comment briefly that over the years, certainly since plan adoption '89, the county has expanded its water and, waste water in particular, capacity significantly in those package treatment plants I think without exception, the package plants have disappeared. It's now just a handful of private utilities, the one that serves Golden Gate City area and Orange Tree Utility as being the two principal private utilities in particular. And as you probably are aware, the county will be taking over Orange Tree in just a matter of years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The next question on that page would be 1.5. In about the center of the page and the second, you reference not readily accessible. When you're talking about Page 77 March 9, 2006 when someone has to connect to an existing central system, where would a definition be of what's not readily accessible? For example, how many miles away does a line have to be before it's determined to not be readily accessible? MR. VAN LENGEN: Phil, do you know that? MR. GRAMATGES: I don't belive there's a hard and fast rule to determine how many miles away they have to be. Typically, readily accessible means there's a line in the street in front of the development or in front of the particular house that is being buil t. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone lives in a home that is quite a ways away but there's a new sewer plant going in, as long as that line is not in the street, they're not obligated to have to pipe all the way to that plant? MR. GRAMATGES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this language couldn't be construed to mean that? That's all I'm concerned about. Sometimes we get different people interpreting things. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that an absurd interpretation couldn't come out of such language. MR. GRAMATGES: We can look at the language and we can- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind? MR. GRAMATGES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next two lines down it also says other central sewer service becomes available. Well, if you tie that with not readily accessible, someone could argue that as soon as the plant is built out on Orange Tree, it's available to everybody in Golden Gate Estates. And I can tell you, it is not. MR. GRAMATGES: Well as soon as a line is placed in the street in front of the homeowner's house, then they have the Page 78 March 9,2006 obligation to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you at that point, yes, sir. I just -- I know that's what your standard procedure has been. If that's referenced in a policy, then maybe we can just simply put, not readily accessible pursuant to policy so and so. Or pursuant to whatever document you have. That way it cleans it up so everybody knows exactly what those two ambiguous terms mean. MR. GRAMATGES: We certainly can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't that be something is better put in the LDC anyway? I mean, this is definitely what we want to have happen. The LDC would have the requirements of how that happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think any of this is in the LDC. How much of the sewer and water stuff is in the LDC, Margie? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't think any of it really is. Not all of this is in the LDC. There's other ways to implement this, not only through the LDC but other ordinances of the county and the issuance of other programs of the county and the issuance of development orders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to see it referred to so that there's no absurd interpretation by someone else. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: The utilities ordinance may -- you may want to check on that, but the utilities ordinance might flush some of this out because there is such an animal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down on 1.6, third line, connection of existing package sewage treatment plant in areas of high concentration of septic tanks. What is a high concentration of septic tanks? One per block, 20 per block, or an acre? Do we -- MR. VAN LENGEN: Phil, you might as well stay up here and Page 79 March 9, 2006 answer these questions with me. MR. GRAMATGES: I will try to do that. Honestly, I don't have an answer to that. High concentration I would assume that everyone in the street that has a home or place of dwelling would have a septic tank. That is, in my own mind, what a high concentration would be, otherwise, I really can't answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it matter then how many homes per acre are on that street? For example, you could have ten homes on the street or you could have two or you could have 50, depending on the size. MR. GRAMATGES: If it's logical, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you work on that language when you come back -- MR. GRAMATGES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with these changes, those two will be addressed. Thank you. Page 4. Anybody have any questions on page 4? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it's a good idea to take the loadage out. But is there any difference between 64 E and the gallons per day we have here. Does this alter the requirements? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are you talking about? What part of the page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Four kind of bleeds onto five. I guess I'm over on five, if that is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still don't understand what you're trying to ask, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What exactly -- they're crossing out all of the gallons per day requirements. And essentially what they're doing. It starts at the bottom of four. They're saying Page 80 March 9, 2006 why print these when you should go to 64E anyway. I think we should get them out of the code. I don't think this is where you should look. MR. GRAMATGES: The old reference in 64E, so there's no need to put them in here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But my question is what's in here is the same as 64 E? MR. GRAMA TGES: I don't know if it was or not. I can't tell you if 64E has the right numbers. I can't tell you this time whether what we crossed out was the same numbers we had in 64E or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because the only reason this would make sense here or not is if those before us thought that they would rather set a standard than the State set the standard. That's all. Maybe, if you are coming back -- well, we can check. I'll check. MR. GRAMATGES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page five. Why don't we go to five, six and seven. They're all kind of similar. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My only concern is did in the past, Collier County set higher standards than the State. They obviously couldn't set less. And that's the only question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil. MR. GRAMATGES: I cannot answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But can you come back with an answer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this wasn't something that was noted in the EAR. This is something that happened. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to bring the mike closer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This wasn't something that was noted in the year. Page 81 March 9, 2006 MR. LIT SINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger, Public Utilities Division. 64 E, which was formally known as 10-6 of the Florida Administrative Code contains all the standards of service that apply to private systems, whether they be a septic tank type system, or a private package plant system, as opposed to the certificated systems like Orange Tree and the Golden Gate City system. And what we had done back in 1989 is, for some reason we had decided to not only refer to 10-6 to list all the standards that were contained in the Florida Administrative Code in which, in some cases have changed. And in addition, that particular code has been moved to another department of the state and has been renumbered and updated. So, the adoption of any particular standards in the comprehensive plan might lead to a need to potentially amend the plan to change each individual standard, when in the event of real application, we do not apply an annual or daily monitoring of the application, or the use of the facilities and the services of these private providers. They report to the state. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Stan, do you remember, my only concern on this at all, and it's really not a major concern is, did we include these standards because it's odd that they would be in the GMP to begin with. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, I agree it was odd. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did we include these because we wanted to set a higher standard in the State? I mean, I use these in my work and -- MR. LITSINGER: These are verbatim from the Florida Administrative Code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is an extremely wise thing to do. I just want to make sure that we weren't upset with the Page 82 March 9, 2006 state's numbers and we took advantage of that. MR. LITSINGER: We just reiterated what is now 64E. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page seven? I have one, objective three. The new end group says we'll also insure that such practices are followed by private utilities regulated by the county. Page eight, policy 3.1, the new language says that the county will insure that private waste water utilities regulated by the county follow similar practices. I just want to make sure that there's not a discrepancy between are and similar. The one case they're going to follow such practices and the other case they're going to follow similar practices. MR. GRAMATGES: One is more specific than the other. We can change that language to make it sound the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to. Either way you go, it still should be consistent so no one argues it isn't. So, when you take a look at it, and you're going to be coming back anyway, we'll look at it then. Page eight, any questions on page eight? Under objective four. If you take the policies one, two, three and four, you've made some tweaking to the language in those policies. But if you turn to page eight of the water element, you'll find those policies are repeated in policies one, two, three and six of that element, but the language is not tweaked, nor is it the same. But it's generally the same concept. I'm wondering if your intent was to be consistent and somehow it just didn't get done that way. MR. VAN LENGEN: Kris Van Lengen, Comprehensive Planning. Yes, our intent was to be consistent and we will make those changes to make them read consistently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when you bring it back that Page 83 March 9, 2006 objective in the sewer will be met to the objective in the water in regards to those policies. Any other questions on page eight? If not, page nine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a nine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Policy 1.6, new number. You're referencing reclaimed water system. Is that the same as treated waste water, or is that gray water that we could start capturing from buildings? MR. GRAMATGES: This is what we are going to be calling in the future irrigation quality water. Yes it is recycled waste water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean, it is the same as recycled? In other words, this would have to go to the treatment plant and come back at you? MR. GRAMATGES: That's right. It's what comes out of the treatment plant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not gray water which is essentially -- in buildings, we sometimes especially in remote areas, have a gray water system which is taking showers, stuff that doesn't require treatment and using that for irrigation. So you think they might have meant that when they wrote this. MR. GRAMATGES: I don't believe so. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we reclaim the water, then we should use -- so the intent of this thing then is to try to find other communities where we can connect to their treated waste water, or it is ways of trying to get gray water out of developments and stuff? MR. GRAMA TGES: No. What this is trying to refer to is that we are trying to supplement our irrigation quality water system by taking not only reclaimed water but also water that we store Page 84 March 9,2006 in SAR aqua -- aqua storage systems below ground. And any water that we can reclaim from surface runoff and storm and so on. It doesn't mean that we're going to go into communities and try to get theirs. It doesn't preclude us from doing that, by the way. But I don't believe that's the intention of this, unless you'll disagree. MR. VAN LENGEN: Yes. Kris Van Lengen, Comprehensive Planning. The intention is to expand the availability of water to other communities by using the sources that Mr. Gramatges has just mentioned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is reclaimed water treated, or is it like you were describing it could be storm water runoff. MR. GRAMATGES: Reclaimed water is -- reclaimed water specifically is water that comes out of our waste treatment plant, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So should we call it like we do everywhere else, treated waste water? I'll tell you what, let me back away. Don't do that. I think it might have a wider horizon than just that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a follow up sort of to his question, we have policies that, like policy two of objective four, talks about distribution of some of this treated waste water affluent. Is there a way you can, through a policy, prioritize, and maybe it's not even legal, but I thought I'd throw it on the table. The government facilities, government lands, to receive the affluent first and then private sector second. MR. GRAMATGES: Our department is currently working on a policy phase for an irrigation quality program within Collier County. And this is one of the things that we are considering in this irrigation quality policy . We expect that this will come before the Board for their approval late this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you're thinking in that Page 85 March 9, 2006 direction, and you're thinking of bringing it in late this year, you might benefit yourself by including a policy that makes it easier for you to do that in this GMP amendment. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a suggestion, when you come back in, you might want to throw something in like that. Any question on page ten? Hearing none, we can move on to the potable water sub-element. And we will be coming back with corrections to the sewer sub-element either by the 16th or the 30th, whatever day they -- I would imagine, David, we're probably looking at the 16th to continue with the first reading of everything, and then on the 30th, any clean-up issues, will probably be better at that time so-- , MR. WEEKS: That would be acceptable. I know specifically we mentioned yesterday about hearing the future land use element on the 16th, but staff has no objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we try to get through this completely first, and if we get through it all, then we'll go back in and start -- we have a lingering -- I'm writing them down as we go. There's not a lot, but there's a lot of lingering little issues, including cleaning up the sewer. MR. WEEKS: That's fine with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with the water sub-element and we'll go right to the first page. Is there any questions from commission on the first page? Under objective one, your new language after the word development -- you're talking about the development utilization of new potable water supply sources. Could you include -- should you include in there land acquisition? The development, land acquisition and utilization-- the reason I'm asking that is because you're getting well sites Page 86 March 9, 2006 all over the county. I'm not sure what your precedent is for getting those without a policy that might suggest you should be getting those. And that might help you get to that goal. MR. VAN LENGEN: Kris Van Lengen, comprehensive planning. I see nothing at this point that would preclude us from wanting to add that in. I don't know whether the word development would normally include the concept of land acquisition, but to be more specific might be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes development is more the nuts and bolts that happen after you've got the land secured and zoned. So, you may want to throw that in to clean it up. Any objections from the panel? Issues on page two? Hearing none, we'll move to page three. Anybody have questions on page three? Page four? Page five? We're blowing through this one. The question on page five, your level of service standards for water, or potable water, 185. You kind of use straight across the board. But yet your sewer varied on different parts of the county. Sewer seems to me to be an offshoot of water. How was that relationship worked out? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, within Collier County water is integrated. We have ways to connect water within the county, and therefore it works as one system. For the sewer system, they're not. They're not interconnected in any way. Well, they are somehow, but they're not interconnected to the point that we can equalize the level of service across the different sections. Mainly due to the fact that sewer plants need to be relatively close to the place where the sewage is produced, while water can spread a lot further. Page 87 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is your sewer -- the way you calculate the GDCD for sewer, it based at all on the level of service standard, or for the volume of water that is used. Seems to me there would be some relationship there. MR. GRAMATGES: Oh, yes there is indeed a relationship there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If there's a relationship and if all districts are required to have the higher GBCD for water 185, then wouldn't you have a standard base for sewer that would correlate, and it would all happen to be the same for water? MR. GRAMATGES: It depends on the land use. Because in areas where there's a high level of irrigation, the correlation between the water use and the sewage is very different than in areas where you have high rises and there is not a lot of irrigation per unit of dwelling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then wouldn't they have less need for higher amount of GCBC of water? MR. GRAMATGES: Possibly, yes. That would seem to make sense. But in our experience, depending on the mixture of residential versus commercial versus industrial, and the density of the different areas, the amount of water that ends up going into the sewer system varies, and varies quite a bit, as you can see from the level of service standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I agree. I think your conclusions are right, but I'm just wondering -- here's kind of where I'm going. If you set a capacity that is higher than what is maybe utilized in each particular district. I notice in the sewer you're very careful to look at each district separately and try to figure out a ratio for that. And what that does is, that means the plants that are needed are based on that capacity that's going to be generated, and so you either need more or less plants. And the Page 88 March 9, 2006 same thing is going to be for potable water. If you have 185 GBCD across the board for everybody, whether that's what they really use or not, you're going to need capacity of plants based on that highest amount. Would you not? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we really wanted to understand how many plants we need, wouldn't we want a more accurate reflection of the actual water used like you did for sewer as the actual sewer generated? MR. GRAMATGES: The problem is, once again, when you try to get into that number, the way in which we calculate the level of service is based on history. The numbers we look at for water, are county wide. They're not by the different regions. For us to try to do that would be fraught with a lot of uncertainties mainly because, as I said before, that system is a grid and the plants act as one unit together. So, it would be very difficult for us, and it would require a lot of guesswork beyond what natural guesswork is when you look at historical data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not in a position to debate that any further. You know much more about it than I do. I'm uncomfortable with the number being that high across the board for every part of the county when the sewer doesn't correspond equally. So if we could do it for sewer. I understand your plant, but your sewer plants are interconnected as well. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, but they're not interconnected to the same level that the water plants are. We have true interconnection for the water plant. In the case of sewer system, the intersection is there only for emergency purposes. And generally we do not send sewage in between regions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll certainly do some more reading up on it before I bring it up again. We're going to be coming Page 89 March 9, 2006 back anyway. Ms. Caron, did you have a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah. And, again, I have no knowledge here. So, let me ask a stupid question. The level of service here, why is it different for Immokalee, the independent districts or government than it is for everybody else? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, once again the needs -- the water that goes into a government complex is used for different things than it is used for a private or a dwelling. The dwelling, for example, has a lot of irrigation and it has a lot of people taking showers. That's not the case in the government center. Most of the water that is used here, some of it is used for irrigation, some of it is used for lavatories, and other areas such as that. The level of usage of water is very very different. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I can understand how that would definitely affect government. But how then does that translate to areas like Orange Tree or Immokalee? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, the density as well has a lot to do with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it really does come down to density? MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. Ifwe look at areas like Immokalee, the average lots tend to be higher than they are in other regions of the county. And therefore, the irrigation needs are higher. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages six and seven are mostly cross outs and part of eight. Any questions on pages six, seven or eight? Hearing none. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, other than the same as before, these standards are equal to the State standards so, therefore, Page 90 March 9, 2006 it's redundant data. MR. GRAMATGES: Same things apply. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything on page nine? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, policy four. The county shall promote the use of zero scape techniques. Shouldn't this be a requirement and not a request? I mean, if we're talking about future planning here. MR. VAN LENGEN: I think for purpose of -- excuse me, Kris Van Lengen, comprehensive planning. For purposes of have the GMP, I think promote is probably an appropriate tag for the LDC. Those types of decisions can be made in a more specific way. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page ten and page 11. You're faster than anybody, Phil. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got through the potable water and sewer. So, next one is drainage. Gene is here. Gene. MR. CALVERT: For the record, Eugene Calvert, Stormwater Management Transportation Division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind, we'll probably just ask our questions starting from the first page. MR. CALVERT: Absolutely. Go right ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First page of the drainage sub-element, does anybody have any questions? Gene, under the third paragraph last sentence. Talking about doing stormwater management to develop a combination of techniques that provide adequate pollution removal, flood protection in the most economical matter. Were you ever thinking of adding the words environmentally sound? MR. CALVERT: I have no objections at all with that. Certainly it's one of our -- Page 91 March 9,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made a note that this is one of those that did not include it and yet the others did. I couldn't figure it out. It's been explained to me but I was just curious. So, forget I said it. Page two. Any questions on page two? On policy 1.1, about the middle. And proposed developments received beneficial consideration and proposed water management proj ects. What is beneficial consideration? MR. CALVERT: I'm going to have to refer to CDS members from the comprehensive planning when they're talking about proposed developments received beneficial considerations. I am not entirely clear myself of what they refer to. Kris, do you have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can see someone demanding a lot of what they consider beneficial considerations. I'll tell you what, fellows, try to figure out a way to address it, or maybe that explains or clarifies it. I'll just tab it for a comeback. Policy 1.2, you're talking about adequate water management facility capacity is available. Does that mean we have a level of service determined for that new added language? And if so, how is sufficient capacity determined? MR. CALVERT: I think the wording should probably be the adequate storm water management facilities capacity available rather than just water management. But that ties it back into some of the previous ones where we continue to monitor it and manage the availability. It also ties in with of the following policies looking at reviews and approvals of new development to make sure that those new developments don't impact, adversely impact the capacity of those systems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I made a note that on page four, for example, you actually denoted a level of service. So I'm Page 92 March 9,2006 wondering, would your policy 1.2 be more affective if you were simply to say shall be adequate to meet the level of service to enter -- adopted in the hearing sub-element or whatever. Then you're tying it to something we can recognize? MR. CALVERT: Very well could be because the level of service, of course, is a method to evaluate the proposed development. So then again, it goes back to the planning element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So would you take a look at that when you come back in for policy 1.1? Take a look at 1.2 if it needs to be cleaned up? Any questions on page three? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that you, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It was. Going down to 1.5, new 1.5, shouldn't we just cross out all that stuff except for the line referencing the CCME. I mean, first of all they're done. They're completed. The other one is going to be done in a month, which will be way after this thing -- or before this thing is adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one are you talking about? MR. CALVERT: One thing I want the Commission to understand, when the original policy 1.5, and we've listed the Gordon River Extension, Immokalee, those were really stormwater drainage master plans. We're now getting into the Belmede and we're dealing with the watershed management plan. It's just -- it's really an expanded scope. And certainly the storm water drainage master plans are one element of the watershed management plans. Don't misunderstand that the Gordon River Extension, while it was completed, was completed as a storm drainage plant and not as a watershed management plant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point is, it wouldn't be Page 93 March 9, 2006 wise just to cross out everything except the line that starts with watershed management plans and -- that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think as we learned when we discussed this watershed management plan in the CCME, they have moved forward with Belmede and they're close to completing it, which is what this is saying. MR. CALVERT: Right. And maybe that's, you know, the reference tying back there because the Belmede is going to be completed within a matter of, you know, a couple months, I would suspect. It's getting close. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point is why have historical data in the growth management plan. I mean, if you're crossing out the others, this one will be done prior to you, to adopting to the end of the year. MR. VAN LENGEN: Kris Van Lengen, comprehensive planning. I think I would agree with you. The point of the changes here were really to reference the CCME and those standards and the prioritization and everything else. So why have a couple of things here and not everything. I think the point is to reference the CCME and leave it at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you'd strike the first line that was added plus the base and references and then just leave the additional watershed management plan line? MR. VAN LENGEN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have a problem with that? COMMISSIONER CARON: As long as we're sure that the study is going to be done within the next couple of months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they can do it, they can do it. Page four, any questions on page four? How about page five -- page six. Oh, I'm sorry, one question on page five. Page 94 March 9, 2006 Commissioner Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: In policy -- I guess its policy two. The county's water management master plan shall include recommendations for changing levels of service together with analysis of capital requirements. Would we ever downgrade a level of service? MR. CALVERT: I'm not saying it's totally without reason, but you wouldn't -- couldn't downgrade. I can't think of an instance where you would want to, but it is a possibility, I suppose. I can't imagine when you'd want to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why are some rated as C and some rated as D? MR. CALVERT: Again, I'm going to have to refer to the planning commission because it is a development issue of whether you issued development permits per new development or not. The purpose of why it's at level of D and C, I really need to refer that to planning commission for the CDS. MR. VAN LENGEN: Kris Van Lengen, comprehensive planning. I don't know how to answer that question. These standards have been in there, and when this document was disseminated, no changes were made by any departments. The reason for each particular level of service D or C, I don't know why they were selected the way they were selected to begin with so I can't answer that question. I would endeavor to find out for you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm wondering if it's because of actual performance or potential performance. I just don't understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think-- MR. VAN LENGEN: With your permission, Robert Wiley is here and he might be able to explain that. Page 95 March 9, 2006 MR. WILEY: Level of service standards were developed as part of the study to the master plan back in 1988, 1989. And essentially you think of it as a three-dimensional level of service standard. It addressed different criterias how well you complied with them. We went with a weak link concept that within a drainage basin there were a series of structures and canals. They all link together. Which one is the most restrictive, that's where you got that level of service designation. But it's addressed to water quality, the type of storm event that was suggested for that particular area, whether it was urban area, whether it was way out in the middle of nowhere. It addressed ground water recovery areas and things of that nature. And then it also addressed within the system itself how well it met the intention, such as a cross section. A level of service A would give a much better storm protection in an urban area than level of service D. A D means inside the house, where A is strictly within the confines of the system. And so those were -- I call it a three-dimensional matrix, but you worked a point system out for how well you achieve certain goals as you went through that matrix and came out the back side of it. That was years ago we developed that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there are concrete standards for A, B, C, D, and E? MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, there are. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And how often are they checked to see how well the system is performing? MR. WILEY : Now that I could not answer. But, I mean, it's something that was developed years ago as to how well it was responding at that time. Page 96 March 9, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because if this is something that we're supposed to be holding ourselves to, it would be good to know how often we're actually measuring it. MR. WILEY: Well, I guess the best way, level of service D, you couldn't get any worse than that. That was The worst category. We only went up to a D. So at that point, level of service D for most of the areas we look at means somewhere in the system there's a constriction that causes water to come out of the bank and in somebody's house. So C means it's out of the bank, up in the yard but it's not in the house. B, it's in the yard, but covering a road maybe, and A is strictly within the system. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So there's no unacceptable level of service? MR. WILEY: Level of service D itself by definition is defined as unacceptable, but we accepted the unacceptable. And let me explain why. That's probably what you need to know what was happening back in 1988. We were faced with developing the original drainage sub element and adopting the original growth management plan. We had a deadline but which to do that. Up to that point no one had any clue as to what level of service was. It had never been evaluated for stormwater systems. We had to come up with a way to define a level of service. Now we're not happy with the result. We don't like an unacceptable level of service. But you had to adopt something. And so, either that or we put moritorium across the county. And that has never been changed since the original adoption. Those criteria carried forward. But by definition, we had excellent, good, not so good, and unacceptable, but we accepted those definitions. So we like to say we never got DCA to understand our explanation but we finally did. Page 97 March 9, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: If there's no sanction for having an unacceptable level of service, then why have the categorization at all? MR. WILEY: The purpose was we had to identify one. Then if you would read back out of that study through the years, our goal was over a series of years to produce a number of detailed basin studies that would identify what capital improvements need to be made and to undertake the funding necessary and the instructions to bring them up to the level of service for which you desire. When you looked at the original element the way it was set up, or the sub-element, you looked at a situation of an adopted level of service, and then you had recommended level of service. Now, we never did adopt any recommendation because we haven't ever gone through a complete basin yet to eliminate all of the weak links. But that's part of the capital program that needs to be carried forward basin by basin, and then you can modify the level of service standards in each appropriate basin. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So we can't make a plan to improve the D's up to C's until we do more study? MR. WILEY: Well, when you look at what is set before you here with your watershed management plan, with you drainage basin plans, that's what they are to do is to give the plan for what it takes to bring that up to your level of service that you want it to be. Do you always want to be level of service A? No, you do not. But do you want to go for a B or C? Probably, so, because that's the region at which you get some minor outer bank, but it's not disastrous. It's not devastating in people's houses. It doesn't shut down the major roadway system. So that's the goal of these plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you have a comment? MR. WEEKS: I was just going to stress the point that Robert Page 98 March 9, 2006 just made there, and that is, if you look at policy 2.1, we specifically added the language that says, after we do these watershed management plans, if they so warrant, then we will adjust the level of service standards. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And hopefully try to improve them. MR. WILEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page five? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, maybe we should actually say that. That the attempt will be to improve. I mean, I believe that that's implied, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if warranted improve. MR WEEKS: Well, based on what Robert had said, it sounds like we would not think of reducing a level of service standard as appropriate, but that's always a possibility. And if we indicate that it could only be improved, then we're stating by policy that the policy-makers, the Board of County Commissioners, are precluded from lowering a lower level of service standard. Again, I don't -- it doesn't sound like from what Robert's or Gene's comments, either one, that would be something the county would intend to do, but there may be some valued reason for wanting to do so. Plus, particularly, if you think of some of the rural areas where we may be far enough out east in the Big Cypress area that may not be any development potential. And if we should have a level of service, that C in that area, we might want to say, well, no, take it to D. Let's don't spend the capital facilities expenses to improve an area with minimal development. MR. WILEY: Just to give an example just real quickly so you have an understanding of how this level of service works. Page 99 March 9, 2006 Depending on where you were in the county. If you go and look on page five where you already are, and you're in the Cocohatchee River System, so you have a Cocohatchee River Basin. Now that's the main canal which rolls along the north side of Immokalee Road, and this is identified as D. Now, that's what it was back in 1989. Now since then the Big Cypress basin has come in with a lot of improvements. And along that main canal tremendous improvements. But we're talking about the entire basin. So with all the sub-branches and everything else. If somewhere within one of those branches there is a constriction, it would still remain at D until such time the whole thing is improved. Now, on that same page, go out to the very bottom of Barron River System. You have Ocala Okaloacoochee Slough Basin. That's a D. Right next to it is the Barron River Canal North Basin with a level of service C. In those areas we have a lot of wetlands. Just the reverse is the way the level of service standard was set up. You don't want to overdrain. So if you have a level of service C on the Barron River Canal North System, you may get super efficient and drain everything out, but you overdrain the wetland, you have effectively decreased it to a D the. So you just have to know the background behind each of these basins onto what criteria was set up for them when we establish the level of service. Like David said, the intention was really never to make it worse. The intention is to bring it better towards the criteria that was set up for each individual basin's level of service definition. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So having Okaloacoochee at D is good because that means the wetlands are maintained? MR. WILEY: No, that does not necesarilly mean that because Okaloacoochee Slough Basin with a D very likely means that somewhere there is overdrainage in that one. It is getting too Page 100 March 9, 2006 much water and not holding enough water within itself. These are the things you sort of -- you haven't had the background of it, but without it, you wouldn't understand how the level of service definition works. That's sort of why I'm still here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Isn't the problem that we don't really have good data, and we have this watershed program coming, so won't we in the future be able to be a lot wiser making these kinds of decisions? MR. WEEKS: That certainly is one of the chief purposes for doing the watershed management plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So discussing it now is a waste of time, I think? MR. WEEKS: I think so. We need to wait until-- back to what Commissioner Midney said, we need to wait until we get the studies done until we get more data. These management plans would be looking at drainage, but they're also looking at environmental issues and water quality and -- we've discussed these a lot during the CCME and they're big and important tasks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on page six? Hearing none, page seven? Page eight? And last, page nine? Gene, like Phil you provided me with a lot of information and I do want to thank you for that. It was helpful. It did minimize the amount of questions I had to hardly any. I appreciate that. MR. CALVERT: One comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just for one clarification, maybe correction. On the first page, page number one, under the introduction, the fourth line down talks about the county stormwater management section. Part of the road maintenance department. That's not accurate. I think it would probably be better to say just the county's transportation division maintains drainage systems. The reason I say that is Page 101 March 9, 2006 because the way the division is organized, the stormwater management department, which I'm the director, is in charge of capital improvement stormwater violations and capital improvements. My department does not have the responsibility for maintenance of the waterways, for cleaning the ditches. That falls back to road and bridge. So to cover everybody, I would suggest maybe refer to just the transportation division. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I assume staff will make that change. Mr. Wiley. MR. WILEY: Yes. If I may, I was talking to Chris here. If you also go to page number eight under policy one -- well, policy 6.3. Strike out the one there, I guess. We're talking about the various discharge rates for allowable discharge. There are two more discharge rates that are not included here. The reason I mention is because earlier on you are mentioning ordinance 2001-27 is where the data was obtained. Within 0127, we also have and identified discharge rate for the Harvey Basin of 0.055 CFS per acre. And the Wiggins Pass Road Basin is 0.13 CFS per acre. So those two specific discharge rates adopted by ordinance should be included here so that you at this point include them all. And then jut to follow up also on page one where Gene was speaking about changing, you might want to give consideration also -- says the county storm water management section maintains draining systems associated with county and state roadways. That's not really quite a correct statement either. They maintain the entire secondary canal system. They go beyond roadway drainage. There is a secondary canal system out there, so that probably should be tweaked just slightly to include all facilities over which they're responsible for design and maintenance. Page 102 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does CDF staff have any any problems making those changes? MR. WEEKS: No problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the Commission have any problem? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We're going to stop at 12:30 today exactly. So when we get into conversation with any of the other elements and they get into longer time than we have left, whereever we're at, we're just going to have to cut off and finish Thursday with the continuation of the meeting. So with that in mind, we'll go into the solid waste. I know there was a public speaker. He sat here all morning. I'm not sure so if we'll get through the entire discussion of solid waste in the next 20 minutes. So what I'd like to do is, as we typically have done, we'll get into discussion and if we have to, it will be our first item up when we get this discussion back in play next Thursday. So with that, who is here representing solid waste? Anybody? Mr. Adelstein, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a general solid waste question before we get into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the table of contents in the element for solid waste, it lists 13 pages, yet the website, my books, even the books that we've been supplied, doesn't have that many pages, so -- MR. GRAMATGES: This is Phil Gramatges, principal project manager, public utilities engineering. I do not know why that is so. I'm sorry. I need to refer back to CDS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, could you spell your last name for Page 103 March 9,2006 the court reporter? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, it's G, as in George, R-A-M-A-T-G- E-S. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet you wouldn't have guessed that without that question. MR. GRAMATGES: So the answer is indeed no. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let's move into our regular questions. On page one, does anybody have a question? Page two? MR. KRASOWSKI: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. How should we proceed here? Shall I engage page by page or save my comments to the end? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, there's only five pages in this whole thing. Let us get through our questions and then we'll ask you for yours. Okay? That will work out better. Thank you. MR. KRASOWSKI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought there was -- this is a larger element but it's rather small. Page two. Page three. I have a question on page three, Phil. Your policy 2.4, you list -- it's all new. And then you list the future solid waste operations that are potentially -- I've heard, or I think I've seen in the papers somewhere that there are ongoing discussions about alternative landfill sites, but, yet I don't see that as one of the items that could possibly be based on policy 2.4. MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of any such discussions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, somebody at the county contacted a representative, one of the landowners out in the eastern part of the county, and it was in the newspaper. Specifically asked them about there's a potential for a landfill site out there. I know Page 104 March 9, 2006 that because there's an attorney involved in it. But, be that as it may, wouldn't we want to list a number of alternative landfill sites just in case there are such sites that do come about? MR GRAMA TGES: I'm not aware of any sites that may be available right now. So I don't know what we would put in there, SIr. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if a site were to come available in the future and it wasn't listed here, you couldn't utilize it if you wanted to. So in the pretense that one may -- if there ever is a piece of acreage out there that you don't know about and it happens to come up that it could be a potential landfill site, it's not here, I don't think you'll have the alternative to explore it. So, all I'm suggesting is it's a benefit to your department that if opportunity arises, you just may want to add that. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, sure. I certainly will. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't think that limits whether it's in here or not that it necessarily limits the county. And I guess one concern I would have is by putting it in here -- we've had situations before where property owners have raised a thing called condemnation blight. In other words, by virtue the county is putting something on a map as a possible future site for something that it has somehow impacted their property value. Not to say that that would happen. I'm just throwing it out as a historical example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I hope that applies to road systems that go through homes in Golden Gate Estates because we have a lot of blight going on that maybe the county contributed to. Any other -- MR. WEEKS: Pardon me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Page 105 March 9, 2006 MR. WEEKS: I was going to suggest that maybe Phil could check with his division administrator. I think the Commission is aware, potential future landfill has been discussed in past years and it's understandably a very controversial issue because there is many complaints -- or historically has been many complaints. Most particularly about the Naples landfill. Talk of a new landfill has gone over like a lead balloon. You might recall a few years back there was discussion in particular about one somewhere generally in the Immokalee area. I think south and west. The landowners there were adamant. They didn't want it. At any rate, it's a hot button issue. And I would not want us to add to the policy that would even create the window of opportunity if it's going to cause a big stir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie already indicated that it wouldn't be a good thing to do so I wasn't going to pursue anything further, David. So maybe we don't need to have anybody go back and explore it any further. Thank you. MR. VAN LENGEN: Mr. Chairman, also on 2.4 -- Kris Van Lengen again. I just noticed something I didn't notice before. And when I read the introductory sentence that says the county shall acquire and! or retain required land inventory and then select one or more of the following options by fiscal year 2010, I see an ambiguity that I did not see before. And I would like that opportunity to clear that up, because I don't know whether it means obtain the land or make this decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you should clean it up. So when you bring it back to us on the 30th, that would be helpful. Any other questions on page three? Page four? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: It would be under policy 3.1, and it's C, maintain and enhance the curbside separator of material into recyclable categories. We don't separate at the curbside any Page 106 March 9, 2006 longer, as far as I know. Everybody has the big yellow top bins and everything goes in one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're supposed to. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's not true in the association areas like -- anywhere you have a large PUD, they do make you separate. MR. VAN LENGEN: In other words, the commercial accounts they still separate. MR. GRAMATGES: That is correct, yes, commercial and large accounts do still do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the top of page four, policy 2.8. The last word talks about small businesses to participate to some extent. That just seems like an ambiguous reference. I know it's not new language, but I don't know what some extent is. MR. GRAMATGES: I am not objecting to eliminating the "to some extent". Leave it at business to participate, period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that would be at least better. Is there any questions on page five? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I still got four. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On policy 3.1, we're eliminating the multi-family recycling. That wasn't one of the comments in the EAR. It says, maintain and enhance the current county-wide multifamily residential recycling program. There must be a reason. Well, it's not coming from direction from the EAR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In A it refers to residential. Wouldn't that -- is that where they may have picked it up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's what I thought. Because they crossed off single family. Page 107 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that's what I thought. Maybe I'm wrong. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I don't think you want curbside high-rise pickups. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. GRAMATGES: I Don't know that I fully understand the question. MR. VAN LENGEN: I think that under category A we crossed out single family so that would apply to all residents. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You like multifamily to be current countywide residential curbside recycling. The curbside is the problem. MR. VAN LENGEN: Oh, curbside is the problem. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It takes me off of A to you may not mean that. MR. GRAMATGES: Okay. So we eliminate curbside. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what if you just left it the way it was? Is there a countywide multifamily recycling program? MR. GRAMATGES: No, unless it refers to a large apartment building, which, of course, do not have curbside pickup. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question, number one, if it's saying maintain, so I'm assuming one exists. MR. GRAMATGES: Maintain and enhance. Oh, yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then I think -- I wouldn't like to take the word curbside out because that could maybe sway another direction. Anyway, I just see no reason to eliminate B. MR. GRAMATGES: The way I understand it is I was trying to refer to the changes that were made with the recycling program where we added those large bins with the yellow tops. That certainly has been an enhancement, which by the way has been working quite well for us in the last few weeks or months since Page 108 March 9, 2006 we instituted it. What this is trying to address is, we are not going to stop there. Weare going to continue to develop and continue to enhance curbside recycling. Because we see that that is a very beneficial process for us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you'll be providing the curbside recycling for single family and four-plex residential units? MR. GRAMATGES: We are doing that now, as far as I know. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to see something in there that says we would like to extend multifamily residential recycling programs to all areas of the county because it doesn't exist in Immokalee now. MR. GRAMATGES: Certainly, we could take that back for consideration, certainly. I would need to consult with our administrator to make sure that could be done. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The explanation I got was that the subcontractor was not equipped to do it. I don't really know why we shouldn't set as a goal to have universal recycling because a large percentage of Immokalee lives in multifamily units where there's no recycling whatsoever. MR. GRAMATGES: Once again, I cannot answer that question right now. I'll be certainly more than happy to take that back and provide an answer when we meet again. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would this body be willing to suggest that we make a suggestion that such a thing be instituted, or as a goal? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Paul, the thing I want to do is bring B back to life. If I do that, I do exactly what you're saYIng. MR. VAN LENGEN: And I think staff has no difficulty in putting B back in and that would resolve both issues. Page 109 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So B is going to go back in? MR. VANLENGEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And A if you want to limit because I think you did something in A that thought you cured B. But I think in A, if you want to limit more curbside services, you could go back and may uncross some of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul and Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you guys want to speak, please acknowledge first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, I thought I was still on mIne. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then, Paul was interrupting. So one of you guys just kind of work it out amongst you and let someone down this end know you want to talk. Thank you. Did you have anymore to say on this, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page five. I have one. Why did you cross out A? MR. GRAMATGES: I can't answer that. I don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that whole policy started with continued investigation of cost-saving methods for landfills. I would think you'd want to keep. MR. GRAMA TGES : Well, true, but the difference is landfill mining means going back into the landfill and trying to dig stuff out of there. That is very disruptive, not to mention expensive. The best way to provide for appropriate recycling is by recycling at the curb. Making sure that all that could possibly end up in Page 110 March 9, 2006 the landfill that could be recycled is identified beforehand before it goes into the landfill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Landfill mining was begun in this county years ago by -- I think the gentleman's name was Bob Fahey. He won a national award for it, and we were claimed all over the country for the program. And I thought the obj ective was that, not so much for recycling, but to get more landfill space by recycling the material that wasn't decomposed putting it back in and using the decomposed material both to recover the landfill or get rid of it in some other manner as fill. So I saw that as a positive. I'm still wondering why it's been struck. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, when it comes to trying to recover landfill space by taking out material that has already decomposed, we are indeed doing that. And we propose to continue to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then wouldn't we want to leave this in? MR. GRAMATGES: I have no objection to doing that, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The entire policy 3.2 is a generic reference to looking for more cost-saving methods for landfills. That seems to be a concept in the GMP we would want to keep. I don't know why we want to strike the whole policy. Why wouldn't you just leave it in? If it's not hurting anything and it provides the opportunity to utilize new methods that come along, we ought to be doing that kind of thing. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody disagree? COMMISSIONER CARON: Doesn't it say that right here at the end in the new language? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as that includes landfill mining, which is where -- I liked it as it was. Page 111 March 9, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Actually, in the EAR we do exactly as you said, Mark, we're saying how we have a reputation for being good at landfill mining There was no required change from the EAR based meeting. I see nothing wrong with -- your answer kind of gave a negative opinion in the landfill mining so I wouldn't want this to be able to cause somebody to not allow something to landfill mine. MR. GRAMATGES: I'm okay with leaving that statement there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I like the old language rather than the new. I think it opens -- just makes it a little clearer that we're being proactive. MR. VAN LENGEN: I think we have to work on the old language just a little bit because of B of the old language, investigating methane gas recovery needs to be updated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. VAN LENGEN: But we can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're doing it. Okay. You'll get back to us on that? MR. VAN LENGEN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I don't think it would be good for you to start your discussion and end it today without us having to follow up on it until Thursday. If you don't mind, we'll start with you Thursday morning -- Thursday next week, whenever we're starting this issue and you'll have up to ten minutes to discuss the issue, and then we can talk about any points you may have made, if we so desire. MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you. That's very considerate. I appreciate it. And as I just mentioned, I will be sending a preview of my comments to everybody through email. Page 112 March 9, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be -- anything we can digest ahead of time will be more effective for your discussion. I know your stuff is detailed, so we appreciate it. MR. KRASOWSKI: And will the director of solid waste be here so we can get straight answers from the people responsible? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would expect that to happen. Can I be told that it will? MR. GRAMA TGES: Phil Gramatges, public utilities. I will certainly bring that message back and I will encourage that to happen. I can't tell my director what to do, so I can only say that I will bring that message back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So ifhe doesn't want to send you here to respond to any questions that we may still have -- MR. GRAMATGES: Oh, I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then tell him we can't approve this then, so that might have an impact. MR. GRAMATGES: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that, just so we're set up right so this board knows where we're going to be going. Next Thursday we will finish up the solid waste, after that we will go into the ground water, which is MGW AR, the housing element, recreation element and then keep following through with the ICE and the other elements we haven't touched yet. I'm telling this to staff so you have the right personnel here to start out first thing whenever we get to it. We're going to have our regular session in the morning. Whenever we finish, if it's close to lunch, we'll break for lunch first. If not, we'll go right into this, break for lunch, and come back into this. So, that's how it's going to proceed. Now the instructions on the outlying issues. We have sections from the CIE transportation sewer, CCME, and FLU. Page 113 March 9, 2006 Instead of listening to those next Thursday, we really will-- first time we could address those will be the 30th. So that will give everybody and staff more time to prepare themselves. If you have rewrites of any of this, please get them to the panel before the 30th so we have time to review them. With that I think -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We should schedule all Thursday afternoon, I mean, just in case it takes that long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think it's going to take all Thursday afternoon to get through it. Then with that, we need a motion to continue this meeting -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- starting at some time after 8:30 in the morning on Thursday of next week. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MINDY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you all. Meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.) Page 114 March 9,2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY DANIELLE M. AHREN.D Page 115