Loading...
Agenda 04/08/2008 Item #10C Agenda Item NO.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 1 of 44 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to exceed $50,000,000 from the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program of the Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to the loan agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Commission in order to finance the construction of Oil Well Road, Collier Boulevard (Davis to N of GG Main Canal) & Davis Boulevard (Collier Boulevard to Radio Road); authorizing the execution of a loan note or notes to evidence such borrowing; agreeing to secure such loan note or notes with a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues as provided in the loan agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of such other documents as may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and providing an effective date. OBJECTIVE: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached Resolution authorizing a loan from the Commercial Paper Program in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000 to finance the construction of Oil Well Road, Collier Boulevard (Davis to N of GG Main Canal), and Davis Boulevard (Collier Boulevard to Radio Road) projects. CONSIDERATIONS: On May 8, 2007 (agenda item lOB) Transportation presented the Transportation 5 Year Road Plan to the board and outlined many funding changes within the plan. One of the items presented within the 5 year plan included a $50,000,000 commercial paper loan. The three proj ects Transportation will use the loan proceeds to fund will be Oil Well Road, Collier Boulevard (Davis to N of the Golden Gate Canal) and Davis Boulevard (Collier Boulevard to Radio Road). It should be noted that Davis Boulevard is an Advanced Reimbursement project with FDOT and we will receive $20,000,000 in reimbursement funds starting in 2013 and will be reimbursed to the County in 10 quarterly payments over 2,5 years. If Impact Fees are not available for the Debt Service repayment, these funds (State of Florida reimbursements for Davis Blvd) may be used to offset the funds needed for the repayment of the commercial paper loan. FISCAL IMPACT: A loan in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000 that shall be repaid with monies derived from a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues as available. Estimated maximum annual debt service (assuming a 5% interest rate and a six year term) is dependent upon when the actual funds are bOlTowed. Transportation is assuming a debt service repayment as follows from Transportation Impact Fees as available and the repayment schedule is dependent upon these funds being received at the current rate within the 6 year plan with a total repayment of $59,545,700. ~ Fiscal Year 2009 $ 4,000,000 Fiscal Year 2010 $ 11,000,000 Fiscal Year 2011 $ 13,000,000 Fiscal Year 2012 $ 9,700,000 Fiscal Year 2013 $ 18,800,000 Fiscal Year 2014 $ 3,045,700 The Commercial Paper Funds will not be drawn down until they are actually needed to fund these projects, Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 2 of 44 GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no Growth Management Impact associated with this Executive Summary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached Resolution authorizing a loan in an amount not to exceed $50,000,000 from the Commercial Paper Loan Program as the funding source for the construction of Oil Well Road, Collier Boulevard (Davis to N of GG Main Canal), & Davis Boulevard (Collier Boulevard to Radio Road) projects. Prepared by: Sharon Newman, Transportation Operations Manager Attachments: (1) Resolution; (2) 5/8/07 BCC Meeting Minutes Page 1 of2 Agenda Item NO.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 3 of 44 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: Item Summary: 10G Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to exceed $50,000,000 from the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program of the Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to the loan agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Commission in order to finance the construction of Oil Well Road, Collier Boulevard (Davis to N of GG Main Canal) & Davis Boulevard (Collier Boulevard to Radio Road); authorizing the execution of a loan note or notes to evidence such borrowing; agreeing to secure such loan note or notes with a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem revenues as provided in the loan agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of such other documents as may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and providing an effective date. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator) Meeting Date: 4/8/2008 9:00:00 AM Prepared By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin 3/26/20083:14;10 PM Approved By Sharon Newman Accounting Supervisor Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin 3/26/20083;16 PM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Division Administrator Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin. 3/26/20083;39 PM Approved By Scott R. Teach Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 3/26/2008 4;27 PM Approved By Pat Lehnhard Executive Secretary Date Transportation Services Transportation Services Admin 3/27/20088:19 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator Applications Analyst Date Administrative Services Information Technology 3/27/20082:22 PM Approved By Susan Usher Senior Management/Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 3/29/2008 10:06 AM Approved By file://C:\AgendaTest\Exoort\ 1 04-Aoril%208. %202008\ 10. %20COUNTY%20MA NAGER %2... 4/2/2008 Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 4 of 44 Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Board of County Commissioners Deputy County Manager Date County Manager's Office 3/29/2008 3:59 PM file://C:\Agenda Test\Export\] 04-April%208. %202008\ 10. %20COUNTY%20MANA GER %2... 4/2/2008 I Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 5 of 44 TAMPA Suite 1060, 2502 Rocky Point Drive Tampa, Florida 33607 (813) 281-2222 Tel (813) 281-0129 Fax Nabors Giblin & NickersonPA. FORT LAUDERDALE 1225 S.E. Second Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (954) 525-8000 Tel (954) 525-8331 Fax ATTORNEYS AT LAW TALLAHASSEE Suite 200, 1500 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 224-4070 Tel (850) 224-4073 Fax March 25, 2008 VIA E-MAIL TO: The Persons on the Attached Distribution List FROM: Steven E. Miller RE: Florida Local Government Finance Commission Pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program - Collier County Draw No. A-46-1 Enclosed please find a draft of a resolution to be adopted by the County at an upcoming meeting in April. This Draw approves various transportation-related projects under the Transportation Production Readiness 5-year Capital Work Program. Please provide any comments to the enclosed as soon as possible. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed, please give me a call. SEM:djb Enclosures Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 6 of 44 FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM Distribution List - Collier County COLLIER COUNTY Hon. Dwight E. Brock Clerk of Circuit Court 3301 East Tamiami Trail Building L, 6th Floor Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 941/732-2745 Fax: 94l/775-2755 Email: dwight.brockiaJclerk.collier.J1.us David Weigel, Esq. County Attorney Collier County Government Center 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 941/774-8400 Fax: 941/774-0225 Email: davidweigel(Q>colliergov.net Mike Smykowski Budget Director 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239/774-8973 Fax: 239/774-8828 E-mail: mikesmykowski@colliergov.net Susan Usher Senior Budget Analyst Phone: 239-774-8810 Fax: 239-774-8828 E-mail: susanusher@colliergov.net Derek M. Johnssen General Accounting Manager 2671 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 941/774-8350 Fax: 941/774-6179 Email: Derek.johnssen@clerk.collier.f1.us John Yonkosky Collier County Office of Management and Budget Collier County Government Center W. HarnlOn Turner Building, 2nd Floor 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239/252-8973 Fax: 239/252-8828 Email: iohnvonkoskv0icolliergov.net BOND COUNSEL Steven E. Miller, Esq. Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson 2502 Rocky Point Drive, Suite 1060 Tampa, Florida 33607 Phone: 813/281-2222 Fax: 813/281-0129 Email: smiller0ingn-tampa.com PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR Elizabeth Newberry Florida Association of Counties 100 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Phone: 850/922-4300 Fax: 850/487-1434 Email: Enewberry@f1-counties.com WACHOVIA BANK Beth Gordon Corporate Banking Wachovia Bank 225 Water Street Mail Code FL 0074 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Phone: 904/489-3013 Fax: 904/489-5441 Email: beth.gordonialwachovia.com Irene Sutter Wachovia Bank 1950 Hillsboro Boulevard Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 Phone: 954/596-6902 Fax: 954/596-6908 Email: irene.sutter@wachovia.com BANK COUNSEL Peter Dame, Esq. Akerman Senterfitt 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2500 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-3646 Phone: 904/798-3700 Fax: 904/798-3730 Email: peter.dame@akerman.com Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 7 of 44 UNDERWRITER William Mack Morgan Stanley 440 South LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60605 Phone: 312/706-4266 Fax: 312/706-4668 Email: William.mack@morganstanJey.com TRUSTEE Kathryn Broecker Corporate Trust Division U.S. Bank National Association 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 250 Orlando, Florida 32801 Phone: 407/237-4437 Fax: 407/237-5299 Email: kathryn.broecker@usbank.com Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 8 of 44 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF NOT EXCEEDING $50,000,000 FROM THE POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNTY IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE COSTS AND EXPENSES RELATING TO VARIOUS TRANSPORT A TION-RELA TED PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN NOTE OR NOTES TO EVIDENCE SUCH BORROWING; AGREEING TO SECURE SUCH LOAN NOTE OR NOTES WITH A COVENANT TO BUDGET AND APPROPRIATE LEGALLY A V AILABLE NON-AD VALOREM REVENUES AS PROVIDED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH BORROWING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context of use indicates another meaning or intent, the following words and terms as used in this Resolution shall have the following meanings. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the hereinafter defined Loan Agreement. "Act" means, collectively, Part I, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, Part I, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and all other applicable provisions oflaw. "Additional Payments" means the payments required to be made by the County pursuant to Sections 5.02(b), 5.02(c), 5.02(d), 5.05 and 6.06(e) of the Loan Agreement. "Board" means the Board of County Commissioners of the County. Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 9 of 44 "Chairman" means the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Board, and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Clerk" means the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County, ex-officio Clerk of the Board, and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Commission" means the Florida Local Government Finance Commission, and any assigns or successors thereto. "County" means Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. "County Manager" means the County Manager of the County or his designee and such other person as may be duly authorized to act on his or her behalf. "Designated Revenues" means (I) Public Agency Moneys budgeted and appropriated for purposes of payment of the Loan Repayments and any other amounts due under the Loan Agreement, and (2) the proceeds of the Loan pending the application thereof. "Draw" means the borrowing of money under the Loan Agreement in accordance with Article III thereof. "Loan" means the loan to be made by the Commission to the County from proceeds of the Series A Notes in accordance with the terms of this Resolution and of the Loan Agreement. "Loan Agreement" means the Loan Agreement, dated as of April 12, 1991, between the County and the Commission, as amended and supplemented and as the same may be further amended and supplemented. "Loan No. A-46" means the Loan designated as "Loan No. A-46" the proceeds of which shall be used to finance a portion of the costs of Project A-46. "Loan Note" means a note of the County evidencing the obligations incurred under the Loan Agreement by the county on account of a Draw made in regard to a Loan, which shall be in substantially the form provided in Exhibit I to the Loan Agreement. "Loan Rate" has the meaning set forth in the Loan Agreement. "Loan Repayments" or "Repayments" means the payments of principal and interest at the Loan Rate on the Loan amounts payable by the County pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Agreement and all other payments, including Additional Payments, payable by the County pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Agreement. 2 Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 10 of44 "Non-Ad Valorem Revenues" means all legally available revenues of the County derived from any source whatsoever other than ad valorem taxation on real and personal property, which are legally available to make the Loan Repayments required in the Loan Agreement, but only after provision has been made by the County for the payment of services and programs which are for essential public purposes affecting the health, welfare and safety of the inhabitants of the County or which are legally mandated by applicable law. "Program" means the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan Program established by the Commission. "Project A-46" mean the various transportation-related projects in the Transportation Production Readiness 5-Year Capital Work Program as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and as more particularly set forth in the plans and specifications on file or to be on file with the County and as the same may be amended or modified from time to time. "Public Agency Moneys" shall mean the moneys budgeted and appropriated by the County for payment of the Loan Repayments and any other amounts due hereunder from Non-Ad Valorem Revenues pursuant to the County's covenant to budget and appropriate such Non-Ad Valorem Revenues contained in Section 6.04 of the Loan Agreement. "Resolution" means this Resolution, as the same may from time to time be amended, modified or supplemented. "Series A Notes" means the Commission's Pooled Commercial Paper Notes, Series A (Governmental Issue), to be issued from time to time by the Commission. The terms "herein," "hereunder," "hereby," "hereto," "hereof," and any similar terms, shall refer to this Resolution; the term "heretofore" shall mean before the date of adoption of this Resolution; and the term "hereafter" shall mean after the date of adoption of this Resolution. Words importing the masculine gender include every other gender. Words importing the singular number include the plural number, and vice versa. SECTION 2. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This Resolution IS adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act. SECTION 3. declared that: FINDINGS. It IS hereby ascertained, determined and 3 Agenda Item NO.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 11 of 44 (A) The Commission has been established for the principal purpose of issuing commercial paper notes in order to provide funds to loan to public agencies, such as the County, desiring to finance and refinance the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping capital improvements and to finance and refinance other governmental needs. (B) In furtherance of the foregoing, the Commission shall issue, from time to time, commercial paper notes to be known as "Florida Local Government Finance Commission Pooled Commercial Paper Notes, Series A (Governmental Issue)" and shall loan the proceeds of such Series A Notes to public agencies, including the County. (C) Pursuant to the authority of the Act, the Commission has agreed to loan, from time to time, to the County such amounts as shall be authorized herein and in the Loan Agreement in order to enable the County to finance, reimburse or refinance the cost of acquisition, construction and equipping of capital improvements, including Project A- 46. (D) The County desires to borrow an amount not to exceed $50,000,000 in order to finance a portion of the acquisition of Project A-46. (E) On May 8, 2007, the Board authorized Project A-46 to be financed with proceeds of a loan under the Program. (F) The County hereby determines that the provlSlon of funds by the Commission to the County in the form of Loan No. A-46 pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement and the financing of Project A-46 will assist in the development and maintenance of the public welfare of the residents of the County, and shall serve a public purpose by improving the health and living conditions, and providing governmental services, facilities and programs and will promote the most efficient and economical development of such services, facilities and programs. (G) Loan No. A-46 shall be repaid solely from the Designated Revenues. Such Designated Revenues shall include moneys derived from a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available Non-Ad Valorem Revenues. The ad valorem taxing power of the County will never be necessary or authorized to make the Loan Repayments. (H) Due to the potential volatility of the market for tax-exempt obligations such as the Note or Notes to be issued evidencing Loan No. A-46, the complexity of the transactions relating to such Note or Notes and the uniqueness of the Program, it is in the best interest of the County to deliver the Note or Notes to the Commission pursuant to the Program by a negotiated sale pursuant to Section 218.385(1), Florida Statutes, allowing the County to utilize the Program in which it participates from time to time and to enter the market at the most advantageous time, rather than at a specified advertised date, 4 Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 12 of 44 thereby permitting the County to obtain the best possible price, issuance costs and interest rate for such Note or Notes. SECTION 4. TERMS OF LOANS. The County hereby approves of Loan No. A-46 in the aggregate amount of not exceeding $50,000,000 for the purpose of providing the County with sufficient funds to finance, refinance or reimburse the costs of Project A-46. The Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, seal and deliver on behalf of the County the Loan Note and other documents, instruments, agreements and certificates necessary or desirable to effectuate the Loan as provided in the Loan Agreement. The Loan Note or Notes with respect to Loan No. A-46 shall reflect the terms of such Loan and shall be substantially in the form attached to the Loan Agreement as Exhibit 1. The County Manager shall determine the date or dates of funding of Loan No. A-46 in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement. The Loan shall mature on such date as the County Manager may determine prior to the issuance of the Loan Note for Loan No. A-46; provided, however, the final maturity of the Loan may not be later than the expiration date of the Letter of Credit (as defined in the Loan Agreement) at the time of the Draw. Loan No. A-46 shall bear interest at the Loan Rate in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement. Loan No. A-46 shall bear interest at the Loan Rate in accordance with the tenus of the Loan Agreement. The County further agrees to make all Loan Repayments required of it pursuant to the terms of the Loan Agreement. The Letter of Credit fees for Loan No. A-46 shall be 30 basis points or such other amount as Wachovia Bank and the County Manager shall agree. SECTION 5. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECT A-46. The County does hereby authorize the acquisition of Project A-46 and the reimbursement of any costs incurred by the County with respect to Project A-46 since March 10,2007 (60 days prior to "official intent" referred to in Section 3(E) hereof). SECTION 6. SECURITY FOR THE LOAN. The County's obligation to repay Loan No. A-46 will be secured by a pledge of and lien upon the Designated Revenues in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement. The obligation of the County to repay Loan No. A-46 shall not be deemed a pledge of the faith and credit or taxing power of the County and such obligation shall not create a lien on any property whatsoever of or in the County other than the Designated Revenues. SECTION 7. RESOLUTION TO CONSTITUTE CONTRACT. In consideration of the making of the Loan by the Commission, this Resolution shall be deemed to be and shall constitute a contract between (i) the County and (ii) the Commission and its successors and assigns (the Commission and its successors and assigns hereinafter referred to as the "Lender"). The pledge and agreements of the County herein set forth shall be for the benefit, protection and security of the Lender. 5 Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 13 of 44 SECTION 8. GENERAL AUTHORITY. The members of the Board and the officers, attorneys and other agents or employees of the County are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, or desirable or consistent with the requirements of this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, for the full punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in this Resolution and the Loan Agreement, and each member, employee, attorney and officer of the County or its Board is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all papers and instruments and to do and cause to be done any and all acts and things necessary or proper for carrying out the transactions contemplated by this Resolution and the Loan Agreement. SECTION 9. SEVERABILITY. If anyone or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, though not expressly prohibited, or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way affect the validity of any of the other provisions hereof. SECTION 10. REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby superseded and repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. DULY ADOPTED this _ day of April, 2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (SEAL) By: Chairman ATTEST: Dwight E. Brock, Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency: Deputy Clerk David C. Weigel, County Attorney 6 Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 14 of 44 EXHIBIT A Description of Project A-46 Project A-46 shall consist of the following transportation-related projects under the Transportation Production Readiness 5- Y ear Capital Work Program: I. Oil Well Road Project (#60044) 2. Collier Boulevard -- Davis to north of Golden Gate Main Canal (#60001) 3. David Boulevard (#60073) Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 15 of 44 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, May 8, 2007 Item #lOB DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTION READINESS (DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY) 5 YEAR CAPITAL WORK PROGRAM AND THE FUNDING SCENARIOS FOR THE POTENTIAL $182 MILLION SHORTFALL OVER 5 YEARS - MOTION FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING - APPROVED; MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TRANSPORTATION'S RECOMMENDATIONS- APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is lOB. It's a discussion with the Board of County Commissioners regarding the transportation production readiness, discussion purposes only, five-year capital work program and the funding scenarios for the potential $182 million shortfall over five years. Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 16 of 44 Again, Mr. Norman Feder, your Transportation Administrator, will present. MR. FEDER: Commissioners, when we came to you with the annual update and inventory report, we identified about 180 million that we were looking at, what were the creative ways we could seek to fund it, and we showed, as potential developer contribution agreements, other options. This board, very appropriately so, said that they wanted to flesh out exactly how that 182 million would be funded or seek to modify the program in such a manner that, in fact, it is truly cost feasible without having to rely on issues that we really can't reasonably project based on past actions and where we are right now. With that in mind, we've taken an effort at bringing back to you some recommendations and how we might balance to the fiscal resources that are available. What you have in your package and what I have up on the prompter here is a five-year work program that, in fact, does balance reality. It leaves about 63 million available at the end of the fifth year in case revenue streams do not materialize as anticipated. So in that sense, even with the items I'm going to mention, it does leave some on the table. What we'd look at is if revenue sources do materialize as expected -- and it's fairly conservative estimates in some areas of revenue stream -- that we would then, be it in another year or two, have the ability to try and evaluate whether or not to program some of that 63 million or to continue to hold it in abeyance until we see further how revenue stream and costs continue to go. Generally the program, as I said, is within the transportation section revising some of the approach to try to Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 17 of 44 come to the balance situation. We have impact fees as one item that we had mentioned to you previously. We're looking at our impact fees. We're in the process of an update of our transportation impact fee. Also, as you're aware, the indexing of the impact fees is being evaluated as well. What we'd look at is, that we come in with the indexing. They haven't presented to you yet, but the latest that you've seen is we're about in the area of a 29.7 percent increase on transportation, being one of the highest increases because the cost of petroleum products and other issues related to the construction costs have escalated. But that 29.7, if the indexing issue goes forward and transportation is indexed at that level, we would continue our study. We're trying to look at trip length and other issues and more localized data and then come back with an undate to our impact fee at that time and adjust it accordingly beyond anything that might have been done with the indexing itself. So in that sense, we're looking at the prospects of at least about a 30 percent increase. Approximately a bit more once we've finished the full study efforts. Our projection, based on that, is about 85 million of additional revenue. We also looked at it, and within stormwater, you know you've established .15 mills as a specific ad valorem allocation to stormwater. We had a couple of projects where we went beyond the roads' stormwater needs or drainage needs to incorporate provisions for stormwater projects, most notably on Rattlesnake Hammock Road, provisions for part of LA SIP, and also on Goodlette-Frank, provisions for portions of our Gordon River stormwater and drainage process. So in those two cases, we looked at specifically what was Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 18 of 44 solely for the stormwater projects and not for the road project, and that's about $3.365 million that, in fact, we're bringing back in, pulling out of the .15 mills and making the stormwater portion pay for those features that are solely the stormwater project. General fund turnback. That's one thing when you did review the AUIR and ask us to come back to you, you asked us to look at it. At the time is was about 11 million. But as was indicated, even at that time, some of that was dedicated to other projects. There's about 6 million of that that was able to be brought in for transportation, and so we've added that into the equation to try and respond to the shortfall that was shown in the AUIR. County Barn Road. County Barn Road is slated for going to construction either late this year, beginning of next. We have the right-of-way, we have the design, but we actually are very, very close to the production on Santa Barbara extension also running from Davis down to Rattlesnake. With that in mind, and understanding that the Santa Barbara extension also services travel all the way up -- and fairly soon, up to Bonita Beach Road maybe, but at least up to Immokalee Road very shortly -- that that corridor was probably better serving the network. What we're looking at, for about three million, we can go from a four- to a six-lane on the Santa Barbara extension. That would then meet the same lane call with two lanes on County Barn, six lanes on the Santa Barbara extension until we can come back and move on the County Barn project. I'm not recommending that we abandon the County Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 19 of 44 Barn project. All along we told you that even if we went four and four eventually, we'd have to go wider on the Santa Barbara project. So we are recommending that County Barn be moved out of the five years but not off the plate altogether. That needs to be done. What that does is save us about 35 million, because -- 3 million additional on Santa Barbara versus the 38 million that was going to be on County Barn. Oil Well. We had a developer contribution agreement, as you're well aware, talking about two of the projects being let late this fiscal year, beginning of the next, basically the west end, which is most critical for us initially, and the east end, and then doing the middle in about fiscal year 'II. What we're looking at right now is, we've had some different estimates. The estimates are starting to come down a little bit. We're working directly with Ave Maria and the Town of Ave Maria to see what we can do to further reduce the cost of the materials and the construction issues. We believe that we can maintain the cost estimate for the first segment, go back to the original estimate for the other two. Overall about 90 million on the project, which is a slight increase from the way it was, but it's a reduction from the way it was in the AUIR, would leave us in a pretty good situation to get those projects done. Grants and reimbursements. We've looked at it based on five years or historical levels or looking at the work program that DOT has come out with. And based on that, we've increased our projections by 8.6. Again, we're looking at historical levels that we receive and what they've actually programmed in their five years, so we feel fairly comfortable with these projections. Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 20 of 44 Landscape projects. What we've done on that is you've had projects that, once they finish their multi-laning at the six-lane full standard, if they were new projects being built with gas tax, we would then fund the landscaping to follow with gas tax. In other cases like U.S. 41, we would do that landscaping with the fund 111 or the unincorporated MSTD. What we're recommending is, in fact, that we stay with the unincorporated 111 MSTD, not that we increase the revenue stream there but rather that we work with implementation as we have the funding capability. What we've seen so far, it won't be a major slowdown but a bit of a slowdown of our ability to implement shortly after the finish of construction. All of the maintenance, of course, is already covered under the 111 MSTD. So what we're saying is about 11 million that we have projected over that five years that was going to be in gas tax, rather convert that over as funds available into 111. The estimated projects. They've all been updated, cost estimates. Last two items here to note to you is we're recommending a commercial loan of 50 million. I'll let Mike Smykowski, your budget director, talk to the specifics of that, but essentially what we're looking at is a five-year loan to be paid back over the five-year work program itself. And as I said, we also kept ourselves a reserve at the end of that five years, even what we're presenting to you, about 63 million. Then reserves, as we note. We had had guidance on levels of reserves. We have increased our estimates to what we think are historically quite high levels that we had experienced previously. We're seeing costs come down just Agenda Item NO.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 21 of 44 a little bit. What we've done is tried to pull back on those reserves because we feel we've done a pretty good job of estimating on the projects, and we left ourselves at 63 million in the outside to see where we are in case we need to address it on that end. That, overall, would put us in a situation, as I said, where we're pretty much balanced. The issue that then comes up is we have a lot of our production readiness in fiscal year '08. We have not programmed much in our fourth year, nor have we really programmed any new initiatives, as I mentioned, the fifth year to establish that balance that we'll looking at, and look at those last two years. But what we're looking at, if we're going to be able to move in fiscal year '08 with a lot of the production that comes ready. That's why we're looking at the commercial paper. We have on here an item called cash flow of the construction phases. I'll let Mike cover that in some detail. What I want to assure you is that we're not looking to encumber beyond the cash that we have available at any time, but we do have a canyforward. And if you look even here on this current work program, you've got a -- MR. MUDD: I'll get it. MR. FEDER: -- you've got a significant canyforward, and that basically occurs, because while we encumber the full cost at the outset, whether it be the design right-of-way or construction phase, they all payout over a period of time. Your right-of-way can be over four or five years, your construction usually over two and a half, and your design can be over a year and a half to two years. Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 22 of 44 So what we're looking at is you're going to have a carryforward or dollars available. We're looking at commercial paper of 50 million. But in every case we come to you with all of these recommendations, and that's all they are is -- as information to you, and then you give us back direction. We're going to be coming to you in the budget cycle. Every project has to come to you, and before we move on it, you'd need to know whether or not the dollars are available and where we stand on it. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mike Smykowski to give you a little more feel on the issue of the commercial paper, and any questions you have, either he or I will try to consider answer. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, Norman. For the record, Michael Smykowski, County Budget Director. On the overhead, it -- Norman has depicted the five-year work program, and the highlighted projects are shown on a cash flow basis based on the expected payout curves for each of those projects. As Norman indicated, you typically have a two-, two-and-a-half-year payout curve for each of the construction jobs. But what this doesn't do and what I've attempted to do is simply -- this is the same project list. The areas in yellow identified -- the cash flow has been moved from the out years. The green areas that are highlighted note the year in which the projects would be let. In other words -- and to let the contract, you would need a budget appropriation in place to let that contract. But again, as noted in the previous Agenda Item No.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 23 of 44 worksheet and depicted here in the yellow is the anticipated payout curve for each of those respective projects. And as Norman noted, in the fourth and fifth year of the work program, which are fiscal years '11 and '12, he has not budgeted many projects to ensure that he has the capability to repay the loan above and beyond the $63 million in projected surplus. But again, that's built upon an anticipated impact fee revenue stream, and this gives Norm some flexibility and some cushion should impact fees not materialize to the level identified within each of the individual fiscal years in the five-year plan. At the very bottom row, here's a $50 million loan. And you see at the -- at the very bottom here, the total projected expenses exceed revenues by 44.7 million based on the total amount of the contracts that would have to be let in that given year. Based on your 13 percent general government debt policy in your debt policy, the $50 million loan amount is the remaining available surplus that could be applied to the road program within that five-year window. And with that, Mr. Mudd wanted me to be very clear that with the commercial paper loans we already have contemplated or board approval for to move out on various construction jobs, such as the sheriff operations center, the courthouse annex and the like, that this 50 million will essentially tap you out in terms of available discretionary borrowing capacity for four to five years. So the core projects will be funded, will be budgeted, and can be accommodated within your debt policy, but we want to be clear that your ability to -- for discretionary borrowing in the -- in the five-year window will be curtailed, Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 24 of 44 assuming we would proceed with this $50 million loan. The key though, again, is the cash flow issue. You need a budget appropriation to award a contract for the full amount of the project. Given that recent road bids, we've typically had one bidder, Norman obviously is very concerned about trying to break projects up into phases. In other words, you break a three-year road project and attempt to break it into segments, and you award segment one, segment two, segment three to staging the cost. So you would not have to encumber the full amount in the initial year in which the contract is let. Given that we have had single bidders recently and given the construction cost escalation, obviously Norman is gravely concerned about trying to break those into segments and the probable adverse impact it would have on the cost of those projects. So we wanted to be very clear in that regard. The key to understand though is that in fiscal year '08 you would need budget appropriation -- you have a $50 million loan budgeted. You would still have a $44 million, quote, shortfall in that year. So you would need a -- to budget loan proceeds of 94 million, obviously based on cash flow, it would be our anticipation given that, again, the projected payout is over two to three years for each of those construction jobs, is that we would never draw beyond the $50 million, but you would need the budget appropriation in place for -- with the loan proceeds budgeted at $94 million next year to enable you to let those contracts with the understanding that over that five-year period you would not plan on drawing beyond the $50 million, and that is the key point we want to make very clear to you. Obviously this conceptual framework discussion today Agenda Item NO.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 25 of 44 is kind of a prelude to your -- to Norman's budget process. He's looking for direction from the board to enable him to proceed with his capital budget. But, again, you will have budget workshops in June and you will have the entire summer and the public hearing process before which you would adopt a final budget for fiscal year '08. And in addition, each of the respective contracts for the construction jobs that would be -- that are planned for and identified here, with the principle -- again, the principle construction jobs outlined -- highlighted in green, would be back -- brought back to the board on an individual basis before proceeding. You will have multiple bites at the apple, as it were, before, you know, this program would be fully encumbered and obligated in the upcoming year. MR. FEDER: The other one thing I want to add to the discussion is that the title on this work program that you see in front of you is for budgeting purposes. It says for discussion purposes only, production readiness. We understand and have established our program based on the board's direction to not show construction until we bring forward to you a contract which can be approved by the board. And so we're trying to get the budget in place to be able to be so responsive should production and should the contracts and available funding be there to move forward on those projects based on this production cycle. But, again, while we haven't added a lot of new to the fourth and fifth year, I need to clarify that, in fact, all of our construction phases are in the fourth and fifth year until I can bring to you a contract that the board can approve. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we've been through that quite a few times. Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 26 of 44 All right. Let's see. We've got Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have four questions, Norm. Hopefully they're just real short answers. MR. FEDER: I'll try. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like, for instance, any hopes that construction costs might go down? MR. FEDER: Always hope. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's just -- I'm hoping that we are, because -- MR. FEDER: We're seeing at least a leveling, and we're seeing in some areas a little bit of reduction. I'm hoping that that's the trend that we'll be experiencing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. That's what I heard, too, and I just wanted to hear it from you. I want to make sure on this cash flow that you have the dollars before you issue the contract. I know that that's kind of what you've been saying, but I just want to -- you know, real plain and clearly, you will have the dollars before you issue the contract; is that correct? MR. FEDER: In a pure cash flow, that's not the way you operate. The state works on a cash flow basis as opposed to an encumbrance basis. We have always worked on encumbrance. What I believe we're looking at is, hopefully as we move forward on this, that we'd not encumber unless we had the dollars available. Although this is a concept that would allow you to consider a cash flow, acknowledging that you have payout curves that go out into the future, in each case I would have to bring that contract to the board. As I said, that's out in the fourth or fifth year -- hopefully next year, Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 27 of 44 let's say, on a project -- and be in a situation where I can explain to you where I am in dollars, and then the very next one I'd have to do the same, and then the board can decide if you want to go beyond a straight encumbrance, if I have the dollars to fully encumber, or if you want to let it go based on a cash flow or, rather, to wait, hold it out until such time as I have the funds to go under an encumbrance. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mike, you had something to add to that? MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes. To be clear -- for the record, Michael Smykowski. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like that. MR. SMYKOWSKI: The five-year program, as shown, you would not necessarily have the full cash in hand. You would have a commitment to borrow in fiscal year '8 totaling 94,700,000 as depicted in FY-'08. Again, based on cash flow, Norman has a large volume of cash today. Obviously that will be paid down. But each day additional impact fees come in, so you would not be borrowing -- the plan assumes that we will borrow $50 million. To let the full contracts based on the plan as shown there would require a commitment to borrow of $94 million to let the contract, you need budget appropriations, not necessarily the cash directly in hand. And, you know, just to be simple, you know, the Santa Barbara project's over $60 million, and it's going to be paid out over two, two and a half years. We have current cash available to fund that, but it's not going to be paid for two years. Even the $50 million loan, while you would have a commitment and the board would have committed on the record to borrow that 50 million, we would not -- we're not Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 28 of 44 going to draw the cash until Norman's cash flow would absolutely dictate that we have payments beyond our current cash balances that would not be sufficient to make those payments. Because obviously on the commercial paper program, while it is relatively a low interest rate -- it's currently about 3 and a half percent, so it's relatively cheap money -- but interest accrues monthly and is paid monthly. So obviously you would not want to borrow $50 million and begin incurring monthly interest expense before such time as that was actually required based on the cash flow. This would require some additional monitoring on the part of staff in conjunction with the finance department. This also went to the finance committee as well. I hope -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The answer to my question of making sure that you have the dollars before you issue the contract is maybe? MR. MUDD; No, ma'am. He's saying n he's saying you need $94 million to be absolute. You have to borrow it ahead of time, and you're going to borrow money and pay interest on it but you're not going to pay the -- you're not going to pay any monies out of it for a two- to three-year period of time. Why would you borrow the money ahead of time -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. MR. MUDD: -- and because -- and pay the interest when you're not going to need it? But to answer your question, you would need $94 million in the bank according -- with this plan that he's got in front of you, in order to have the money on hand, in order to award -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Issue a contract? Agenda Item No.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 29 of 44 MR. MUDD: And to award those contracts, yes, sir. And what we're basically saying to the board is, let's have an assurance to borrow the money for 94 million. Let's not borrow any more than the 50 because we don't believe that we're going to pay those monies out in the first year. We'll pay them out in the second, third, fourth, and fifth year. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I just wanted to make sure -- MR. MUDD: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that before we're issuing any contracts that we have the dollars. I think that's just fiscally responsible. The other question I have is for you, Norm. Do we have a definite commitment for County Barn Road? Right now the road is in such bad shape, first of all. Are we going to do anything to at least fill in some of the holes in all of that stuff in there? I mean, there's a lot of problems on the road as it is, and we've been delaying it naturally because we thought we would be doing the road. Are you going to fix the road so that it will -- it will suffice until you widen it, or whatever you were going to do to it? And then secondly -- that's the first question. And the second question is, will you give me a definite commitment in time? MR. FEDER: First of all, we did a quick overlay on the project acknowledging that it was getting delayed. We would go back and look at pavement condition as it warrants. Definitely we need to resurface because as we know now, we're not going to come at the multi laning. We're proposing to move it out of the five years. No, I can't give you a definitive time, Commissioner. Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 30 of 44 What I can tell you is I've got it production ready. I would hope as soon as I had funding resources that I would try to move on it, but these other projects you have in the work program, especially if I have the capacity on Santa Barbara next to it, have to become the higher priority, and I've got to move on those first. So that's why I'm saying it's out of the five years, unless all of a sudden I get a huge amount of new revenue. And so I wouldn't -- I wouldn't try to tell you a year and then mislead you. The only thing I can tell you is it's out of the five. But it is production-ready, although we'd probably have to go back and do some minor changes on the design and on the permit. COMMISSIONER FIALA: So now the people that have been held up in some of the things along County Barn because they had to pay first in order to get it done because of the road widening, they'll not be held up any longer, right, being that the road isn't going to be expanded now? MR. FEDER: Had to pay first for what, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like, for instance, turn lanes and so forth. Like they held up the church from building their car -- what is the place where they bury people? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Cemetery. MR. FEDER: I will make sure that we're not holding anyone up and we will look at the condition of the roadway, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. MR. FEDER: I'm not aware of us holding anyone up. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 31 of 44 Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Let me just try to make this thing a little simpler. All we're saying is we're going to give Norman Feder a letter of credit -- or line of credit for $50 million. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then he draws against the line of credit as he needs it for his project, and then he pays it back with revenues he gets in the future. That's exactly what we're doing. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I think -- I hope that will help, but -- Norman, how much money for mitigation of all types is included in these projections? Just an estimate. MR. FEDER: Each one's a little bit different. I can ask Jay to go through, but you've got anywhere from 10 to 15, 20 percent in there for mitigation as we go out further out to the east. COMMISSIONER COYLE: For the total -- total budget of 754 million -- MR. FEDER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or more? So you've got -- MR. FEDER: He may be able to answer that a little bit more, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you've got maybe 15, 20 million dollars for mitigation purposes? MR. AHMAD: I don't have the exact number, Commissioner, I believe it's about 10 to 15 million dollars. It's in that ballpark. Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 32 of 44 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ten to 15 million, okay. So it's worth talking about. Okay. Now, I need to get the county manager involved in this because I need your -- need your advice and consultation. We're paying 10 to 15 million dollars in mitigation, and what I don't understand is why purchases by Conservation Collier cannot be considered as mitigation. It's being paid by taxpayers of Collier County. We're devoting at least 24, 25 million dollars a year in general fund money to the road construction projects. I don't understand why, when Conservation Collier buys property that could be considered panther habitat or wetlands, protected wetlands, or serve any other purpose that is environmentally sensitive, I don't understand why we cannot use that for mitigation purposes. And I believe that the federal agency will tell us we can. Will they tell us that in writing? I don't know yet. But can we at least look at that? Because if we can do that, we can get 10, 15 million more dollars here or avoid the expenditure of 10 to 15 million more dollars and save the taxpayers of Collier County tons of money. There might even be other things we're doing that should get us mitigation credits of one kind or another, and they might even include zoning decisions. But if we can look at that -- could we please? I mean, do you see any problem right off the top of your head with that concept? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir; yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You do see some problems? MR. MUDD: You'd have to change your ordinance. Your ordinance basically says, when you buy the property, Agenda Item No.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 33 of 44 you strip it of all development rights. The minute you strip it of all development rights, there is no mitigation credit. It's void. It has no more panther anything. They see it as a zero -- as a zero gain. So you have to change your ordinance and say that you're not stripping it of development rights, and then at that particular juncture, what you've just basically suggested is in the box for negotiation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if we do that, we save the taxpayers tons and tons of money, millions and millions of dollars. MR. FEDER: Potentially, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we do not lose anything because we're not saying we're going to let it be developed. We're just saying we're not stripping it of development rights. But if it is then used for mitigation purposes, then we can strip it of development rights; is that not true? MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And what you have to -- and what you can do is you could buy it with the intent not to develop it, hold the development rights on it, and then when Norman or anybody else needs mitigation credits -- and I'm talking about the government type issues -- at that juncture you start with the negotiation with Fish and Wildlife Service and whatever, you identify the mitigation credits that that land has on it, okay -- you see, you can't bank it is what I'm trying to get at. They won't let you bank your land, okay, for those credits. It's instantaneous. We tried it before. We had Agenda Item NO.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 34 of 44 some left over. Could I move it to another project? And no, the other project has to be ready to go simultaneously. And then you get into that particular issue where you could save the monies. And as soon as you get that, you slap a conservation easement on it and strip it of development rights after you've got your mitigation credit off of it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So is there any objection to at least evaluating that and proceeding with it? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I think that's wise. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. Good. COMMISSIONER HALAS: As long as we look at all aspects so we don't get ourselves into some kind of a box. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, we need to make sure we cover all the bases. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I think-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's hear from the county attorney. MR. PETTIT: I'm sony. Commissioner Coyle, I think it's a really good and interesting idea. And I'm sitting here thinking, I worked with that ordinance. It's been a while since I was the advisor to that committee, and I worked with the ordinance a lot, and we were always concerned that tinkering with the ordinance could put us in a situation where we had to do a referendum. As I'm listening to your idea, I'm not sure that would be the case here, but we would have to look carefully at that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's -- we're really protecting the taxpayers in this case. We're not eroding the purpose or the intent of the Conservation Collier Program. We're merely keeping the taxpayers from having to pay twice. Agenda Item No.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 35 of 44 MR. PETTIT: I think you're correct, but we would want to take a look at that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, may I make a suggestion that you make a motion directing staff -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to bring this back to us? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would like to make a motion that we direct staff -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to bring back to us recommendations concerning how we can use preserved lands either by Conservation Collier or otherwise as mitigation for other projects. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, that's great. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a bunch of seconds. We'll recognize Commissioner Halas as the second for this. We have a motion to direct staff to bring it back at the earliest reasonable period of time so we can start, if we are interested in this, possibly move towards a resolution to be able to change the ordinance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, one last comment, and this is just -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have to take a vote first. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yes, you're right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe could, any other comments relating to the vote at hand? (No response.) Agenda Item NO.1 OC April 8, 2008 Page 36 of 44 CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously. Thank you. Continue, Commissioner Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, this is just a point of information for the board members. You will recall that we made a decision to direct staff to include in our first three years of our five-year capital improvement plan only those things we could absolutely be sure we could fund, and I'm happy to tell you that staff, Nick Casalanguida, has informed me that that process is working, it seems to satisfy the concurrency issues and DCA, and it appears that we have maintained compliance with the Growth Management Plan by doing that. So I'm very happy because that gives us a better -- an opportunity to get funding and make sure we've got the funding available for a project before we stick our necks on the chopping block. So I'm very happy that that's happened, and thank the support -- thank the staff for their support in getting that done and in the commission for providing that direction. MR. FEDER: We have not yet gotten the official from the Department of Community Affairs, but that seems to be Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 37 of 44 ~ the indication, and Nick Casalanguida is working with them directly on that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. But he's optimistic so far? MR. FEDER: Yep. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's move on to Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, you're saying we're going to do a budget amendment to recognize that $6 million in your capital plan? MR. FEDER: That's my understanding, if the board gives some of that indication today. Again, a lot of this is coming to the next budget cycle. We wanted to try to give you some information after the AUIR, and you asked us to come back. My understanding is though, that from prior board orientation, if that's the orientation today, that that's what we will be doing this fiscal year is putting the six million in, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I would like to see that done myself. The other thing is the $50 million loan. And let me give you a scenario. Of course you always -- you do it in phases anyway. You do your design, then you do your acquisition, and sometimes it is in concert with the construction. But what I hear you say is, we're going to -- we're going to do a loan, and since the contracts for construction are multi year, you would be borrowing on that loan. MR. FEDER: Only where needed because cash flow of other projects is also -- Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 40 of 44 The second hat I'm wearing is with the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. I serve as their subchairman for the Santa Barbara completion project. And as you've noticed in the plan that you've seen this morning, that section of road between Copperleaf and Green Boulevard is not included in that. I believe Commissioner Henning asked Mr. Feder if, you know, he doesn't get the money, what happens? Do you cut out the roads? Well, that's essentially what happened on Santa Barbara, he cut that section out. It has not come back into the five-year plan, and as you know, we're going to continue to be vocal about it until we get our little road fixed. Thank: you very much, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank: you. MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Michele Harrison. MS. HARRISON: I'm Michele Harrison representing CBIA, Collier Building Industry Association, and we are philosophically against any increases to impact fees. We ask that you consider a reduction in other impact fees if you move this way and/or other funding sources. This speaks to affordability of housing and is one of the obstacles of building those 2,000 units of affordable housing. Thank: you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Luckily on affordable housing the impact fees are deferred, so that is a good thing. We can continue to build these those because fees the developer does not have to come up with. And so I'm pleased to hear that. Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 41 of 44 I just want to say to Norm, he did a great job of finding all of these places where we could beg, borrow and move things around and to continue our road building effort, because without the roads, we wouldn't be able to build the homes. And so it all works together. And I just want to say, thanks for all your hard work. And I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Coyle. And Commissioner Henning, you're next, then Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, did you find the money to complete Santa Barbara? MR. FEDER: Commissioner, unfortunately not. As you see in here, we have the right-of-way. We will be coming to you in the budget cycle with an unfunded budget request, one of which will be to add in that section. We also have right-of-way on Randall, right-of way on Wilson, other things that have been pulled out of the program as part of the overall balancing. So we're bringing those back as items under UFR for the budget request. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The board directed the staff to, during our next AUIR phase, that we take a look at door counts on some of our capital facilities to make sure that we're not over capacity on our capital improvements or under capacity. Is that what they're doing? MR. MUDD: We're taking a look at different ways to come up with levels of service. And in that process, I have a briefing on that on Wednesdays. I am reading their book right now in the process and what they're coming up with, Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 42 of 44 and then they will go to your Planning Commission and Productivity Committee for review of what they found. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could the -- could -- in your review, does it look like there's a possibility to change some of the levels of service and reduce some of the impact fees? MR. MUDD: This commission can always reduce the level of service. There's two ways to get at your AUIR. There's two variables that are in there. There's population and there's the variables that says, this is what I need for capita. And what I'm seeing so far is, population is still a good indication of what you have to do with growth. Now, based on what that -- and they've made a change based on the EAR-based recommendations from DCA where we used to do -- we used to do high BEBR, they've come down to mid, with the 20 percent for the high season. So they've reduced the population estimates. And I believe -- and I haven't got to the point where I've seen the magnitude of that change, but I believe it's reduced slightly, so that's an indication that we don't have to build as fast. And then I'm taking a look at what they've come up with as alternative levels of service to see ifthere's a way, if it makes sense to reduce -- to get at what your issue is, maybe reduce the level of service, and, therefore you don't have to build it as quickly. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, it's not -- if the population is there but they're not using that facility, to me, why are we having that high level of service if it's not really being utilized? And maybe that's one way we can get to our goals. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 43 of 44 Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Maybe impact fees are one way to look at it. As long as the cost of construction goes down, the cost of right-of-way goes down, but until that period of time, I'm not sure what other direction we have. And I believe the citizens in this county pretty much made a mandate a few years back that growth is going to pay for growth. So until we find another way, another avenue, I believe this is the way we're going to go, unless, of course, the developers would like to donate the time and equipment to build roads for us and build infrastructure, that would be fantastic. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Ijustwanted to say, I support your effort, by the way, on Santa Barbara. Everything else is going to be six-laned except that little piece, and it seems to just make sense to get the whole thing done all at one time. So when it comes up for UFR, I hope that you'll be making motions along that line. Thank you. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Goodpoint. Okay. We have a motion and a second. It's been a little while now. Who made the motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I made the motion to approve. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- made the second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, is Agenda Item No. 10C April 8, 2008 Page 44 of 44 there any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor -- MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- indicate by -- Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: -- just for clarification. This is for discussion purposes. This is -- you're approving the direction to move forward based on the plan -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, based upon what we have in front of us. MR. MUDD: Yeah. Because you're going to have many parts to this come back to you -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We understand that. MR. MUDD: -- for their approval. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And with that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, unammous.