Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/20/2006 AUIR November 20, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, November 20, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission and the Collier County Productivity Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in WORKSHOP Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Janet Vasey Robert Dictor Sydney E. Blum ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Page 1 AUlR 2006 SPECIAL AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., NOVEMBER 20, 2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MA Y BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AUIR "SPECIAL MEETING" FOR REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES, CATEGORY A AND CATEGORY B. A. AUIR OVERVIEW - MIKE BOSI B. COLLIER COUNTY POPULATION METHODOLOGY - DA VID WEEKS C. IMP ACT FEES RELATED TO THE AUIR - AMY PATTERSON D. COUNTY ROADS - NORM FEDER AND DON SCOTT E. DRAINAGE CANALS AND STRUCTURES - GENE CALVERT F. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - JIM DELONEY/PHIL GRAMATGES G. SEWER TREATMENT & COLLECTOR SYSTEMS - JIM DELONEY/GEORGE YILMAZ H. SOLID WASTE - JIM DELONEY /ROY ANDERSON I. P ARKS AND FACILITIES - MARLA RAMSEY J. COUNTY JAIL - CHIEF GREG SMITH K. LAW ENFORCEMENT - CHIEF GREG SMITH L. LIBRARY - MARILYN MATTHES AND MARLA RAMSEY M. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES - JEFF PAGE N. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS - LEN PRICE AND RON HOVELL 3. ADJOURN November 2006 AUlR/CCPC Agenda/RC/mk 1 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. It's 8:30 and we will need to start our meeting. This will be a joint meeting between the Collier County Planning Commission and the Collier County Productivity Committee to discuss the AUIR 2006. There is a lot of ground rules that need to be set, but let's all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance to begin the meeting. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it might be nice for a clarification for both the court reporter and people watching as to who's here and what committees they're on, and with that, I'd like to start with right-hand side of the table. If each person will mention their name and what committee they're with with Collier County, we can move across and to the table that way. MR. BLUM: Sid Blum, Productivity Committee. MR. DICTOR: Bob Dictor, Productivity Committee. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, Productivity Committee. COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Donna Caron, Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark Strain, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Lindy Adelstein, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob Vigliotti, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Russell Tuff, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad Schiffer, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bob Murray, Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This meeting will have transcribed minutes, and we need to be careful about how fast we speak, which Page 2 November 20, 2006 I'm usually a very slow speaker, so she should have time. Every hour and a half or so, we'll be taking a IS-minute break to accommodate the court reporter and Katie, who's over there carefully trying to move cameras around to make sure she spots us correctly, and we'll probably try to break for lunch around quarter to twelve. I think that this meeting will most likely last all day, but we may get into about five or six this afternoon. Another item I'd like to ask the Planning Commissioners, especially since they seem to be the most notorious for not doing this, please turn off your cell phones, anybody that has them on. And last, but not least, I think that -- Mr. Schiffer is there anything else? . Do you want to bring up your issue now -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or do you want to wait until we get into a discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just quickly reviewing the books, the last couple of years, we had mentioned that we would like to keep track of affordable housing units, essentially maybe start a Category C. So, once again this year, there's no mention of how many affordable housing units the inventory on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like is I don't know how staff is intending to present this today, and we will be going in order in which the book is laid out. The Productivity Committee will have different individuals moving forward to switch out and we progress through the order, and at those moments we'll take a short break to accommodate that. So, in your presentation, Mr. Schiffer's request was something that was made as well last year. I certainly would like you to explain that as you go through and order your presentation. And I guess, Mr. Bosi, with that it's yours. Page 3 November 20, 2006 MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. My name Mike Bosi. I'm the Community Planning Manager for the Comprehensive Planning Department. I'm going to provide a real quick brief overview of what the A UIR, where it sits within the regulatory fabric above the Land Development Code in Florida Statutes. And then we're going to have a presentation upon population from David Weeks, and we'll hit another brief presentation concerning impact fees in relationship to both the Category A and Category B facilities. And then we're going to get right into the order that we spoke about. And I will get into, and I've spoken with the County Attorney's office on how and to produce in terms of voting with the mixed body, and they've provided an opinion within this -- within the presentation, we'll hit upon that. First of all, Section 6.02 of the Land Development Code requires that the county provide that Public Facilities and Services meet or exceed the standards established in the CIE required by Florida Statute, Section one point -- 163.317 and are available when needed for development. Basically, this sums up that the infrastructure and services will be available when the demand is placed by either the local development order. In the AUIR, it's the blueprint for concurrency and is the preparatory document for the annual update to the capital improvement element of the GNP for the Category A facilities. With the Category B facilities no longer being included in the CIE, the A UIR is an annual checkbook to make sure that the level of service standards that we -- that we have imposed for the Category B facilities are being met and maintained. They have a relationship. The -- the impact fee studies related to the Category B facilities have -- will identify a level of service in the Page 4 November 20, 2006 annual AUIR, ensures that we -- that we will never fall below that-- that floor that the impact fees establish for the -- for the level of services for the respective Category B facilities. And like last year, this year's AUIR has a heightened degree of importance related to Senate Bill 360 in the fact that CIEs now all have to be financially feasible. In an instance where you have a category where there -- either a Category A or a Category B when there's a revenue shortfall, the local government body must either identify an alternative or an additional source of revenue where there has to be a reduction in the level of . servIce. Just for everyone's benefit -- and I know this is the first year that the Productivity Committee has heard the -- has heard the AUIR, not the first time, of course, for the Planning Commission -- the Category A facilities are roads, solid waste, drainage canals and structures, parks and recreation, potable water and a sewer -- sewer collection and treatment. The Category B facilities; jails, law enforcement, libraries, emergency services, government buildings, and the two dependent fire districts which are Ochopee and the Isles of Capri. And those are the first time that we've had those two -- those two dependent fire districts included within the AUIR purposes. And then in terms of what the board is looking from the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee, they're looking for separate recommendations regarding the Category A facilities and the Category B facilities. Based upon the discussion with the County Attorney's office, it was recommended that the Planning Commission, which is meeting with the quorum, can provide the recommendations for each -- for the Category A and the Category B separately as a separate motion from the Planning Commission. The Productivity Committee can voice where -- where they Page 5 November 20, 2006 would like to -- to make a motion or not a motion, but a recommendation to the -- to the Board of County Commissioners, but you'll have to -- you'll have to table that recommendation until you meet your next scheduled -- your next scheduled meeting where you have a full quorum in each of the individual subcommittees at that point in time would discuss what their recommendations are to the Board of County Commissioners. MS. VASEY: Mike, when we talked about it, what our plan, was the people that are on the subcommittee would vote here today. MR. BOSI: Okay. MS. VASEY: And have a subcommittee vote recommendation so you'll know what we're thinking and what position we're taking. MR. BOSI: Right. MS. VASEY: We will obviously have to take it back to the full committee at our next meeting, but at least everyone will know what -- what our position is on it and the one that we will be promoting with our committee. MR. BOSI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, there might be another twist that the County Attorney's office may need to understand. While there are each two categories, A and B, there are six subcategories in A alone, and I forgot how many in B. I think there's seven. We may find there's differing recommendations on each subcategory as well. And I was hoping that there's no objection to us taking the position on each one -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Absolute-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as we move through them. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Absolutely not. That's the way I envisioned you would proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, it's not the entire category. It's the individual pieces. Page 6 November 20,2006 MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the benefit of the court reporter, too, since this is a -- new people and new names and new -- and the tags are not as clear as they are when we're sitting on the podium, we all just need to be recognized by -- and I'll call each person by name. That way the court reporter gets it accurately. And another important thing is try not to talk over one another so that when Mike's finished speaking or another individual is finished speaking, the next person will start. Thanks, Mike. MR. BOSI: Thank you. Under 6.0202 of the Land Development Code, which provides the guidance related to the A UIR process, the BCC has options in terms of responses for the needs identified in the AUIR. And they include the following. In establishment of areas of significant influence surrounding deficient road segments, which are not in a TCMA, which is a Traffic Congestion Management Area or a TCEA, which is a Traffic Congestion Exception Area. A second response could be a -- a public facility project would be an addition to the financially feasible scheduled capital of improvement elements. A road project must be in the first or the second year of the next adopted schedule of capital improvements in order to be factored as available capacity in the real time transportation concurrency management system. Also they could -- another option would be a deferral of development order issuance for developments not vested by statute in areas affected by deficient Category A facilities. The -- a varying degree of varying responses underneath that -- that subcategory, and that would be a modification level of service standard via the growth management planned amendment, which we spoke to, we could lower the level of service accordingly to -- to maket Page 7 November 20, 2006 -- to make that component whole. Whether you could -- they could provide direction to staff, include the necessary A projects in the future CIA -- or CIE amendment adopted by the board or -- or future approval of newer or increased revenue sources for needed public facility projects by the BCC, the state legislature or the county voters, or developer constructed improvement guarantees by an enforceable developer of agreement, which is not a very -- which is not an uncommon fact. Basically, it's a developer's contribution agreement. The A UIR identifies capital needs for both new facilities to serve projected population growth as well as replacement of public facilities that would no longer be adequate within the five-year AUIR period. The one thing I will say about that is any impact fees that are collected for -- for the various categories, that -- that money cannot be spent for replacement facilities. The impact fees could only be allocated to -- to pay for new growth or growth -- growth demanded by new -- by new housing use and new growth. The AUIR presents two series of scheduled capital improvements within this year's. One's a series utilizing weighted population with a four-month peak season, and the second is utilizing weighted population with a six-month peak season. That was the direction we were -- we were provided by the Board of County Commissioners last year in -- in the population discussion which David Weeks will provide here in a second. He'll hit upon both the differences with -- within the two. In the Florida Administrative Code related to the CIE of the Capital Improvements Element within the Growth Management Plan and the population requirements is an assessment of local government's ability to finance the capital improvements based upon anticipated population and revenue. And that's basically what this -- this AUIR is. We're Page 8 November 20,2006 demonstrating to the state that we have taken the adequate measures to make sure that the required infrastructure and services will be available and on line when the -- the demands of development hit at that time. 9J5.005(2)(e) of the Florida Administrative Code, it says, a comprehensive plan shall be based on resident and seasonal population estimates. And in the Land Development Code 6.0202, it provides some guidance on the population methodology, and it says, the AUIR shall be based upon the most recent University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, which is a BEBER. It's an acronym that you'll -- I'm sure every one is familiar with or you'll become extremely familiar with. Or the BEBER influence, water and sewer master plan, population projection -- projections, updated public facility inventories, updated unit costs and revenue projections and analysis for the most recent county traffic data. And that's really where the -- the population methodology has provided a little guidance in how we approach the A UIR by the -- the -- the Land Development Code. And with that, we're at the point of the presentation where we're going to really discuss population, and with that I'll turn it -- I'll turn the microphone over to David Weeks, a manager within the Comprehensive Planning Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, before you leave, the way the AUIR is presented, it's broken down in segments, besides the Categories A and B, you have an introductory segment, David has the population segment. Do you want questions on your introductory statements at this time or do you want to wait until David finishes? MR. BOSI: Why won't -- why don't we take the -- the questions related to the introductory segment, and then we can transition to -- to Page 9 November 20, 2006 David and then he can address whatever questions that may come from that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to make sure that all the members of this committee get ample time to ask each question, and what we've done in the past is we've moved through the documents page by page by simply any questions on Page I, if there are none, move to Page 2, et cetera. And not all the pages may have questions involving them, but at least that gets everybody's ability or opportunity to ask. So, with that the Executive Summary starts on Page I of the document. I'm not sure there's any questions on that, but if there are, please let me know. If not, we'll move to Page 2. Commission Caron? COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Your areas of significant influence, does that define someone? MR. COHEN: It would more appropriate -- Randy Cohen for the record. It would more appropriate for Don Scott with transportation to address that issue. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation and Planning. Yes. That's on -- it's in the Growth Management Plan. I believe it's also in the LDC for -- it's 335 right now, but we've submitted the work comments to make it -- was it 233? So, that was -- that's what's the significant area is. COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on Page 3? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. A proportionate share, where would that show up in this? Would that be Item D or is that a new Item E? MR. BOSI: The proportionate -- I'm sorry, Randy. Page 10 November 20,2006 MR. COHEN: Randy Cohen again for the record. In the past proportionate fair share has not been included in the A UIR. I think it would be appropriate to add it as a sub -- as an Item E, and -- because that item went into effect October 1st -- excuse me -- December 1st of this year. Apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, another manner of development order issuance or deferring the issuance would be the proportionate share ordinance that eventually gets adopt. Is that what we're saying? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. And please note that although the ordinance was passed, it won't be effective until ten days past the adoption of that last ordinance and upon receipt by the Department of Estates, but it will be effective prior to December I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions on Page 3? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr.-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, what about a -- what about, Mike, a Category C for keeping track of affordable housing units? MR. SCHMITT: Margie. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think that we can monitor it, but affordable housing is not a public facility and the AUIR deals with public facilities. And I think there's probably a way to monitor it. I'm just not sure that as long as the AUIR deals with infrastructure that that's the place to do it. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as a follow up to that statement, if it had -- if the affordable housing is developed and built through either impact fees, a -- one of the ordinances that we're talking about, which Page 11 November 20, 2006 is linkage fees and amended -- I forgot the other one, but it's inclusionary zoning, then wouldn't they become public facilities in the sense they're created with public money and, therefore -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: They're not -- they're not controlled by the government. If you'd like, I can read you the definition of infrastructure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Margie, I don't-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- ofLJ5, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not where we're going. I understand what the definition is. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I'm saying -- it's not that we -- I just want to make sure we put it in the right place and there's no issue as to hear confusion as to what's a public facility. It's not run or maintained by the government. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If we go forward with impact fees or other linkage fees that are collected by the government, will it then become a public facility in essence? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I -- it think it's something we have to look at, quite frankly. But I just wanted to -- again, not trying to be a nay sayer, but we just want to make sure we have it in the proper place, that's all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, my only point is we make goals for it in the GMP, how we -- and this is an inventory of essentially that. How -- we should be able to see at least -- and, again, that's why I said Category C, which has no binding other than just for information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that we'll get into the AUIR through the public facilities process. It might actually happen in some manner once public fees are -- I mean, the public fees are expended for it now, but not through public agencies. Maybe that's the manner in which to develop in the future. Something to think about. Page 12 November 20, 2006 Questions on Page 3 and the others? Page 4. On your Land Use Planning, Michael, your third bullet, Number 3, transportation, where it says, must be evaluated in the EAR, doesn't the EAR occur every seven years or is there a frequency of occurrence on the EAR? MR. BOSI: It -- no. It's every seven years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just trying to understand the impact of it. If it's every seven years, it would have been part. Number 5, must meet new requirements by July 1st, 2006. Have we done that or are we relying on the EAR plan update that's in the works right now to finish that out? And you're looking at Randy. MR. BOSI: Yeah. MR. COHEN: The EAR amendments that are in place right now will -- will meet that requirement. We previously provided a CIE to the -- to be transmitted to the CIE to the Department of Community Affairs. Obviously, in doing so, I think we met that requirement. Obviously we met with a lot of objections with respect to that and your body will -- will continue to hear that and make a recommendation to the board, and the board will make a final determination on that in January, so we need to change that to probably January 24th or 25th of 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on Page 4? Page 5? And then, finally, Page 6? With that we wrapped up the Executive Summary. Thank you, Michael. MR. BOSI: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. I'm David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. Page 13 November 20, 2006 I've spoken previously to the Productivity Committee, and I believe it was about a month ago, and also to the Planning Commission regarding population projections. F or that reason, I'll attempt to be very brief and simply wait to see if you have any questions. The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, BEBR, produces annual population estimates and projections for -- projections for all counties in the State of Florida and estimates for all counties and cities. They produce three different ranges; low, medium and high. And their intent is to try to capture what they believe to be a reasonable range of what population growth -- how it could fall from the low all to way to the high, although generally their position is that they believe the medium range is the most accurate. Historically, Collier County for projections has used the BEBR high range growth projection, going all the way back to 1989 when our Growth Management Plan was first adopted. However, since then, we have experienced some declines in growth rate and also some -- in turn, some acceleration growth rates. And for that reason on two different occasions since 1989, we have amended our Comprehensive Plan to adjust the growth rates that . we were uSIng. However, one thing that has been constant is that we've always maintained the high range growth rate for the first five years, and even though the actual growth rate may be slower than that, the county's approach has been safe and sorry. Let's be very cautious. We don't want to get caught, so to speak, with our pants down when it comes to something as important as preparing for public facilities for the community. The present methodology calls for using the high range projections for the first five years and for all subsequent years using 95 percent of the BEBR high range growth rate. Page 14 November 20, 2006 As the Planning Commission is aware from just a few days ago in our discussion, the county is contemplating changing the methodology. But I'd like to put that -- bring it to your attention and then put it aside, because any changes that may occur to population methodology would not be adopted until January of '07 and would not likely go into effect until April of '07, well after the final action is taken by the board on this AUIR for 2006, the point being, any population change and methodology would not be applicable to the 2006 AUIR. So, regardless of whether we think the numbers are -- are not accurate or not is the presently adopted effective methodology and it is what we are bound by. And the AUIR before you is based on the existing in effect methodology. Our first step in preparing projections is to use the high range projection from BEBR, as I said, for the first five years and then simply adjust it to 95 percent for all subsequent years. BEBR projections are provided in April, the census year, but, of course, the county budget year is as of October I, so the first step after adjusting the BEBR methodology of projections is then to convert the April to October. October I is exactly six months between two April one years, so you simply take the difference and that one year figured, divided in half and add it to the previous year. So, for the 2006, October I population projection, we simply take April of2005, April of2006, determine the difference, divide by two and add to April of '05. That gives you October of '06. We also prepare peak season population which, by the way, is an average daily figure. As you can, I'm sure, appreciate any given day during the peak season, population figures will change. Hotel and motel occupancy various daily as does occupancy of the seasonal dwelling units within our community. The peak season methodology calls for a 33 percent increase for Page 15 November 20, 2006 the coastal area, which is all portions of the county except the Immokalee Planning Community, a 33 percent increase over the October I permanent population figure. For the Immokalee community, we just add a flat rate, 15,000 persons, to that October I figure, and that's based upon past research, suggesting that that would be the increase due to the farm labor in the Immokalee community; laborers, truck brokers, et cetera, others related to the agriculture industry. And then the third projection we prepare is the weighted average population figure, which is two-thirds of the October I permanent population and one-third of the peak season population. The end result is that the weighted average is approximately an II percent increase over the October I permanent population figure. Commissioners, I think I'll stop there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you, David. I -- there are some questions, so let's start with your Page I and ask the members of the committee if they have any questions on Page 1. Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER REED CARON: In order to utilize the BEBR high number, you say that that's the number used in the first year, and then we go to BEBR high at 95 percent ofBEBR high after that. What was year one? MR. WEEKS: Year one would be 2006. The most recent estimate is always a year behind, so our latest estimate is 2005. So, if 2006 is the -- is the first year of projections. Even though we're well past April I of '06, we don't yet have an estimate for that year. So, 2006 is the first of the five years. COMMISSIONER REED CARON: But essentially then, we'll always be operating off of BEBR high. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Page 16 November 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, when BEBR collects the data or assembles the data to determine our population, what are -- what data are they using? MR. WEEKS: They use birth rate and death rate and migration statistics. That's done for the entire state. They actually have a total of four different methodologies that they employ. But that's -- that's one is at the state level. For the counties, they -- under one scenario, they look at the percent of growth that a county has experienced and apply that percent constant to the state population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do they get the percent of growth that the county has experienced? Who gives them that number? MR. WEEKS: They derive it on their own. I can tell you that Collier -- each of their local governments provide dwelling units certificate of occupancy data to the University of Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, the percent of growth is derived from dwelling unit counts. MR. WEEKS: At least in part. Commissioner, I don't know exactly what their methodology is. We've not yet spoken with BEBR staff. We have read their population bulletin, but they don't go to the level of detail that you're inquiring about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason that's important, David, is I've very carefully studied the analysis that you used to get the seasonal population. My concern is that some of those add ons that you used to determine seasonal are already included in the base, that now we don't know if BEBR has included them or not because that information has not been obtained, and I hope that you're looking for them. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.o Page 1 7 November 20, 2006 MR. WEEKS: Mr. Strain, as you're aware, the Planning Commission gave directive to staff just last Friday and we will be following up on that, so that at your next AUIR meeting, we should have that answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The other thing you had mentioned was that the current methodology is the one that we have to go by, that any new methodology would have to be adopted before we can apply it, yet I look at this AUIR and I look where the population statistics used in this year's AUIR has caused a retroactive effect on the prior population calculations for each element of this, meaning the departments have gone back and where the populations statistics that we used this year seems to be applied or came from a different source or a new method. They retroactively applied it backwards, so they brought a deficiency forward that started several years ago. And I'm wondering if that methodology then changed last year because it seems to me you're saying it hasn't changed. It hasn't changed? I mean, I -- MR. WEEKS: It has not changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, the population statistics we're using today for '05-06 would only change the population that we show in today's A UIR. Last year's A UIR was accepted at the base population that it had, and that population statistics should have remained the same? MR. WEEKS: Let me make sure I'm clear. Population estimates or projections are revised annually, so there will-- the methodology has not changed, but the actual figures will change for the preceding year. For example, again, year 2005 -- because we're dealing with October I population for this year, October -- October I of 2005 is a projection because it is a blend of the 2005 estimate and a 2006 Page 18 November 20, 2006 projection, which means that next year, and we're going through this process, you will see a different figure for 2005, because only then will we be dealing with two estimates. Ifwe look to last year's AUIR, comparing it to this year's 2004 figure will be different this year than it was last year for the same reason. 2004 was a blend of an estimate and a projection, if that answers your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It does. Thank you. And one other issue on methodology. You had said that -- you have acknowledged you're doing further research and you're being challenged by DCA on things that have occurred and we can expect possibly a change. Yet at the same time you're expecting us to evaluate this and make a recommendation knowing that the numbers most likely are not the numbers that are accurate? And I'm -- based on last Thursday's meeting, is it the intention of staff to review conceptually this entire document in this round of hearings and then come back with revised population numbers before we actually vote in a -- recommend a -- something with the BCC on this issue? MR. WEEKS: Not to my knowledge. Randy? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, that is not our intent. We know that the CIE that's being considered by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the EAR will be in January final adoption in -- in April. Then there's an appeal period that takes place, and if it goes hearing potentially, the population methodology may not be in effect for quite some time if that transpired. But we would contemplate as part of your next AUIR cycle, which will begin the new population numbers in April that you will see if the board adopts the new methodology, and there are no Page 19 November 20,2006 challenges to it, your next AUIR will reflect that methodology as adopted by the board and you'll be acting accordingly on that. I know it's problematic that we have the year based amendments going through a process with a different methodology contemplated at the same time as the A UIR, but at the same time we're bound by law and the County Attorney can -- can weigh in by this by -- by a methodology that's pretty much legal and in effect, and it puts us in a very awkward position in the review process, but it's one that we have to deal with in this transition year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. It's an awkward situation, because you're looking at a recommendation, that when it leaves here, it's going to have an absolute tremendous impact on this entire community, because it's going to set the budget that then establishes the new ad valorem tax rate and equally so will probably change impact fees. And we're doing all that based on numbers that have been admittedly not fully researched or when they're -- there could be been further research that might change those, most likely will change those. That's disturbing on how to move forward, David. I guess we will, but then the results will have to weighed against that because that is a big, big factor for, I know, myself and most likely for everybody here. And with that, is there other questions on Page I? Mr. Murray, Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Caron -- or Miss Caron. Mr. Adelstein. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: David, I'm just going over what you said the BEBR is comprised of birth and death rates and migration. The migration you're talking about is what in specifics? MR. WEEKS: It's not identified in the bullets and I cannot say. Page 20 November 20, 2006 I would certainly assume that it's a combination of migration from other states, which we know is significant, but I would also assume that it includes immigration as in from other countries. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But when we speak of migration, we're talking about essentially labor or we talking -- is that in any way associated with snowbirds? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. It would be actual residency here in Collier County. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. And how do we -- then you add under the county has a formulation that it adds the seasonal population or modifies it. How -- how do we realize and deal with the many units that are filled sometimes in the winter? How do we adjust for that or do we? MR. WEEKS: The peak season population projection takes into account the vacancy rate -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. WEEKS: -- from the 2000 -- the most recent census. It also takes into account the percent of those vacant units that are within the subcategory of help for occasional recreation or seasonal use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, if I understand you correctly, you're really referring to hotels-motels, but not necessarily the condominiums? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. Hotel-motels is actually a separate part of the calculation. I am referring to those -- those vacant dwelling units that are seasonally occupied; that is, actually condominium, single family home, et cetera. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we can learn that from what source? MR. WEEKS: The 2000 census. The 2000 census identifies the occupancies and vacancy rates of dwelling units, and it also identifies subcategories of those vacant units; those that are held for seasonal use, those are perhaps are on the Page 21 November 20, 2006 market for sale or for rental or that are vacant at the time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we have a plus or minus that we apply to that? MR. WEEKS: No, sir . We use the flat percentage from -- from the census. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's actually following up on that. The statistics you show is that there's 28 or, let's say, 29 percent from the 2000 census is vacant units. And is this -- this is on Page 4 by the way. And is 82 percent of those for occasional use? I mean, if that's what you're saying, that 82 percent of the 29 percent are occasionally used, which is what, like weekends, a week now and then and not full season, right? MR. WEEKS: Correct on both accounts. Well, the length of the season is actually about six months long. The occupancy of those seasonal units though, the projection does not identify how long they're staying here in that held for seasonal use, simply that they are here. It's -- again, it's an average figure, so that the seasonal population would include the person that stays here for four months or six months or one night in that dwelling unit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But not the person that stays for one week in his own unit. MR. WEEKS: Yes. That would include that as well, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: These are all vacant dwelling units -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- that are occupied for some portion of time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I had a conversation Page 22 November 20, 2006 Thursday with Dr. Smith at the -- of the university, and he kind of-- and he's in charge of pop. He kind of gave me the impression that they really use dwelling unit data. They spend a lot of time trying to figure out how many dwelling units there are and then their high-low is they don't know how many people are in those units. So, the fact that we take high -- I mean, I can think of, at least in the district I live in, most of those units have a couple of people in them, and them they're huge. How did we come up with the high occupancy to be ours and essentially we're putting two people in each bedroom and stuff like that? MR. WEEKS: Again, you're referring to those vacant units? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I'm referring to all our units now. MR. WEEKS: For permanent population, we used the occupancy rates that come from the 2000 census, well below the county level down to -- to the smallest geography that we deal with, which is the traffic analysis on T AZ. So, for each individual T AZ, we have a persons for total dwelling unit figure, which takes into account total number of dwelling units in that T AZ, and the total permanent population within that T AZ, and simply divide one into the other. That's different than the persons per household, because the persons per household ratio was only counting the occupied dwelling units divided into the total population. We simply skipped -- skipped that step and, in effect, incorporated into that persons per total dwelling unit ratio, and then we would add up those T AZs to the given geography planning community fire district, whatever the case may be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the question is, so you -- and we're going countywide so -- and I don't mean to look over my Page 23 November 20, 2006 shoulder. If we're going countywide, so essentially what you're saying is in countywide, all the housing units we have, we have the occupancy about as high as the university thinks you can get them, and that's in number we use, the high rate? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Yes, because we take -- we take those ratios that I was mentioning at the T AZ level, and then we -- we convert that to the BEBR population. We -- we first calculate what we call an in-house population, staff generated, the number of dwelling units that were issued a CO, by type within each T AZ, and then the persons per total dwelling unit ratio for that T AZ by that type of dwelling unit, single family or multifamily. And that will give us -- when we add that all together, that will give us a population figure which is not going to be the same as BEBR. We then convert that to that BEBR high range figure growth rate by a simple percentage methodology. If -- if, for example, North Naples equals ten percent of the in-house population, and we apply that ten percent to the BEBR high range figure, giving us the North Naples high range population. I hope that answers you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Kind of lost, but I wasn't having fun with math there. The -- and then you're really comfortable that the population grows a third. The census says, really gross, 28 percent. Again, with -- with conversations with Dr. Smith, he was kind of saying that they take that 2000 number and reduce it from their figures to get what they think is the population. So, what is the reason we're using thirty -- a third for that. MR. WEEKS: Two things. One, it's important to distinguish between permanent population, which is all that BEBR did. They Page 24 November 20,2006 give us no seasonal data. They only give us permanent population estimates projections. Collier County staff derives the -- the peak season population figures. And there's two different methodologies that we employ and that's explained on Page 2 of the population methodology document. The one that you're referring to is where we look at the vacant dwelling units that are used for the occasional use, held for occasional use, the number of vacant housing units, the persons per household ratio. And, again, a household is an occupied dwelling unit. And also the hotel-motel occupancy data. All of that combined derives a 39 percent -- actually 39 percent seasonal population figure because, again, it's not just the occupancy-vacancy rate that the census produces, which was that almost 29 percent. So, there's other factors that are -- that are considered and that yields about a 39 percent seasonal increase. But above that, there's a different methodology where we look at taxable sales, traffic data, a gas sales and, historically, but no longer, electric hookup data. That came up with a different percentage of . Increase. We combined those two and took the average. That's where the 33 percent comes from, the average of those two means of projecting what the seasonal population increase is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my understanding of what the BEBR does is they do calculate what the county would have and they deduct from that the 28 percent. MR. WEEKS: That would make sense for being permanent population, which is what they provide. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's so, I guess, they get it. Taxable sales could mean just that the rich people come back in Page 25 November 20,2006 the season, you know. MR. WEEKS: It's -- it's select data. This -- although it doesn't explain it further. It's select -- select items that we would look at. F or example, we would eliminate the white goods because, generally speaking, a seasonal visitor is not going to buy a refrigerator or a stove; however, they would be providing -- purchasing a variety of groceries, for example, and grocery products and personal convenience items, et cetera, et cetera. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, we're not -- we can't change it anyway. I mean, the concern I have is, hasn't the DCA, Department of Community Affairs, said that they don't like our methodology, they haven't accepted it so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the debate David is having right now -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but he's trying to resolve so the EAR can be completed, I believe. MR. WEEKS: If I may. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The same numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: If I may, the -- the objection that DCA has, the Department of Community Affairs, is with our permanent population methodology, and their recommendation is that we utilize the BEBR medium range, and then allow us to continue to use a peak season methodology, because they -- they finally have recognized that, yes, Collier County, you do experience an increase in population during the peak season. And they are not dictating to us or directing or suggesting how we determine that peak season increase. They're leaving it up to us to make that determination. Something we intend to do is in addition to changing the Page 26 November 20, 2006 methodology to the medium range, what we're going to propose to the -- to the board, but also to evaluate the peak season methodology, because there are some questions on our mind. Is the -- is the 33 percent still accurate? Maybe it should be higher or maybe it should be lower. But we definitely want to revisit that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Vasey? MS. VASEY: It was my understanding that when you do the peak season, instead of just taking like 33 percent, you would be trying to get the entire peak season included on top of it. You know, like right now it's II percent you said. MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. MS. VASEY: I thought it would be medium plus something close to what the entire peak season is, so that would be a much larger number than we're dealing with now. MR. WEEKS: Correct. The recommended methodology from DCA is to use that BEBR medium permanent and then the entire peak season increase, which you're correct. It would be roughly 33 percent. So, permanent at the medium range plus the entire peak season, as opposed to the present methodology, which is using high range permanent, but only using a portion of the peak season, which results in about an II percent increase over the permanent population. And that's one of the -- there's two chief issues that DCA has with our methodology. Number one, they believe high range is too high; number two, they do not accept the weighted average methodology. We had a lot of dialogue with them and we thought we were making headway, but ultimately they've stood fast and said, we don't believe it is sound planning -- based on sound planning principles, professionally accepted methodology, and so they rejected our Page 27 November 20, 2006 weighted average. As some of you may know, we've been using weighted average at least 1989 when this Gross Management Plan was adopted, but I think the key here is, is I don't think DCA was aware that we were using weighted average, because we did not explicitly identify it within our GMP. And I think that's what's caused this. From one perspective is all of a sudden reaction by DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, on the U.S. census, is the numbers provided in the U.S. census for all of Collier County? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do they factor out Marco Island and the City of Naples? MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. Yes, they do all of Collier County. They also do for the cities, each of the three municipalities. They also do other sub areas that we typically do not utilize though. They -- they provide ratios at the track level, the block group and block level, and also at the T AZ level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, the 2000 -- the fact sheet for Collier County at the 2000 census, when that's pulled up, and it says, Collier County, it provides a number. That number does not include Marco and the City of Naples? MR. WEEKS: That fact sheet would be countywide. It would include the cities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the -- that fact sheet is the one you're pulling your percentages of vacancies off of. And that fact sheet -- those vacancies, that's -- MR. WEEKS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that is part of that fact sheet. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ten percent of the dwelling units Page 28 November 20, 2006 utilized in that fact sheet are for Marco Island and 12 percent are for the City of Naples in the 2000 census. That's 22 percent. How has BEBR, which then feeds you, treated that 22 percent reduction in the unincorporated area of Collier County for the statistics that you're using as the basis for the AUIR for Collier County's unincorporated level of service? I'm not talking about the levels of service for the City of Naples, the City of Marco Island. MR. WEEKS: For -- two answers. For permanent population, we do prepare separate project -- we do have a countywide figure, but then we also prepare separate projections for each of the cities and then for the unincorporated area. We actually solicit from the cities their own projections and we use them. And, so, when we get that BEBR high range projection, we first adjusted the 95 percent after the first five years. Then we subtract from that the three cities projections to derive the incorporated area of population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how do you adjust the vacancy calculation? MR. WEEKS: For peak season we do not separate the cities, because the peak season population is prepared at the countywide level. So, we do include those cities in our -- in our projections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, when you include those cities in your projections for the services rendered by the county for its unincorporated area, the assumption will have to be that cities themselves are providing the services for their citizens; Marco Island and the City of Naples. Yet you're counting their rates in the full -- your full calculation, so we are, in essence, then including in our service calculations because we're using your big number, parts of which have already been addressed in the incorporated areas of Collier County. Page 29 November 20, 2006 MR. WEEKS: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not good. MR. WEEKS: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going. MR. WEEKS: I think that would be another thing for us to look at when we review the peak season population methodology, is whether or not we should exclude those areas, most particularly for water and sewer that would seem reasonable not to count those, because that's very specific to a defined area. And if you're in that defined area, you are using city service versus county service. Other things, there may be some argument that just because you're a city resident doesn't mean you don't use unincorporated county library facilities, for example, or similarly if you under certain circumstances might use the county's EMS facilities, et cetera. But, if anything, probably should be some percent of -- not a hundred percent. That's a very good point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have an few of those -- others of those points maybe at some time we should talk about, David, that's hard to articulate sometimes and maybe you could help me out. MR. WEEKS: Be pleased to hear any suggestions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions on population before we try to understand what has happened in this A UIR? Okay. Thank you. David? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Strain, one last comment. You had asked earlier about any changes and I talked about how the previous year would always be changing because it incorporates a projection. One other change, comparing this year to last year and other previous year AUIR population data, the water and sewer projections Page 30 November 20, 2006 previously did have a different methodology. They still use the high range for the first five years, but after that, they use the different methodology. So, if you looked at a figure last year, you -- you -- 2002, for example, that was not affected by the fact that we're dealing with the projections, and you compared that 2000 to this year, you should see a difference because the methodology has changed. No longer are water and sewer projections different in their methodology than the other public facilities. Now they're all treated the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was where I was going, my prior question. Because as an example, what has happened in the public utilities section, in order to get to a fixed acknowledgment, for example, capacity, certain amounts couldn't change. Yet when you change the population, it would force them to change and, historically, we've already locked those other issues in. So, what happened is all of a sudden the per capita disposal rates adjusted, which we were told last year were fixed. I think that's going to be an interesting scenario to understand as we get into today's meeting, too. So, David, thank you. MS. VASEY: Oh, I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Miss Vasey. I'm sorry. MS. VASEY: Yeah. On Page 4, you talked about the historical data showing peak season the last six months, but in -- and in the past you've done requirements, facility requirements, based on four months of peak season. And this year for the first time you're also including six months. But then in your next sentence you say, the issue is not the length of the season, rather just how much of a population increase occurs Page 31 November 20, 2006 during that peak season. So, I would read that to be that looking at the six month requirements is not -- is important as the four months? MR. WEEKS: The mistake -- I'll call it a mistake that was made during this discussion that was held with the board last year on the AUIR, at which time they directed staff to consider four month versus six month peak season. The mistake that was made is that staff failed to tell the board it is six months. We already treated it as six months. The 33 percent figure does not refer to the time of the season, the four months. It refers to the amount of increase in the population. Again, the 33 percent refers to the increase in population, not the duration of the season. That was a misunderstanding. MR. COHEN: And can I weight in for a second? The net effect of that is, is the way the methodology is previously calculated under the four-month scenario, is that the seasonal population comes out to be approximately II percent because of that .33 factor. If you use the .5 factor, which is used in that six-month ratio, what it does, it adjusts the seasonal population up to about a 16 and a half percent increase, which is half of the 33 percent that we -- we do. And that's basically what it does. And, again, as David pointed out, it was a -- it was a mistake in understanding what -- what direction was going from -- from the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Vasey? MS. VASEY: I just wanted to be sure then how we're going to treat the review. Will we be looking seriously at the six months peak or we will just deal with the foremost? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew the information that David told us today from our meeting last week, and so I basically ignored the six-month review. It seemed like it would be not an effective use of Page 32 November 20, 2006 my time, so -- MS. VASEY: That's what I did, too, but I wanted to see how we were going to treat it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David kind of told us last week it shouldn't have been done the way it -- MS. VASEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- came out. And there was an omission of information that caused it to happen, so it didn't make a lot of sense to review it on my part. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, thank you. MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. MR. BOSI: And to give a brief -- give a brief presentation related to impact fees and its relationship today, AUIR, Amy Patterson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. For the record, I'm Amy Patterson. I'm the Impact Fee Manager for Collier County. And I'm just going to go over a couple of things briefly. These are things that I've talked to both the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission about last year. When we were involved with the AUIR, we actually were updating ten of our 12 impact fees about this time last year and went through a major update cycle, and so we spent a lot of time talking about levels of service and population. And, so, now with respect to that, our current impact fees are based upon the weighted population methodology. However, if that's modified, that, of course, will trigger a requirement for us to go back and review each of the individual impact fee studies to make sure they were using population numbers that are appropriate to what's adopted by the board. Page 33 November 20, 2006 If you'd like, I can go into just a couple of points. Most of these were covered in the memo that was in your packet, but these have to do with the financing of -- of public facilities and how the impact fees play into that, so I'll just -- I'll go briefly into them if that's okay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right ahead. MS. PATTERSON: As you know, the impact fees are formally reviewed and updated at least every three years. And, as I said, last year we went through a major update cycle where we updated, I believe, all but one of our impact fees within, basically, a one-year period. Also, each impact fee is indexed based on a set methodology in the mid years between the formal studies and the indexing. This is designed to keep the impact fees more consistent with the rates of growth and the costs so that we don't have these huge spikes in the impact fees like we saw in the past where we waited several years and then went through a formal up date and you'd see a 50 percent increase in the fees. Prior to the 2007 indexing cycle, which will start this spring, the Board of County Commissioners directed us to go out and review our indexing methodology and develop some methodologies that would take into account more localized construction numbers. We are already using localized numbers for our land costs, but we have been using a national data set to index on the construction side, and we found that there was grossly lacking compared to what we were seeing here in Collier County. However, even that considered, we're seeing costs that are escalating even beyond the point that even the indexing could cover, and so the two choices that you have in order to meet your demands is to go to more frequent updates, which is what we saw last year, where a couple of our facilities had been updated prior -- you know, earlier than three years, but we had to go back and revisit them again, because the costs were just beyond what we could even absorb into an Page 34 November 20, 2006 indexing, or there maybe a need for additional revenue sources as a supplement, at least to get us past that point and maybe where the costs would level out. And these are just a couple more points on what impact fees are used for, which we know is they're to fund capital improvements necessitated by growth. As Mike pointed out earlier, they cannot be used to fund deficiencies or any kind of operation and maintenance. The level of service that's established by our impact fee study, as Mike also said, it basically sets the line that we've achieved. It doesn't say that you can't adopt a standard that's higher if that's the -- the decision of the Board of County Commissioners, that they think that the level of service needs to be higher, they just need to find a way to fund the difference between our -- our existing level of service that the impact fees can pay for and what they hope to achieve. And that may be in the form of general fund or some other funding mechanism. But it doesn't say that they can adopted a higher level service. The only thing it does say is that you can have a level of service lower than what you've achieved with your impact fees because then you've pushed an unfair burden on to growth. They've paid more than their fair share. And with that, this is the transportation portion, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you don't want to present that? I'm sure Don Scott would appreciate it. MR. SCOTT: Go ahead. MS. PATTERSON: No, no thank you. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer or if -- I don't know if they'll be more appropriate as we get into the other public facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on the impact fees issues? And there's only -- there are only one or two pages. Page 35 November 20, 2006 Miss Vasey. MS. VASEY: Just one thing. At the beginning, you mentioned that if -- if we do accept a new methodology for the population, we'll have to go back and revisit all of the impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: Each one that uses weighted population, which is ten of the 12, and the other two use a combination of the weighted population, so each one of them will have to be reviewed. Now, how different the numbers are or whatever will be determined by -- by what's accepted by the board or what the state decides has to be done. But if there's a difference, a large difference, in the population, it will have a direct effect on the impact fee, and you have to be very certain that you're not overcharging. If you're undercharging, I guess, that's better in a lot of ways, because at least then you haven't pushed more costs onto somebody unfairly. Whereas, if you're -- if you're overcharging for some reason or if your population number changes the calculation, then you have to be very careful with that. So, yes. Once they determine the methodology they will be using for the population, we'll go back in, have our consultant review each of the studies, and to the degree that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could slow down a little bit, her fingers are pumping -- MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- go lightning fast. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. We'll go back and look at that methodology and compare it to each one of the impact fee studies to determine what measures need to be taken to make those adjustments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Amy. Page 36 November 20,2006 MR. BOSI: One other thing, and I should have had the transportation cited, you know, pointed out within the AIR book before -- at the very last of the introductory section there is a summary page that provides a fiscal snapshot of where the deficiencies in terms of revenue is for -- for, but the four month and the sixth month based upon the discussion, I think, we'll just -- I'll just point out within the four month, based upon -- based upon the proposed capital improvement projects related to the Category A and Category B facilities, there is a deficit of $42 million or over $42 million, and that is -- those are strictly contained within the Category B facilities, but the recommendations that will come from each of the -- the Productivity and the Planning Commission will have to be either a lowering of level of service for the Category B facilities or the identification of additional or alternative revenues to make up that shortfall. And with that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, just for an instance though, I went -- in going through Category A and B, the population statistics are driven -- are the index for almost -- for out of, say, 13, I think, at least ten of our categories, roads is not population driven, roads is level of service and, I believe, count driven. So, once we get past county roads and, I think, drainage structures and canals, we're into elements that are all population driven that will be affected by this new outcome of the population statistics. Is that a fair statement? MR. BOSI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We're going to be very effective here today. Norm, you're the only person that has accurate numbers maybe. MR. FEEDER: I hope so, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of both the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee, I'm going to be extremely brief, as a Page 37 November 20,2006 way of introduction, and then Don Scott is going to go through and get to what you want to do, which is go by page by page, respond to your questions. But I did want to tell you this is a rather challenging AUIR cycle for us. Specifically, we're asked by the board to make sure that we had projects actually under contract before we utilized that capacity within our concurrency management system. They've told us to continue our production processing, go through the planning studies, the design, the right-of-way, but on construction, that we essentially show that in reserve until we actually have a contract. Because of that, already there's been changes on the AUIR that Don has developed for you in the sense that regarding that County Road 951 from Immokalee down to Golden Gate Boulevard, which was shown to be later. Also just recently, as you're well aware, if you've read the paper on all the glowing comments, we recently let Santa Barbara from Golden Gate down to Davis as well as the Radio Road section, which is two other segments identified in what Don's been reviewing with you. I also want to point out under that opportunity is the rising escalating costs, rapidly escalating transportation projects, and we've got some material, and I won't belabor the point, but just leave it with you, but I'll call your attention to is really the last three pages. What you have here on the front, the first item is December 2005, and as I'll note in a minute, probably 2006 unfortunately isn't even in draft form yet, but it will be out soon. This is the state's look at the issues statewide and by district of costs. And on the third to last page, you've got a summary of District I, which is the 12-county area that represents Collier as one of those 12 counties is essentially from Collier on up to Manatee County across to Page 38 November 20, 2006 Polk and then down. So, it's basically the southwest part of the State. And as you look there, you can see what's happening on costs according to the state's figures. They show three to four, the percentage changes like earth work, almost 24 percent increase, and then from four to five, another 24 percent increase, asphalt, I won't belabor all the numbers just to show you the nature of increase. If you go to the second to the last page you've got some area specific numbers. And this is looking at projects that we've let in 2003, four, five, and two of the most recent projects that we've let to give you an order of magnitude of what's happening with costs. We don't have the exact same categories. Much of them are the same though, if you look at embankment, that's pretty much earth work that was on the prior page. And if you look at it, our experience from three to four wasn't that vastly different from the state's. From four to five, a little bit greater than the state's increase. That represents some of the fact that when you look at it, we have to import it. We don't have many directions for it to come from or as . . many mInes In our area. And then as you look at it in six, you can see the rather significant increase that we're experiencing from five to six. You look at asphalt, that's down here under the last item here. Asphalt, S3 thickness and also we're going to the new mix. But going through there, you see what's happening in the costs, not that far different from four and five. The state didn't have any real increase per se and not a lot from three to four and four to five, experiencing some significant increases here locally, not too far from their figures but nonetheless this gives you a feel. You've got a graphic here that's shown that shows some of these major components of projects. As you up the nature of our work, they make sense in what we're experiencing. Page 39 November 20, 2006 Concrete is up quite a bit. Over in the right-hand side, we utilize most predominantly, although we've shown you the figures for others, 24-inch pipe as of now poured, a lot of work. And can you see the rapidly escalating costs there. Another is concrete is sidewalks. The concrete work has gone up quite a bit on our projects, curb and gutter. Then you see the asphalt, a rather large increase during the ball unit we utilize. And then lastly embankment or the earth work items. I bring this to your attention only to show you that if you look at costs there, we've had very, very significant increases as we've been in the process of development of this AUIR. Some of the updaters are already in the figures, some of it we're refining. So, chairman, I'd like to have taken your first statement and stood there, but I'm telling you there's some movement in this and generally what I'll call your attention to is on Page 6 of the AUIR, and you see a figure of 182,394,000 under DCA's advanced reimbursement. And what I will tell you is that is a figure to balance our program with most of these cost increases are new estimates in -- in -- taken into account. And Don is going to go through some details on items that we looked at on that. I'm also going to tell you the board was apprised of the fact that this was a balancing item, that we had some areas that we thought the funds could well come from. I said, Don, I'll cover that in more detail for you. But the board also gave us a very strong direction that they didn't want us to pull back on projects. They wanted us to look at the impact fee. They talked about reserve funds and other issues as may be necessary to balance the program, but you do need to look at that 182 and understand that that is not a traditional gas tax impact fees as they've been in the passion. That is an expansion of funding needed to balance the program Page 40 November 20, 2006 based on increased revenue sources -- or estimates, excuse me. The last thing I'll point out to you is that on the table on Page 10, it was pointed out to us by Miss Vasey that if you look at the table on Page 10 and you look at the debt service, when everybody gets there, it shows no debt service until fiscal year' 11. It shows fourteen million three thirty-nine, if you see that there, and therefore a total of that. And that's why you don't see expenses and -- and revenues balancing out. In reality, if you look at it on Page 9 and you look across the column here under the debt service, it shows you all the way across where you have a reducing but nonetheless fourteen six, fourteen -- fourteen five eighty, and you go across and that 72 million, if you take that into account, the two items balance. That was an error in preparation of this table, so I apologize for that error, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. And just so you know why that is coming across like that, we went through a process, and I know this is not where we want to be is anything out of change page, but nonetheless we went through a process of already bonding out. I believe it was 2002 and 2005, if I'm correct, Sharon? Was it 2000? MS. NEWMAN: 2003 and five. MR. FEEDER: Three and five. 2003 and five we did two draws on just under two hundred million of bonding, and we bonded our gas tax and now this is the debt service paying that off through the years. That's why it's pretty standard. And with that, I'll turn it over to Don and let him go through page by page. Again, we very much appreciate your review, your comments and the like, and I think Mr. Murray? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Just one question. Our gas tax still hasn't been indexed? Page 41 November 20, 2006 MR. FEEDER: Gas tax has not been indexed. Gas tax is staying pretty level. And you can see it on that sheet of revenue assumption but its buying power is going down. The state, as you know, has been indexing their gas tax for a long time but they have not see fit to allow counties to do so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have you talked to -- MR. FEEDER: It has been legislative item for us, for Florida Association of Counties every year that I can think of, and it's one that's never made it anywhere. It's got the T word to it, even though it's locally imposed. It's not been seen. It is not a huge generator of revenue, but it would at least keep the buying power where it should be, which is unfortunately even as opposed to decreasing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like Senator Dirkson used to say, a billion here, a billion there. I mean -- MR. FEEDER: Yeah. We'll work on the million part and not try to go to billions, but, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Norm. MR. FEEDER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Well, Don, it leaves the -- the battle parts. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I'll try to be more positive today. There's a couple of things I want to touch on. I guess we can either go page by page or -- let me touch on a few things because I know some questions have come up. If you look at the work program, you see most of the items beyond the first three years. That's by purpose. By board direction, we aren't bringing a project within the currency window unless we have a contract. And based on Norman's presentation, where it kind of hits on the reason why, you know, exploding costs. I think that, you know, at the beginning when the board raised Page 42 November 20, 2006 this issue, I wasn't sure it was the best way to go, but now nine months later, I think it's -- it's a good move because it -- you know, if you look at even Davis Boulevard, it was assumed at one point, and then FDOT would -- the exploding costs took that out. It would be -- it's good not to assume that for concurrency purposes until we get to it. And that's why you'll see most of the projects within 20/ten. The other thing is there's money in there that's called advance construction. That's -- that's part of that whole issue. We have money in -- in some of the current years to address those projects if they come forward and that's why advance construction is in there. I want to also touch on -- I know we had a discussion last year about a.m. analysis. We went through all the segments, do a comparison of a.m. versus p.m., peak hours across all the segments, and Pine Ridge actually was the only one that had a higher a.m. of volume. Now, having said that, the hard part -- when I was standing up here last year, I should have been thinking faster and more further forward -- is that all of our trip bank is based on p.m. peak analysis. So, to go back and essentially make that trip bank for three to four years worth of projects is a lot of work. Now, we will work towards that. It's just not something we could do right away, at least from the good part is not a big difference in -- in most of the corridors. Now, I will point out, too, that if you took Pine Ridge a.m. analysis based on the shopping and stuff in there, I think it will probably end up being overall lower volume. Now, from the good part, is when Golden Gate Parkway opens up. I assume that will make a big difference in the Pine Ridge corridor, too. From that, I guess, let's go page by page. I'm starting on Page 8. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Don, ours starts on Page 6. Do you have that page there? Page 43 November 20,2006 You know -- MR. SCOTT: I do now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --last week had the same problem, wrong -- wrong page, wrong book. Are you -- is your Page 6 the summary page? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: Essentially just what revenue you have and N orman did call out -- let me go to the DCA's advance reimbursements. We went through the whole program, added in all the new costs estimates. We were short by about a hundred eighty million or so. I've gone through and I've identified some possible locations of funding. Obviously, some of it's from DCAs. I will caution though that if I'm -- you know, if you take it -- for instance, there's a coalition on 41 south that would like to prepay. Well, ultimately, I would think that money is used for 41. So, it's hard to say, am I getting advance money? Davis Boulevard. I think the impact fees, if you look at it that way, I've counted some money in there. That would be getting it faster than it would come in otherwise but, again, it would be earmarked towards Davis Boulevard. I've also looked at grants. I mean, this last year we had $27 million in grants. If you go out in the future and you look at the bottom, you only have like a million or two. We only put in the -- you know, the sure grants that we're going to have. I have a rumor that I'm getting $6 million for Oil Well Road. We will get more money per year for grants. And I've tried to identify some of those. In addition to that, if you look at the impact fees, they decline over the five years. In the last three years, we took in about fifty -- Page 44 November 20,2006 and I'm doing it from memory -- about 54, 52 million, and I think this last year 48 million. It was down a little bit even though we increased it. We can assume over time I would think that we're going to gain a little more. That's about 50 million of that. And hand this out. This is just my stab at it. Not -- it hasn't been reviewed by anybody, but I tried to put together some -- I've tried to put together some locations that I think that from a developer contribution agreements, that we could get the money now. Do we want to do them? I'm not so sure. One of things that has been raised in the last couple of weeks is, is updating our impact fees . agaIn. If we're so far off from where we were, maybe we need another update. Now, we just -- the board just adopted our impact fee increase in June, and again that's going to be a painful process because of the increase in costs. But, again, if you look at it from growth pain from growth, our costs have gone up substantially. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Don, just for me and I think for everybody here, the existing revenue sources under Growth Management 2005, that law, the state was to give us a billion and a half or something, throughout the state, some portion of which would come to us. Where would I find that in your revenue sources? MR. SCOTT: It would be -- what we have gotten so far from that is under the grant side of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought. MR. SCOTT: And we have two that are identified in there, one that was Immokalee and 1-75 that was just a shot -- a little bit under $5 Page 45 November 20, 2006 million. We are getting one on County Road 951 from Golden Gate Boulevard up to the one that just started up to Immokalee, which again is just under $5 million. And what I hear is that we will be getting six million for Oil Well Road. That's not shown in here and that's shown in my other list that I just handed out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, the reimbursement portion of it would be considerable as against grants, if we were to take a ratio, I assume? You're indicating the grants are rather small, I would think. Is that what you're saying? MR. SCOTT: Well, it can be and it might not be. I mean this last year, it's $27 million. Now, one of them was a loan for $12 million. That means I have to pay it back, but it just depends how things go. Do I think I'm going to get a lot more Growth Management money through that? No. We'll get -- we'll get five or six each year in we're lucky. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll stick on Page 1 until we finish the questions on this page. This is the summary page. Any other questions? Yes, sir. Mr. Blum? MR. BLUM: What -- what leads you to believe that since the impact fee revenue has gone down that you expect it to pick up based on current conditions that we're all well aware of? MR. SCOTT: Well, that's a point. I mean, one of the -- even in my statement we raised it though it went down a little bit this last year. Do I think over the next few -- I mean, that's -- a lot of it is from projections that -- and that's why it's conservative in there. I do know that we have some COA money. We -- when we Page 46 November 20, 2006 started this three years ago, the concurrency system, a lot of people paid the 50 percent up front. Three years later now, they have to pay the other 50 percent or they lose their vesting. And I believe this year will be pretty solid from that standpoint because that's when we started that. There's some big developments out there that have to make some decisions whether they're going to have to pay that or not. Can I say five years from now? I don't know. MR. BLUM: My fear is to count on impact fees continually going up based on the current climate, so let's revisit impact fees and theoretically raise them some more to keep the revenue stream where you want it to be, yet the costs are going to still continue to go up, and I'm wondering about the ambitious projects that we all know we need. We've been -- you've been mandated to seek to fruition, that it's realistic with these impact fees. MR. SCOTT: No -- no different than our concerns. You know, I think you're seeing some effect on the market from the impact fee increase, more so what I hear from the commercial side. MR. BLUM: Yeah. MR. SCOTT: On certain side of commercial, it said no, I'm not going to come here for that, because they're already saying that that's their highest cost when they develop a parcel somewhere. Do I think raising it to match that is the best way to go? Not specifically. You know, one of the things that's not clear when you look at this, there's a lot of needs out there that aren't specific -- can't be covered by impact fees. For instance, bridges. A lot of bridges were built in the fifties and sixties, have a 50 to 75 year lifespan. If I go out and replace a two-lane bridge with a two-lane bridge, I can't use impact fees for that. And that lends itself to a different source. Page 47 November 20, 2006 MR. BLUM: Thank you. MR. FEEDER: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Feeder. MR. FEEDER: If I could just add to that for just a second. Additionally, as you look at it, if our impact fees do go down because growth slows down, some of our demand proj ections will go down. Now, we have some of that accounted for, a given market, but over time we're looking at it and -- and I don't think there will be that in appreciable a -- a decrease in development continuing here in Collier County. MR. SCOTT: Just so you know, Amy just handed this to me. Fiscal year '05, we took in $58 million in road impact fees, and '06, it was down to five one and a half. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you said that you increased impact fees in '06. Is that correct? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. In June. Effective June. Now, this is -- this is a fiscal year, so it's June to this -- end of September. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, increasing impact fees still with the decline and a projected decline as we move forward, you then are, in essence, projecting less dwelling units, less commercial square footage that would generate those impact fees to be constructed. Is that a fair statement? Well, let's put it this way. Could you tell me your source of impact fee? MR. SCOTT: It's all of what you're talking about; housing, commercial and everything else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If a projection shows less impact fees coming in, does that mean your housing and square footage and the rest of it is decreasing? MR. SCOTT: It would seem like it's slowing down, but I make Page 48 November 20, 2006 that qualification because with the 50 percent up front, it's -- it's not an even, you know, even pavement scheme. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEEDER: And, Mr. Chairman, the COA up front is 50 percent. What we had was when we increased the impact fees just shortly before the other section of fees, folks went in earlier, so we've got some that of COA. So, the prior year was probably inflated a little bit, so the difference between the two years isn't -- isn't quite as the numbers would portray. MR. SCOTT: Well, let me answer it a little different way, too. Yes. Does it seem like the -- the building and everything is slowing down, but my traffic counts don't show it yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The traffic counts are really independent of the buildings and roads. MR. SCOTT: But that's really where my concurrency side comes from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Don, we're going to take a 15-minute break. This seems like a good break point. We'll be back here at 10: 15 to resume. Thank you. (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please take the seats. We need to resume the meeting. Everybody, do you want to quiet down, please. Mrs. Vasey has some information that she had received in response to questions that were asked prior to today's meeting and she'll pass those out for our reference and use as we moved forward. Ms. Vasey, do you want to tell us how these came about and just let us know so that when we're reading them we can understand the context in which they are derived? MS. VASEY: Okay. When I got the books -- in the Productivity Committee, we generally do a lot of our work asking questions Page 49 November 20, 2006 directly of staff via e-mail. And, so, we check them. We're allowed to do that this time, too. So, I asked quite a few questions and got very good answers in response. And Norm had made copies of this -- of the transportation ones, and since I have the copies here, I wondered if you wanted them, you could have them. Just questions. What we use it for is to kind of sift out some of the information that -- that we don't want to get into then in a big meeting. If you can answer some of the little questions for us ahead of time, then it helps to identify the bigger issues for the full discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I notice to the back you have a series of questions that don't seem to have answers to them from drainage and utilities and parks and rec. MS. VASEY: Oh, I did get -- I did get answers to those, but I guess transportation just did their own questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I don't know how we will digest this during the course of the meeting, but maybe -- I don't know if we'll get through any of these in final form anyway, so as we get to the end, we certainly have these now to read and move back to. MR. SCOTT: And as always, we're available to come back to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right-- MR. SCOTT: -- if that's what you're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We also left off on the first page, which is Page 6. MR. SCOTT: Six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was the summary form of the AUIR for transportation. We had started from questions on that page. Are there any questions from other members of this panel at this time? Miss Vasey. Page 50 November 20, 2006 MS. VASEY: Yes. In the 2005 AUIR, you were able to do 217 lane miles, and then in this one you're only able to do about 150 lane miles, which is a 30 percent drop. But then looking at the paper yesterday and hearing your discussion today, it's not really likely that you're even going to be able to do that many lane miles. I was wondering if you could give us some kind of a possible projection of where, what number of lane miles you'd be able to do, and also if anything critical would be dropping out that would really cause a lot of concern. MR. FEEDER: Jan, if I could, let me fill that one. As we noted, first of all, we generally balanced with that 182 million. Don's given you some idea of what we think some of the revenue possibly come from. But in discussion with the board, the last board meeting, at the end of that meeting, they made it clear that they wanted us, first of all, to look back at impact fees. I know we had some discussion about what that may produce. But, additionally, they noted other revenues streams and their commitment to wanting to make sure that we move forward and deliver the program as a structure, so we're still going in that vein. So, we hope to be able to deliver again that same number of miles. Now, obviously, the unit costs is up and, therefore, the overall costs would be up. So, in other words, we're not at this point looking at pulling anything out of the program because of the increases in cost estimates at this time. MS. VASEY: Well, it does seem like your unit cost that you're showing right here of six million three is actually going to be much higher in reality, and the six million three is based on the 150-mile lane, lane miles. So, it seems like you would have to be having something less Page 51 November 20, 2006 than that, wouldn't you? MR. FEEDER: Well, we're assuming again that we're going to get additional revenue stream in order of magnitude of approximately that 182 million overall, the different actions that we're undertaking. And to your point, what I didn't cover in the first handout that I gave you, the very last page, that shows you what's happening per mile for costs of construction on transportation, the very last page, that shows you actually the first item should have been in 2003. It's shown 2002, but we're about four million per mile up to six. Obviously, the overpass you can't look at in that manner. Then coming down, you're about six averaging up until this year when you've gone up to doubling of that costs. So, our costs have doubled from that, basically moved up to about six million a mile for transportation construction up to over 12 now or 13 or 14 in the last writings. So, your point's well taken. Our costs have gone up. Ifwe don't have any additional revenue stream, obviously we can't deliver on all those miles. MR. SCOTT: And if you look at Page 9, I mean, you're saying-- I think you're saying the same thing. We do have a lot within the next four years or so, but you get out through ten, there's not much out there. And we start like one new design on Wilson and that's -- that's about it for this -- what's in the ten-year program right now. MS. VASEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Still on Page I? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you put your hand up. Sorry . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Get it out of the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is like those, an auction, you put Page 52 November 20,2006 your hand up, you're stick -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so-- Don, I have one question on the existing revenue sources. Last year you had a revenue source called Toll Revenue Trust Fund. It had over $5 million available. What happened to that? MR. SCOTT: That was for County Road 951 extension. And because of the expressway authority and dealing with 1-75, both us and Lee County are not moving forward with 951 until an answer is done on 1-75 because, obviously, if we do toll of, say, four lanes in the middle of 1-75, it has a big influence on what goes on 951. If something doesn't happen on 1- 7 5, then nine -- then we will pursue 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was listed as a revenue source. Is that revenue source -- was that money moved into another category or is it just not going to happen? MR. SCOTT: It would have been money we would have had to go after to get, and at this point we're not going to go after that at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next page is a graph on seven, so we'll do seven and eight. Questions on Pages 7 and 8? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Just to make sure I understand something, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, the way we come up with a level of services, we do traffic counts all around the county, I guess, 117 places, we throwaway March and February's data, and then we take the highest -- throwaway the top 100 pieces of data, and then that's our level of service? MR. SCOTT: No. What you do is you count -- the 117 locations is actually what I get data from traffic operations. I have more Page 53 November 20, 2006 locations than that, but essentially take traffic counts all round, every link that we have in the AUIR segments. And from there, we take that data and use what you call permanent count station factors to factor down to the 250 at the highest hour, essentially, getting the stack -- if you had a permanent count station in every segment, you would stack them and say this is the 250th highest count, but since you don't have that for every location, we are getting more, but we don't have them for every location yet. You factor that down to get what would be the 250th highest hour of the year, and that is the -- when you get that peak hour, the p.m. peak hour for that, you compare that to the capacity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me make it true or false. The -- you take all the traffic counts, correct? You take your traffic counts and you reduce -- and you throwaway February and March data, correct? MR. SCOTT: Well, not -- no, because what you're taking is -- you're taking all the counts that you have and you're factoring those counts down. Now, is it February and March for every location? That's -- that was put out there because that's essentially what happens is most of it happens in February and March. But it could be the middle of the summer for some location could be the highest point. It's -- it's essentially getting rid of every hour that's less than 250th -- or greater volume than 250th, but it doesn't matter what time of the year it happens. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It then -- under consideration, the second bullet, is that a true statement? MR. SCOTT: It's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll try that. MR. SCOTT: It is, if you looked at it from -- when we looked at all the permanent count location, I know we had a lot of discussion Page 54 November 20,2006 about this when we brought forward the hundred versus the 250th. For most count locations and most peak season, it's true. You're taking -- it's -- it's if you get rid of the February and March, it ended up being the hundredth highest hour of the year. But no matter the way you look at it, it's 250th -- there's -- in a lot of locations, there are 249 hours out of the year that are going to be worse than that, that -- that -- that hour that's shown there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? Does that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Almost. So, essentially, you have -- there's like 500 hours you have had to add on and you're down on the 250th hour to set the level of service. MR. BLUM: 249. MR. SCOTT: Well, there's how many hours in a year? That's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So, there would be -- okay. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Whatever, 3,000 hours are out of the year, so there's -- there's, you know, 2,700 that are worse -- I mean, that are better and 249 or whatever that are -- that are worse. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions-- MR. SCOTT: It's to get at an average peak season number. Now, do you get that in all locations? Some -- some are probably a little worse, some are a little better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why wouldn't you just state the 250th hour? Why would you say omit February and March and take the hundredth hour? MR. SCOTT: I think that's because we were trying to describe it better. I don't know. It's probably better to do it the way I just did it than describing it that the way, but it was something when we brought that forward before, we were trying to make it easy to understand. I guess we didn't get there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It didn't work on me. Page 55 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions on Page 8? Don, on the bottom under your observations, first of all, you're comparing these to a 2004 date. Do you really mean 2005? MR. SCOTT: No, because what happens is I'm always -- I've got 2005 counts and they're compared to 2004 counts, because we're in 2006. It's -- well, what we talked about, it's the last -- it's whatever the last four quarters I have, so it's really like the last two of 2005, the first two of2006. But for the bolt data that I get on all the stations, it's a comparison between '05 and '04. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year you had a -- the same language was all -- was it compared to 2004 as well. I have it in front of me in last year's AUIR. That's why it would seem logical that this year it 2005. MR. SCOTT: Then I made a mistake last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, the last year should have said 2003. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then how do you explain the year before that that said 2003? So, I guess we've got -- it's like, David, we have to go back decades now in our population statistics and you and your count statistics, huh? MR. SCOTT: Well, this -- this one sheet, I take from the bulk counts, but the actual counts are the last two -- the ones I used within the AUIR itself are the last two quarter, whatever I had available when I'm doing it, which was the last two quarters of last year and the first two quarters of this year. But I don't have a good way of comparing those by quarter, is that they don't put them all together like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year you -- in the first three bullets, the 32 stations, the 24 stations and the 26 stations, those total 82. Last year it totaled 144 stations.s Page 56 November 20, 2006 Does that mean you're showing less stations with an increase in traffic? MR. SCOTT: Yes. With greater increases anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's showing an increase of five to ten -- over five percent basically. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the one below, you have 22, nine and four stations totaling 35. Last year you had 57. You also have less stations showing a decrease. MR. SCOTT: Well, the other side is I had less stations the year before. When I went back and I looked at some of the data for at least the comparisons they had here, there were a lot of -- because of the hurricane, they pulled out a lot of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you explain the -- the decrease and the increase. MR. SCOTT: You know, it's funny. If I look at the AUIR numbers and forget these numbers because these are the bulk ones and sometimes these are locations I don't even have in -- in the segments on. It seemed like it hadn't gone up as much in some of the locations. Now, I think we were coming out of -- 2002 was a slow year. 2003 we had -- we had -- we had a downturn there. We had an upturn. I think, in some respects, that last year was a little bit down over the year before even though percentage wise it doesn't shows it. Now, one of the things you look at, and I've got a lot of questions about this, too, there are people making longer trips, which gives you more counts in each location, but that's -- you know, is it essentially more cars at the location? I think there's more -- longer trips is one thing that I'm pointing to when I look at the data versus shorter trips. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Interesting. MR. SCOTT: Now, I am getting hopefully next year -- I've got Page 57 November 20,2006 like three or four months of good permanent count station data, and you can look at daily things, what's happening in daily. Unfortunately for this, I don't have a year's worth of data. Next year when I'm standing here, I'll have a lot better data when I'm looking at a year's worth of data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got more data on Page 9 to discuss, so let's move on to that. MR. SCOTT: Now, last year we did a five-year work program because of what -- I guess there was some discussion last year, but also of what Department of Community Affairs was trying to look at, was it more what are you going to do over the next ten years? If you see -- I don't show money beyond 11. There's some -- some thought that if -- first of all, if you -- if you look at some of our future years, you know at the costs going 100 percent, 80 percent increases per year, it's hard to project what it's going to be seven years from now. Beyond that, if you look at it from a proportionate share standpoint, those are very -- those are questionable out there, and I don't really at this point want to take proportionate share on something that's very questionable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions on Page 9? Don, on the -- one I -- I have a question on is the Wilson Boulevard -- it's your 60040, Golden Gate Boulevard to Wilson east of Everglades. In '09, you've got a tremendous increase in expenditures, more so than you had in '05, in the '05 report predicting for '09. Have you accelerated that particular roadway? MR. SCOTT: It's at -- it's approaching 30 percent design at this point based on the cost estimates that we're getting in other parts of the county and our design engineers looking at that, that cost has gone up a lot, let alone the fact that the number of parcels is phenomenal. It's like 400 parcels on that segment all the way out. And that's Page 58 November 20, 2006 going to be healthy right-of-way cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No other questions on Page 9, we'll move to Page 10. This was the table that has already had one adjustment made to it based on a handout in the first part of the meeting. And that was for cumulative debt service reference the $14 million number that was added across the line. Any other questions on Page IO? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The DCAs in advance reimbursements, that looks like a plugged number. Are we counting on the DCAs heavily in this case? MR. SCOTT: I was trying to make it balanced. Do I really want to? It's -- you know, some of them are very questionable whether we want to enter into them, and then the other side of it is, is it new money? In some respects, it would be new money. In some -- if you take them, a lot of them are going to be above and beyond impact fees, so the money above and beyond impact fees would be new money for other areas, but we would be also probably committing some roadway improvement that might not be identified in here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I understand. MR. SCOTT: It's also the thought that, you know, that there might be a proportionate share out there maybe. But you know, it's whatever questionable money that's out there grant wise, things like that. MR. BLUM: Pie in the school. MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, your -- your addition of this cumulative debt service, last year you had that number plugged into the existing debt service and you had it forecasted for every following Page 59 November 20,2006 year as existing debt service. Why did you choose to put it in cumulative debt service this year and why was it in existing debt service forecasted for not only this year but future years and last year's AUIR? MR. FEEDER: The way it was going to be modified, like that 14, it needs to be shown as existing as it was last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, so the table that we got today has got to be -- MR. FEEDER: The table is just putting the 14 in, but it didn't modify the title, which should be existing because, as I noted, that is from prior bonding of the gas tax and it's an existing debt service being paid off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, we'll have another revision to that table. MR. FEEDER: That and a clean up of the full section, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Further down, DC -- under grant reimbursements, under '07, you have twenty-seven million five fourteen eight hundred. Last year's prediction for '07 was about two and a half million. How did we go from a prediction for '07 of two and a half million to, I guess, what is more factual, twenty-seven million five fourteen? MR. SCOTT: You have -- if you look at '07, and it's small, what I handed out before, the sheet that has the five different years. Essentially, last year we did not know whether we were getting some of those grants. That totals ten million in there. Though the loan hasn't gone to the board yet, I'm still dealing with Tallahassee on that. There's a $12 million loan on there. It's also shown as an expense on top from a loan, so it's hard to say whether that's -- you know, it's not really new money. But then there's a whole bunch of other things in there. There's pedestrian bridges, traffic management box, pathways box, other things like that. Page 60 November 20, 2006 That's why I did say that some of these grants, even last year, we didn't -- we didn't know for the four million. We kind of knew we were going to get it, but it wasn't a guarantee until we -- we've accepted a big fake check before. We don't want to do that again. We're not counting on it until we have it in our pocket, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Don, that makes me wonder about next year. In '05, you had 14,000,288 with -- and the projections after '05, in the '05 AUIR were for less money in the future, 2 million or less. Now, this year the 2 million went to 27 million, but your projections have again dropped down to one and a half million for '08 and three million plus for '09. Why wouldn't we want to utilize historically what's been the average? And I'm not sure -- I could go back to '04 and '03 AUIRs, which I have here. MR. SCOTT: I'm sure that they would be lower, too. That's why in -- in -- in those lines, that's why I've added this other one that says DCA advance reimbursements. It's supposed to say grants, too. The ones I think we're going to get, but not positive we're going to get, because I know I have a gap of funding to make up and I agree is it probably more conservative than it should be? Yes. Just as I think the impact fees four years from now, I think, will probably be a little better than 35 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is if we don't show a more true figure there, we would be asking for an escalation in taxes or impact fees that may not be factually warranted. And that's -- and especially if we have historical evidence that that line item has been consistently higher than what's shown here in the future. MR. SCOTT: And I think in some respects that can be some direction that we take forward to the board, too. I mean, we've had Page 61 November 20, 2006 discussions between, you know, where should we have impact fees set at or where we have certain things set at? You could do it as based on what's the history is, but then there's some concern that is that money actually going to come in and are you going to program something on something that might not happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron. COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Did you say that grants should included in that figure? MR. SCOTT: In the -- yeah, in the -- in the DCA's advance reimbursements, what I handed out, I did put in some other grant money that -- some of them that I'm more positive I'm going to get, but then some other thoughts -- COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Well, because there's a-- MR. SCOTT: -- of what I'm going to get. COMMISSIONER REED CARON: -- separate line item here on Attachment D for grants and reimbursements, so -- MR. SCOTT: I know, but these -- COMMISSIONER REED CARON: -- on one of these. You may have already accounted for it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the question. MR. SCOTT: He's saying if you look out, that you have a million, million and a half. Those are ones that we know we're going to get paid back on. The ones I have on this separate sheet are ones that are more questionable. But you're right. The history is higher. And it should keep higher, too, if I'm doing my job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which means it would be more accurately reflected if we use the historical averages instead of something we could be conservative on. The next question I have is under miscellaneous. How do you have a negative miscellaneous? MR. SCOTT: That's four million. Do you know what that is? Page 62 November 20,2006 Five percent negative -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you're going to have to repeat it on record. MR. SCOTT: Five percent negative revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to have to use the speaker because there has got to be on record and please identify yourself. MS. NEWMAN: Sharon Newman, Transportation Services. By Florida Statute we're required to budget every year five percent negative revenue in the event that all the revenue doesn't come . In. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, you didn't do that last year. Does that mean you're in violation of Florida Statute? MS. NEWMAN: No. It's in our budget last year. It just didn't show up in the document last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The document, which was the AUIR, which was approved by the board, didn't have this item in it, yet it existed. MS. NEWMAN: Yes. And I don't have that in front of me to look at it to say whether it did or didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How many other numbers are on here that exist that aren't on that sheet that we don't know about? MS. NEWMAN: Shouldn't be any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: You know, one thing I should add to the bigger conversation about how you project the cost, you know, grants and other things like that, the board has given direction, too, to put a higher contingency in. If you go to the bottom, it identifies what year each one -- like ten percent in '07, in '08, 15 percent in '09 and 20 percent in '10. And I think it was 25 percent in the last year. We do have a greater contingency in there for the -- what's happening for cost increases. It's another area where, you know, will Page 63 November 20, 2006 we really get those increases in, you know, another area where there might be some additional funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carry forward. This year you're predicting a substantial carry forward. You had a substantial carry forward last year. You're predicting no carry forwards for the following years? MR. SCOTT: We only do that in each given year that we're in. I mean, obviously, we have construction projects that the money's all encumbered, but they're not all paid out yet. And there's a lot of them out there right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it -- is that a factor of what's been contracted but not paid out -- MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or is it a factor of what you can't spend -- MR. SCOTT: Yes. And also -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't spend as much money as you're getting. MR. SCOTT: No. It's -- it's what's out there under construction right now and right-of-way, I should add, because right-of-way is takes about four years to payout over of time, particularly when you go through the courts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions on Page IO? MR. BLUM: Not -- not specifically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Blum. MR. BLUM: -- on Page 10, but you're talking -- you mentioned that physical (sic) year II, that you have very little out there scheduled except the Wilson Boulevard widening. Projected. MR. SCOTT: That's actually -- and II was Oil Well, but beyond that, if you look at the phases, I didn't put any money in it, but say the second five years, 12 through 16, there's not much out there. Page 64 November 20, 2006 MR. BLUM: Do you -- do you have any knowledge or -- or a crystal ball? We hear so much about 1-75 and the widening of 1-75 toll lanes, no toll lanes. When and if that happens, and I would think it will happen probably in that period, how would we be impacted for costs? MR. SCOTT: Well, we don't show the state funding on this document. We would if we're -- I mean, obviously, if I'm taking money and I give it to them, which in some respects we have for like State Road 82, we show those, but for 1-75, FDOT is -- is essentially programmed in their work program to six lane it starting next year, probably around April, but the toll authority is still dealing with the issue of whether we should use that money with toll revenue to do more than just the two lanes that's programmed at this point. MR. BLUM: So, we don't have projected costs to deal with that? MR. SCOTT: We do. It's -- they have 479 million available to do the six laning, but they have three different options at this point, because of cost increases, things that they will throw out if the cost doesn't come in at that -- you know, if the bid comes in, it's higher than that. And they've basically said that they will do some project -- unless the expressway authority, if something comes positive out of that, that, okay, we can do this and we'll toll that and put the money together, they had widen some portion, now, as far as the money goes. MR. BLUM: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to the -- there's four pages of charts. They start at Page II and go through Page 14. Are there any questions specific to those chart pages? And, Don, if I'm not mistaken, aren't they somewhat summarized on Attachment F on Page I5? MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I would -- if we want to jump forward to that, because I know you don't like changes, but on Tuesday I put in there -- I have things like Santa Barbara in there. Page 65 November 20, 2006 Santa Barbara has now -- the bid has been accepted, so that changes that sheet. It also changes Radio Road, and then also in Collier -- at the time that I did this, Collier wasn't under construction. After driving up there yesterday, it is under construction. And then I also will hand out the TCMA report, since the TCMA report was lower based on before Santa Barbara was assumed in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you got new chart, huh? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. Let me just go down the list. Now, it did split it up a little different than last year because one of the questions is, is some of these existing deficiencies based on just the traffic counts that are out there or existing deficiencies based on vested trips plus whatever traffic count increase is out there. So, you'll see that I did it in three different segments -- sections here, one with existing deficiencies based on traffic counts, the second based on existing deficiencies based on vested trips, and then the third being projected deficiencies which obviously are more questionable. One of the things I've done for projected deficiencies this year, too, is to look at the last couple of years, not just the traffic count increase or decrease, but also what's going on with the trip bank because there might be some areas of the county that are a little more, say, developments adding the trip bank faster than even the traffic counts are doing. I did those projections, but I've also compared it back to -- because I've had to project out now or comments back to DCA out ten years. I've also looked back at our ten-year model to see if some of these things -- because you take all these in -- for instance, like Golden Gate Parkway, the interchange opens up, has an affect on Pine Ridge. I tried to look at some things where they have parallel improvements. Page 66 November 20, 2006 Now, specifically, as I go through the list, number one, where we are at -- we're approaching 60 percent design. That will be ready to go in calendar year 2008 construction wise. Obviously, that's within our two-year window now, but we have that pushed out beyond the two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, as you go down the list, do you want us to ask you -- MR. SCOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- questions as to-- MR. SCOTT: If you want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- at each one or do you want us to hold off till the end? MR. SCOTT: No. You can -- you can go as you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I guess it would be the first ones. Any questions on the first item that don's mentioned? I wrote it Second Amendment Number One. What's the difference between production readiness and construction readiness? Since you went to the -- MR. SCOTT: It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- effort to change the two? MR. SCOTT: It's the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, you just wanted to call it something different. MR. SCOTT: And I did that in two different spots all over the place, didn't I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you did. That's why I thought you meant something different in reviewing it. MR. SCOTT: No. The funny thing is I think I put production in originally, and I go, well, not everybody might know what production readiness -- I should change it to construction. Anyway. The second one, Golden Gate Boulevard, again, that will be construction ready in 2008. That's approaching 30 percent design Page 67 November 20,2006 right now. As you did point out, the costs are a lot higher in the work program based on what we're seeing in some of the different areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you did have that in '09, anticipating failure then. In your last year's AUIR -- MR. SCOTT: I know. And it's grown a lot more and I will point to one other that -- I guess if you start from the bigger picture, two roads that I know I didn't show last year, Golden Gate Boulevard and Radio Road, Radio is more for projection than anything else. And when I looked at not -- there actually has somewhat of a lot of trips left, but expecting when you look at the model with the new interchange at Golden Gate Parkway and 1-75, that's going to change that traffic on Radio Road. The boulevard though, from Collier to Wilson, that's a four-lane section. It's not something -- when I started looking at the trend of that, that ends up being a problem projected again in a few years, and that's a surprise to me at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've brought it forward from a projected deficiency three years down the road to an existing deficiency. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And I remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's a radical jump. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And I remember last year when we were talking about this, it had grown like 20 percent. Again it grew a lot. Now, some -- I think Immokalee Road will have some effect on this. There's a lot of people that try to avoid the construction or -- or it's probably better now than it was even when the first section of Immokalee was under construction. But we're avoiding it by coming down Everglades and coming into Immokalee. I mean, the boulevard instead of Immokalee. I think that will change that, but unfortunately when you look at trend and some other things, you can't -- it's hard to take that into Page 68 November 20,2006 account. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: The funny thing is when I bring that up, everybody goes, oh, no, it's really grown like that out here. Those are phenomenal increases though in some of the those areas. The third one, Davis Boulevard, obviously we're trying to enter into an agreement with the state where we essentially get advanced impact fees and then program that project. I think actually the latest thing is we'll end up doing that project as part of 951, if we can time it right, and then get paid back by FDOT starting in 2012 at about five million a year. We still have some question marks on design. We're trying to get through -- hopefully, we'll address that, but obviously that's not an approved agreement, so it shows up on this list as an existing deficiency that -- not quite addressed yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When do you think construction would start on -- at the earliest possible time? MR. SCOTT: If we could put it with 951, it would start sometime next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When would the construction most likely be finished? MR. SCOTT: That would -- probably about a two to a two and a half year project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope you've taken that into consideration for the December 7th Planning Commission meeting in which there's a project coming forward that's on that intersection. MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'm not -- well, I don't know which project that is, but I haven't looked at my agenda yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you need to look at it before the meeting. There's six project or seven,and I know one of them is right there. MR. SCOTT: Okay. So warned.h Page 69 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: Number four -- now, tell me you won't ask me a question, right? Number four, I had that originally on there as construction contract being finalized because it was at the time and it was going to start in two months. It's essentially under construction. They were -- when I drove up there yesterday, they were taking out the high power -- they were moving back the poles. Number five -- so, I took that off the list that I handed out to you. Number five, Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge. That is within the design to the north portion, but there is no phases, no right-of-way, no construction programmed at this point. We're trying to address what needs to be done in that area, particularly from the stormwater issues, and how -- how much of a -- how much -- essentially, how much money it's going to cost to do that project. But at this point, we don't have anything identified for funding. It is within the TCMA area. Number 6, Collier Boulevard-Davis to north of 1-75. The same thing as the one above it. It is included in the design. Essentially, the middle portion, the design from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Pine Ridge is taking the design all the way down to the -- the bridge over the canal just north of 1-75 to fill in that gap. So, of that -- at least I'll address with the design not necessarily for right-of-way and construction. The next three segments; Collier Boulevard, Rattlesnake to Davis, U.S. 41, Rattlesnake to Rattlesnake and U.S. 41 to Manatee Road. The -- the third one in Number 9 there, Collier Boulevard, that's essentially open to traffic right now, but I haven't taken it off the list yet because we haven't -- this is a private developer doing that. Until we finally and FDOT finally accepts that roadway the way Page 70 November 20,2006 it is, I'm not opening it for concurrency based on the way the DCA was written, too. The other two segments are in design, essentially almost complete design now. That will be ready to go forward next year. Number ten, 41, Collier to Green Way, project development environment studies underway right now. The first public meeting is in two weeks. From the FDOT's standpoint, they're holding that meeting. We have -- they have designed, programmed in an outer year. That is one that, you know, when you submit -- I submit it back to DCA, I have some deficiencies that carry out over time and that's one of them. Now, that is more from a vested trip standpoint at this moment but, of course, over time that would be from reality and we have people stopped down there right now. And there's why there's a coalition, too, that would like to bring widening on 41 forward. The positive part is they've tried to put a big commitment towards it; the negative part is from presentation, FDOT before, it's about $155 million project to a $200 million project all the way out. Now, we don't need the whole thing right away, but it's very costly. Number 12 -- Number II and 12 are off the list now with being under contract with the Santa Barbara project. Both of those will be addressed. And then Number 13, County Barn Road, that's essentially ready to go next year. Whether County Barn gets widened or if Santa Barbara extension gets built, one of those two would affect the traffic in that area would be a solution to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Wasn't that supposed to be done last year? What stopped it? Page 71 November 20, 2006 MR. SCOTT: There's been -- there's a lot of work based on LASIP improvements in there. The cost is now -- I think the cost is up to 38 million. It's a lot more costly project than it was before because of a lot of LASIP improvements on that job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Just on that same segment of the -- from Green Boulevard down to Santa Barbara, I don't show that up -- don't see that anywhere. It was supposed to have been done before the other two and -- MR. SCOTT: On Santa Barbara from Green down to Golden Gate Parkway? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. MR. SCOTT: That at one time was included in with the southern portion of that. Based on what happened with some of the residents in the area and the board discussion, that was pushed out in determination of what happens with 1-75 and the Golden Gate Parkway interchange when that opens up. But, yes, at the moment we don't have any funding to address that segment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Feeder? MR. FEEDER: If I could, those two issues, first of all, on County Barn, Don correctly pointed out we're pulling LASIP, the area of stormwater features into County Barn. Additionally, going through the courts now on orders of taking, it's been a little bit slower and the last one is scheduled now for January, I believe, for the last of the order of taking. To the issue you asked on Santa Barbara, we originally had the project from Pine Ridge all the way down to Davis as well as the section of Radio. There was about two years of discussion on changing maybe the design and the issues related to that. We brought in other consultants Page 72 November 20, 2006 as we were requested. The short of all that is we ended up in basically the same design from the additional consultants, but in that time we went from 38 million to go all the way to Pine Ridge to, as you know, 62 million just from Golden Gate down to Davis along with the Radio provision, so costs is what pushed us out. Now, having said that, we are still moving on the right-of-way. We still have that program up to Green and we do need to fall through on improvements, both for the roadway itself, pavement, and the amenities, the sidewalks and the like. We're aware of that, but we don't have that program at this time. MR. SCOTT: And I might not have answered your question directly either. Yes, it was on last year's list, but Livingston did have some effect on Santa Barbara, lowered the traffic in that area, and that's why I don't show it as projection at this point, as a deficiency at this point. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Do you with a clear conscience believe that or do you -- MR. SCOTT: No. I've taken stabs at these things. Like Golden Gate Parkway, for instance, I had 60 trips on it last year. I said, for sure that was going to run out of those trips. Well, if the count goes down a little bit, you want to add the trip bank on, it still hasn't gone over capacity yet. So, it's all projections. Can it happen? Can there be a big development that come in and affect that? Yes. I -- you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCOTT: And that's why -- I mean, to answer -- I mean, that's specifically why we have a concurrency system now instead of I stand in front of you one year and go, oh, next year, wow, it went 400. I'm sorry. I didn't tell you during the year we had a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on Page 15? Page 73 November 20,2006 And, Don, I have one. Immokalee Road disappeared. Why? MR. SCOTT: Because previously that was -- it wasn't under construction. That's under construction now from 75 over to 951. Will that be a problem again with the trip bank? Possibly. It has a huge trip bank on it. If you're talking about the 1-75 to 951 one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one, and I also was wondering, how do you factor in the lack of the ability to move forward with that cloverleaf at Target? Because that's -- that was -- unfortunately we thoughtfully reviewed that in a manner that we thought it was going forward. I know you had nothing to do with seeing it not go forward. But that's going to have a huge impact on Immokalee Road, so isn't Immokalee still going to be deficient even when -- because that's not completed? MR. SCOTT: And, you know, we drive that -- one of the reasons why I don't show them on a list when they're going to have construction, because I don't -- you know, some of the things we do after I -- as it's under construction as I look at some of the analyses, how it works with certain things that were done on the roadway. But that's a tough one. I mean, the assumption is that FDOT is starting April of 2007. Does that mean the loop starts in April 2007? No. If you've seen any presentation by the Secretary of DOT, he has on there how far they're in design of 1-75, and that one in itself is zero percent at this point. So, it's probably at least two and a half to three years out before we see that. You know, from the concurrency standpoint, I still look at that, say, what's going forward? As in anything else beyond it? I don't -- I mean, I'm -- we're six laning it. We're doing that improvement. I don't have any -- you know, I'm trying to look at what -- the model side of it, I look at it Page 74 November 20, 2006 with Vanderbilt, which shows some benefit to it, but meanwhile there is a lot of development that hits that corridor. And as long as the trip bank's still in there and I still-- and we have developments that come forward to say, this is it, this is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know Nick is probably back at the office thanking God he's not here today, but I do have a follow up. That segment of I -- of Immokalee Road between Ochs and living -- Livingston, right now it's real difficult. I know it's backed up terribly every day. How do you see that getting on an acceptable level of service even with Immokalee Road six lanes between 951 and I-75? Because if you don't, and here's where I'm going, we still have a deficient segment. It may not be shown in this book, but I'm worried about how that's going to appear to the rights of people to move forward with heavy more developments in that area, and we know that what's being done right now is not going to cure the problem. MR. SCOTT: And, see, that's where, you know, I look at things from a model side, too. Logan Boulevard, for instance, is under construction south of Immokalee, but also north of it hopefully in the next half year or so will start going forward, too. Some of those things will help, but -- and the -- and the loop, too. Vanderbilt Beach Road, when it's done, it's hard to say, maybe they'll have more positive effect on it. The model sure show that it does, but yet beyond that, I have Livingston East- West on the north side. I should call it a better -- the new name, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, but I don't have anything -- I mean, I'm trying -- I'm dealing with pieces right now, not the whole, so I can't show that as an improvement right now. Is that a longer term problem area? Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the fact that it's not on this Page 75 November 20,2006 Attachment F, I'm worried that the development industry is going to see that lack of it being here as an indication it has acceptable concurrency. And they're going to come in and submit applications to you, which then you're going to look back at AUIR, it doesn't show it's deficient. It's in the AUIR -- it's not in AUIR for any needed improvements, therefore, more development can move forward. Would it be better to show that segment, knowing it's not even going to be acceptable once the improvements are made between Ochs and Livingston as deficient and put it on this list rather than leave it off entirely? MR. SCOTT: See, my problem is based on the way I look at it, but should I? I mean, if everything keeps going the way it is, it probably should be on here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, I'm going back to what we're obligated to have to deal with from a perspective of approval. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if it's not on here, then they're going to say, well, then there's nothing wrong. We all know that something is wrong. Could you consider putting it back on here in -- in some format so that it -- MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have a leg to stand on? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Should we do that with Radio and Santa Barbara, too, and Green to -- MR. SCOTT: No. That -- that dropped enough where I think traffic wise, you're probably okay for a couple of years in there. COMMISSIONER TUFF: When that interstate opens up, they'll all -- Page 76 November 20,2006 MR. SCOTT: No. And I think that's actually doesn't -- hasn't -- I think it's going to be worse south than it is north when the interstate opens up at Golden Gate Parkway. That just someone looking at it from a professional opinion and looking at the model. And I could be wrong, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think that one though is a little more objective in the sense that more can be calculated to succeed there than fail and this one, I think we've got more calculation to fail than succeed. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. It's definitely closer from a trip what's left when you look at that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, there's a recommendation from those of us here, is anybody objecting to seeing that added back on to the list? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not at all. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to Page 16, which is strictly a deficiency road map, and then in the new handout we have for Page 17, which is the TCMA reporting. Don, on the deficiency road map that we provided, last year in the TCEA boundary, you showed a deficient segment of U.S. 41 to be deficient in 2007. This year it's gone. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. When I looked that the traffic counts are down and I don't know why. There's just not that many ways to get to south county. But when I looked back at the projections and carried that out, it's -- it's a problem in the future but not -- not as soon as we thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting. MR. SCOTT: It's still TCEA though, because we know that's a future problem. I can't widen any -- you know, any beyond that, so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions on Page Page 77 November 20, 2006 I7? Miss Vasey? MS. VASEY: I have some general questions. Would you like for me to wait for those until -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I got one question on 17, then we'll do the -- we'll try hitting general questions. You're indicating the red is deficient on the red notes that you have on the TCMA in east central. When things come before us, what does that mean in regards to recommendations for approval? MR. SCOTT: Well, unfortunately, and this is the -- this is the part from the rule side of it. We've submitted to DCA that these projects are out -- you know, the CIE shows the project pushed out until three years. But under the -- our current rules, that has not been adopted yet by them. So, some of the things, when you're looking at something, for instance, and I don't know which one to pick, but, obviously, if it's within the two-year time frame, based on the old rules, I still have to follow that old rule even though that's the direction we're trying to go to is have all those pushed down to the first three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, the deficiency shown on this page because they're in the TCMA, you can't really deny. MR. SCOTT: Well, unless the TCMA obviously fails overall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know -- MR. SCOTT: Based on this analysis here, it would show it would fail within -- what I handed out, it is above 85 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, the handout isn't colored. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I know. I noticed that when I got here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It makes harder to understand how they all fit together. MR. SCOTT: If you look at it, if you oversee that it's close to Page 78 November 20, 2006 one, that's pretty much -- you know, if it's closer or over, it's obviously a problem area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER REED CARON: It could have been a lighter shade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. SCOTT: Now, this is one of the problems with when we bring something forward. And I know one of the discussions we've had with the board is, if you have a specific question about why we're saying certain things, please ask, and I'll try to be more -- embellish more in what's happening because we have things with DCA right now that we've submitted nine months ago and it could be another half a year to a year before those things are adopted, like the 223 versus the 335, and some of the things with deficiency in all respects like 951 south based on their -- you know, the adopted CIE. That's within the two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the particular components of this failed sections of the TCMA, even de minimous impacts can't be stopped? MR. SCOTT: Not if -- if it's de minimous impact, then you get into a hundred ten percent. Say the whole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOTT: -- the whole TCMA fails and is that de minimous impact still less than a hundred ten percent, then the answer is probably, no, I can't stop it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Now, the other side of it is if you're de minimous, you're probably going link by link and you're not claiming the TCMA. You can claim either one. You can say, if I can go link by link, maybe it's Pine Ridge up by Logan, they can go link by link, then they Page 79 November 20, 2006 just do link by link analysis. If they -- for some reason they're hitting a link that's over capacity, that's when they get the trips to TCMA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Caron? COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Yeah. Do you want to just go over why the change here? And it looks to me like the changes were primarily on -- MR. SCOTT: It was -- COMMISSIONER REED CARON: -- 71 and 77? MR. SCOTT: Yeah. It was Santa Barbara and Radio. Now that those are programmed for construction as part of the accepted bid by the board on Tuesday -- last Tuesday. COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Miss Vasey, you -- oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Schiffer, is it specific to this page or is it -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's just a question on the north western TCMA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's -- we're going to be into general items then. Miss Vasey, you were next in line. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. I was wondering, can you give us a break out of the number of lane miles per year that is programmed? MR. SCOTT: I don't -- I don't -- I know for one of the recent projections I did, and I can't recall it off the top of my head, I had what was under construction, lane mile wise, and then what was in the next five years. But I don't have it a year by year. MS. VASEY: Maybe you could just provide that later. MR. SCOTT: Now, one of the -- do you want a year by year by when we think we're going to do the project or year by year what's-- what's in the, you know, outside the three years? MS. VASEY: That's a good question. I was actually trying to Page 80 November 20,2006 marry it up with your tables, so even though that's not actually when it would occur I'd like to see it that way. MR. SCOTT: Okay. At least if I did it by project, then you can look at it, whatever way you want to do. MS. VASEY: Okay. That would be great. MR. FEEDER: Jan -- Jan, we added about a hundred and three point six lane miles previously . We have another 200 lane miles that are under the 17 projects that right now ten of those are under construction, another seven coming up in the next year or two. So, that gives you a frame of reference under lane miles. But we can get you specific figures. MS . VASEY: And I -- I just have a few minutes to look over what you handed out to us. The transportation where the money is coming from on the DCA reimbursement break out, and it seems that most of the -- the big money in years '08, '09, and '10 is scheduled to be determined. MR. SCOTT: Yes. MS . VASEY: And it seems like those might not even marry up with projects that are on our list in those years. These might be projects outside of those lists. MR. SCOTT: Yeah. And there would be -- you know, reality is there would be tough decisions whether you accept it. Let's take 41, for instance. The coalition does want to pay above and beyond impact fees. I actually heard the other day maybe they want to build it. If it builds it, then there's no money, you know, that would be accepting. They would pay beyond and beyond impact fee, but at the moment we stand right now, it's not ready to go. I mean, it's project a project development environment study. Even if we sped up, you know, paid FDOT to -- to advance the design, it's still a couple of years away from when it would be ready to go. Page 81 November 20,2006 Now, that could make money available for something else and then go and do that after. But, yeah, is it new money? I took a stab of where some things were. I think some of what's been hit on, yes, we do have more grants than we get per year. I think the impact fees when you go five years out is probably a little bit low in comparison of what we've seen in the -- if you're going to do the same thing, say, what are we taking in for the -- you know, the last three or four years. But do we make up all of the gap? It's -- it's going to be tough to do that in some of these things and accept these based on some of the considerations that are out there. Now, our -- our problem was, you know, I could come in here and take a lot of stuff and throw it out of the work program, but I don't think that -- I mean, this is -- this is why we have this meeting here, this is why we go to the board. I'm not sure that that -- that's not really a decision staff should made. It's a decision the board should make. MS. VASEY: Okay. Because it does seem like, especially with the unit costs going up, and -- and the problematic, you know, issue with money, it's -- it's not -- it can't really happen. MR. SCOTT: And I know when I was a few weeks ago, and I was talking with the Planning Commission about the what costs were last year versus this year, and what projects doubled in that time. I can't fathom standing here next year and saying this same project has doubled from the year before. I mean, it's just -- it's just -- you know, you're right. Then lot more affects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Don, from this study, can we assume that the northwest TCMA has no deficiencies in it? Page 82 November 20, 2006 MR. SCOTT: At the moment, it's okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of any nature on the transportation element? Okay. Mr. Bosi, do -- or whoever is in charge of public speakers, do we have any public speakers. MR. BOSI: No public speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Reids are sitting there for his health all day, huh? MR. SCOTT: Maybe he's waiting for the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe're -- I think through the-- the context of the discussion, there were two items that I made notes of that we had talked about seeing amended before it went to the board. One was the grant reimbursement historical analysis having to do with Attachment D, showing some better analysis than the numbers that were there. And the other was adding 846 around the 1-75 corridor onto Attachment F. Are there any other suggestions that this committee came up with? I don't think there's anyone. Any changes other than the general nature in which we spoke on the issues and the table that were supplied? With that, from a perspective of handling this, none of your valuations or items provided to us here today will react any differently based on any new population statistics that David Weeks comes up with, will they? MR. SCOTT: No. And I kind of responded to Janet's questions on that. We -- because of what we have to do with the long range transportation plans that's a consensus item between us and Lee Page 83 November 20,2006 County and approval by FDOT and FHW A, we're actually with a medium beeper number in the future based on the model. If you're talking about what's happening now in the -- in the near term where you're talking about trends and everything else, well, it takes everything into account. It takes PCs and trips and all that kind of stuff. So, the population per se had some effect of where we're projecting for the future. But we're at a lower level to begin with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you expecting then any new population numbers to produce different numbers than what we've reviewed here today? MR. SCOTT: No, because even if we did, say -- say you said today that you wanted to go to a million population, I'd have to redo the whole long range transportation model, have that adopted through the MPO. It would be a long, drawn out process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there -- I guess we're going to do this separately, but is there any consensus of the group on how to move forward? I mean, I don't see why we couldn't for a recommendation of approval of this one subject to the changes and stipulations we talked about at this meeting, and then get past the transportation, since this one isn't going to have any more than likely changes as a result of the population demographics coming forward. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we want to hear any comments from the Productivity Committee before we go forward? Are you in consensus with most of our thoughts on this? MS . VASEY: I -- I guess this being our first A UIR, I'm not real sure at what point we express, you know, concerns. You just -- you go with the changes that you want to make and then -- and recommend approval or do you add my concerns or anything like that? Page 84 November 20,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything. I think what we -- there's any number of ways we could approach it. But if there's some lack of paperwork or information that we haven't -- and you've got a benefit of some answers to questions that we could not digest here today, if there's some -- the areas that are not adequately responded to and further input from staff is going to bring back different calculations, then we can defer a decision until we meet . agaIn. MS. VASEY: No. I felt like their answers are responsive and -- and I don't have concerns along those lines. I just have concerns along the lines that it's very squishy -- I mean, you know, to put in in technical terms and are we comfortable with -- with that? Is that -- MR. SCOTT: Trust me. We have the same concerns. MS. VASEY: Like I say, I have not been through an AUIR to know exactly what you communicate to the commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year we went through and we stipulated numerous areas where we saw effective changes that could save money, so that ad valorem taxes would not be negatively increased. And we weren't -- actually, we had a whole page item, brought our last year's notes with us. We had about $90.5 million and change as recommended to the AUIR that would have been hopefully savings. In this year's AUIR, as far as the transportation items go, it looks like they took those into consideration probably based on experience from last year. And that means if we don't have any new recommendations, we either accept it as it's written, with a recommendation of approval for the transportation segment of Category A, or we can come back and wait for staff to respond to those answers with -- with completed sheets. I can't imagine in our time in dealing with staff that they would Page 85 November 20,2006 differ in their completed sheets in the instructions we provided with them. Where they haven't objected, they've always provided the changes. . If they have objected, they would tell us at the meeting and then they would provide our recommendation, showing that we objected to this particular point beyond theirs. So, I'm not sure if we've got anymore to anticipate from transportation if we defer the -- our recommendation on this. That's kind of where I'm going. I didn't know if all the rest of you felt that way or not. Roads is one that is independent of population, basically, so we can get it off the table and move on to the others if you find that roads and drainage, I believe, are the only two that are mostly independent of population. The rest of them seem pretty population dependent. This is a joint meeting, so we really need to -- I don't want us to go forward with a consensus to find out you guys didn't have enough information. There's no problem in saying. We're going to meet again anyway . We'll just deal with this in a week when come back and digest today's meeting or read the stuff and material you provided. But we need that input from you as to how you all feel on it. MS. VASEY: I'm supposed to move this closer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. VASEY: Basically, I think I don't have any -- any problem with what's been provided. I think transportation has done as good a job as they can given the uncertainties of the situation, and so I think we could probably go ahead and vote on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DICTOR: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Blum, too? Okay. So, the Productivity Committee's subcommittee? Page 86 November 20,2006 MR. BLUM: Yeah. Mr. Dictor and I have had the privilege of dealing with Miss Newman and Norm and gone over the last year on a number of issues. We're very comfortable with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Comments from the Planning Commission? If there are any, Mr. Vigliotti, you were going to make a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. Motion to, Mr. Vigliotti -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you finish it? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The motion is recommended for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to the changes and the comments -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- made in today's meeting? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exactly, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein seconded it. Is there any discussion among anyone? Okay. With that, we're call for a vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER REED CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? Motion carries from the Planning Commission seven to zero. Page 87 November 20,2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And note that they have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Productivity Committee Subcommittee also -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Concurred. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- concurred with our motion. Now, with that, we'll move into the drainage element, which is the next element in line after transportation. All right. You guys are drainage. That's what I was going to -- okay . We're going to have to take a five-minute break while she's -- two seconds? (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on line. Jean, it's good to see you again. MR. CALVERT: Members of the Productivity Committee and members of the Planning Commission. F or the record my name is Eugene Calvert, the Director of Stormwater Management Department in the Transportation Services Division. What I'd like to do just real briefly run -- run through the -- the basis for our report. And then we come back and hit the two or three pages, I guess we're looking at four pages total, of the AUIR. There was a few things that were slightly different from this year's compared to last year's. The primary thing that I think you'll see in the differences in there is this year's under the AUIR, we included just a secondary system, rather than the primary systems and secondary system. The primary drainage system is maintained by Big Cypress Basin, and so we really don't have a whole lot of input into the capital improvements into the primary system. And, therefore, really all we're really dealing with is a secondary system and the tertiary system, and that's where -- the reason we've included just the secondary system in this AUIR program. Page 88 November 20, 2006 We've also -- if you'll go through the numbers and inventory numbers, we did a very extensive inventory review of what we have in our secondary system. And today we do have 187 miles of canals in our secondary system along with 15 control structures. There is some discrepancies from previous years. I can't explain why that discrepancy existed, whether it a follow through from previous years. I just don't have a good explanation on that. I do -- I can tell you with very good certainty that our current inventory for a secondary system is 187 miles with 15 control structures. As we look into the future years, and particularly this year as well as next year, I tried to outline how many new facilities we were going to be adding to the facility -- to our system. One of the big components that has never been really addressed adequately in previous AUIRs is -- is our reconstruction of our existing facilities. And as a result, I did include into this year's AUIR a line item for reconstruction of both our canals as well as our control structures. And, so, that's another change you'll notice in this year AUIRs as compared to last year's AUIR as a component in their poor reconstruction of our system. I think the -- the reconstruction component in our system will also account for any capitalization that you may have on a system. Certainly through the years, your -- your structures need to be replaced or your canals need be upgraded. And, so, rather than capitalize the cost, what we've tried to do is decided, okay, the capitalization costs is really our reconstruction costs to keep our inventory up to snuff. Some of the other changes -- other changes -- I don't believe there is too many additional changes that we looked at from this year's AUIR to -- last year's. Page 89 November 20,2006 Those are the three significant ones. I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. We have a total of 35 projects, identified projects, in -- in our -- five-year program. Twenty-nine of these projects are current and ongoing. One of the things that we looked at is, as we look into the -- the future in the five-year program is we're going to be looking at some watershed management plans. These are plans that the county has decided they needed to do by the year 2010. Within those watershed management plans, we hope to identify some deficiencies and identify projects need to be completed. And, so, as you look at our five-year program, we have towards the latter part of the five-year program rather than projects numbers is to be determined and without specifically identifying individual projects, which will be coming up through the watershed management plans. Be glad to answer any questions you go through. I know -- and I appreciate Janet's -- Miss Vasey's questions and comments that she had, and I know she's got some ones that she'd love to give to me and I look forward to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start with Page 19, the very first page. Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Calvert, I was wondering how you were doing with regard to, say, the areas of Queens Park and also the area over there by Travisio Bay in terms of the canal acquisitions? Are you behind, are you on schedule, are you ahead? MR. CALVERT: Okay. You know, this is all part of the Lely area storm water improvement -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Correct. MR. CALVERT: -- program, the LASIP project. Queens Park is part of Phase I-A, which we will be putting out to Page 90 November 20, 2006 bid within the next -- if fact, it's actually on the streets right now soliciting bids. This is a -- the Lely main canal that runs up behind Queens Park. We have obtained those easements through that area quite a number of years ago. In fact, before the development of Queens Park was even established, we knew we needed to expand that canal system. So, a lot of those easements were obtained and we have them in hand. That's one of the reasons we're moving forward. It also provides one of the main trunk for drainage through that area. The other areas in Travisio Bay and Sabal Bay are two other trunk lines, if you will, for some of our canal systems. We're working hand with Travisio Bay as well as Collier Enterprises on Sabal Bay to move those forward. I believe those two we have agreements with the developers and there's a certain amount of devoid for contributions in the Travisio and the Sabal, and we will be hopefully moving forward and getting those projects starting construction this year as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You -- have you secured the ownership so that you can build the canal on that area, in Travisio Bay. MR. CALVERT: Not on Travisio Bay. That was parted of our more recent condemnation resolution that was before the Board of County Commissioners here a few weeks ago. A good portion of the Travisio Bay is on -- on Travisio Bay's property and they will -- have actually constructed a good portion of those canals through those areas. It will allow them to proceed. It doesn't allow the full benefit of the improvements through there. And, so, as we acquire the necessary easements through the Travisio Bay area, we will then put out contracts to expand the canal that Travisio is already constructing. Page 91 November 20,2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm aware of that. I'm concerned with whether or not we're going to allow them to go forward on this, that's a all. MR. CALVERT: Yes. We are allowing Travisio to at least move forward on what we have control of and they do have -- on the outfall of Travisio Bay, we've got a major or pond area, which is spreader dike, which is our component for a water quality. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. CALVERT: They are moving forward with expanding that, and we do have ownership of that property and they are expanding on that now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So, you intend to have all of these started, the acquisitions started by sometimes in -- MR. CALVERT: Right. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- the residue of this year? MR. CALVERT: Right. For the rest of the acquisitions that we do not have along Travisio Bay, of course, we proceeded with the condemnation resolution. We anticipate because of the -- the dockets it takes to go through the legal systems, we probably won't have those in hand until the middle part of next calendar year before we can proceed on those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Gene, you -- the future development you put at a 25-year, three-day storm. What is the current service level? MR. CALVERT: The current -- it depends on where we're talking about. The service levels and the design storms in the urban areas, we look at 25-year three-day event. In the estates area, the Golden Gate Estates, we're looking at a three-day, ten-year event and then when you get into the stewardship Page 92 November 20,2006 areas, we're looking at a -- again, a 25-year storm event. A lot of those levels of service were defined in our Growth Management Plan through what the canal systems could actually handle, what could we accommodate, as well as looking at water quality and rechargeable aquifers. And, so, as we look at the level of service in those areas, they are, particularly as you get out in the Golden Gate Estates, many of those are the level of service ofD, being you have a level service of A through D, A being very good, D being not very good, you know, very unacceptable. However, because of the cost component through the Growth Management Plan and our efforts, it doesn't -- it's not cost economical to bring that up to a level of Service A. A lot of the improvements that we're looking at from our watershed management plans and our -- our drainage management plans look at improving those level of services from D to C. That's where we prior, how we prioritize our projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So, the reconstruction projects here essentially bringing D to C. MR. SCOTT: Essentially, yes. MR. CALVERT: That's correct. That would be a good way to look at it because, certainly, our priorities is -- is flooding of homes. Under a level of Service D, if you have good water quality and good groundwater recharge, you can get flooding for your homes. So, we want to eliminate the flooding of the homes, but still have good water quality component as well as recharge, then you should be probably looking at a -- a level of Service of C rather than D. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the cost of reconstruction, do you have a denominator for that or secondary in the MR. CALVERT: Really, the cost of construction versus new construction is -- is really comparable. They're about -- they're the Page 93 November 20, 2006 same thing, because you really are starting from scratch in a lot of cases or at least the dirt work component. In a lot of our areas, particularly as you talk about the LASIP area, we talk about the -- the ditch behind Queens Park, that's an existing ditch that is about ten feet wide by about two fee -- three feet deep that's on our inventory. The new ditch to handle then the stormwater is going to be a top with around 40 feet wide. So, you know, we really -- it is really a new ditch, but it is -- our existing ditches are our inventory. So, our -- the costs that we have in through there for reconstruction, there's really not a whole lot of difference between reconstruction and new construction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions from Page I9? Gene, I've got a few. Your five-year projection for new facilities is four canal miles over the current inventory. MR. CALVERT: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this year's current inventory for secondary canal miles, this 39 miles over last year's AUIR, how did -- did we create that many more miles of canal on one last year? MR. CAL VERT: You mean as far as what are -- are you looking at what we're looking at doing this year? I can tell you that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No, sir. I'm looking at what you -- or last year you told us -- not you. I know you got -- MR. CAL VERT: I came in late in the season, so I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the predicament you were in last year. Last year's AUIR said there was 148 secondary canal miles. MR. CALVERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This year, you're saying there's 187. MR. CALVERT: Right. Page 94 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 39 more. MR. CALVERT: And that does goes back to our inventory. I don't have a good answer for you, why -- what the difference is between 148 and 187. I like to tell you though, is that we have 187 on our inventory today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's about $2 million a canal mile? That's a huge increase in inventory, that if we had last year we wouldn't have -- need to give any ad valorem taxes out because we would have been way ahead of the game. I think that's an important concern as to how last year is inequitable to this year. So, I certainly want to make that point with you. In structures, last year you had 24 structures. Nine of them had disappeared. We're down to 15 this year. Do we know where those nine went? MR. CALVERT: I don't have an answer for you on there. I do know that when we -- when we look at the -- when I did look at the big cypresses and the -- the primary systems, the inventory for those systems stayed the same. So, you look at what we reported in two oh five AUIR for the primary system is in fact the same inventory that they maintain today. The difference, as you pointed out, well pointed out, is our secondary system. Whether there was some -- the shift, you know, I can't answer you, or -- or a classification. Now, when we look at control structures, that might have been the error, too, is when we look at control structures, we're looking at flood control structures and water quality control structures. The structures aren't necessarily ponds or -- or just drop inlets. You know, these are flood control and water quality control structures. I do not know how the inventory was obtained in prior years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Gene, we're talking $80 million, Page 95 November 20,2006 which is more money than your entire budget was last year for five years. I think it would be incumbent upon us to know for the taxpayers and for explanation of these historical records why we all of a sudden lost -- or gained 40 miles of canals that were an issue last year that had to be sought for revenue funds to create that were already there. And last year we were deficient without those. This year -- and now they're found, and we are probably way above being not deficient if you were really going to consider those as being real last year. I'm very uncomfortable with this, just to let you know. And I know -- I know this isn't your fault, but I think that with your review, we could get a better explanation if that is an issue that is concerning. Your secondary canal miles cost. You increased 5.8 percent over '05, but yet your secondary structures cost the same. Now, I've put in canals and structures and roads. I do that routinely. I know what the cost of my structures have gone up. They're all concrete and steel. Yet, you show no increase over last year. Does that mean last year's was higher than it should have been, or does that mean this year you don't have an increase? I'd like you to look at that and come back -- MR. CALVERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with an answer for us on that as well. MR. CALVERT: I can tell you as far as our costs, that we looked at the costs for this year, the 2006 AUIR. We looked at the cost that is estimated for new construction and reconstruction and then backtrack that into, so using that -- those dollars for reconstruction and construction, then put it back into the inventory what the value of those structures are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you don't know what the cost of a new structure is? MR. CALVERT: No. I can tell you right today that a new Page 96 November 20,2006 structure averages $530,000 per structure. And I can also tell you today that a canal system, a canal mile, cost $1.866 million per mile. Those are today's costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why the -- exactly that same number $530,250 right to the penny was used last year as secondary structure cost? I mean, can you find that answer out, because it is sure odd that in a year's time with the concrete prices that is explained to us by Norm's other division, his -- he's using the concrete as a big issue for improvements. And if you're right, that means he's wrong. And if you're right, our road costs would be potentially less than what they are. MR. CALVERT: One -- one of the things that we have seen the advantage over the last few months is that our construction dollars for constructing these canals and these structures has been at or less than our engineer's estimate. We have not seen the escalating costs for construction on the stormwater projects as we have on the roads. Now, granted, we're not dealing with the -- the massives amount of concrete, or the massives amount of asphalt. Maybe ours is more labor intensive because we're talking about excavation rather than -- than building things up. I do know, like I said, our last several projects that have been bid, and they are smaller. They're not these -- these $62 million projects. We're talking about 400, $500,000 projects. Have been coming in at very good price at or below our engineer's estimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, somebody from your department needs to go work for Norm's roadside. Even though you've had a five percent -- 5.8 percent increase in your secondary canal miles, your ad valorem tax request increase is 20 percent over '05. Now, your secondary structure stayed the same. Obviously, the only issue that could be coming into play is you Page 97 November 20,2006 want to create more facilities, yet you've got now 40 new miles you didn't have last year. So, I certainly think that maybe you ought to look and see if you really need that ad valorem increase based on this new found inventory that wasn't in last year's that you thought you needed last year that now you have. I would expect you're going to have to come back to us with -- with answers on some of these questions. MR. CALVERT: Well, I can certainly come back to you on the -- the questions on the inventory. I can also tell you that as we look at our new projects down the road the next five years, any amount in twenty years, you know, that's what we're looking at those -- those two lines of new facilities as well as reconstruction facilities. What do we need to do to -- to add new facilities to increase or water quality issues as well as our flood control issues for both new construction as well as reconstruction. Those numbers won't change. I can come back to you and talk about the inventory and maybe what happened there. We can dig into that. But I can also -- like I say, there's -- there's numbers for what is -- what we're looking to do in the next five years. That hasn't changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Gene, I need to move on then to your ad valorem on the bottom, the 45 million. What's the southwest utility? You're going to be getting some money or something for that? What does that line mean? I don't -- MR. CALVERT: Now, this is the stormwater utility. This is not really a utility per se, but it's the funding policy that the boards has approved, the .15 mills. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was -- I was looking for a utility. It's not a utility then. MR. CALVERT: Well, it's the funding policy. You know, it's the funding policy that the board has adopted. Page 98 November 20, 2006 So, that 45 million is what's projected from ad valorem out of that .15 mills through the next five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your MSTUs, what area are those for? MR. CALVERT: We have a number of projects on our books that are -- would be considered a local source or MSTU source, revenue cost sharing. We've also got tertiary systems. If you're looking at specific projects that we may have on our list today that might be considered a local source funding, if you flip to Page 21, and you see where the 35 projects are listed on the left-hand side of the -- of the project. I've got a number of these and I'll just go through them real quick that would be considered either the local cost share or at least have components of that project be local cost share. Project Number 3 is a 14th Street outfall. Number 5 is Willow West Swale, Number 7, Ibis Way Lake N, Number 8, Gordon River Water Quality Park, Number 13, Egret-Mockingbird Lake Outfall, Number 14, the LASIP project, Number 15, Avalon School Drainage, Number 16, Wiggins Bay Basin, Old U.S. 41, Number 17, the Bay Shore and Thomasson Outfall, Number 21, North Road and Gail Boulevard, number 22, Poinciana Village Drainage, and Number 28, the Gateway Triangle. Those all have the least cost share components within them. They may not be all totally, because maybe we've got a good share of -- maybe it's a tertiary systems, but they all have a cost share component into them. When we talk about cost share component, one of the things that we look at, that we are looking at, is not only the revenue coming in, the MST revenues that might come in from an MSTU or an MSBU or a homeowners association, but we also look at the soft costs and soft matches such as right-of-way contributions or other local sources, Page 99 November 20,2006 developer contributions, things on this nature. On some of these projects, we -- we certainly have received some fairly substantial contributions. On other ones, we may be looking at a one-third solution. In other words, we may not get that one-third -- full one-third contribution from a local source. So, our options then is to either not do the project or to possibly only do an one-third solution project, and only put the county's one-third up along with any grants we may have, and don't do the full project, but do the two-thirds solution. Those -- all of our project come back to the board, of course, for approval, and each one of these projects are going to be brought back to the board just as far as that funding mechanism for their -- for the board's approval to either abide by the funding policy or to provide additional funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gene, I have a lot of questions on your individual projects, but we're going to get to a break time here in a minute to have one. MR. CALVERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to have -- instead of being able to finish with you before lunch, I've got to ask that you come back after lunch. MR. CALVERT: Absolutely. Absolutely. If there's specific things that you may want me to bring back, you know, as far as spreadsheets and those things, I'd appreciate it, and that way I could go back to the office and bring them back if there was specific items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss Vasey. MS. VASEY: That's exactly what I have. I'd like some more information on the MSTUs. If you could break out the funding that you had in '05 and '06 and then for the AUIR years for MSTU, M-- all the -- all the Ms, the developer contribution, the homeowners ones, the soft contributions, everything. Page 100 November 20, 2006 I don't -- nothing with grants though, just the ones where they're actually, you know, giving their share. MR. CALVERT: Sure. MS. VASEY: If you could give that-- MR. CALVERT: I can, absolutely. MS . VASEY: -- would really appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Gene, can you bring back some data that support that the week construction costs the same as a new construction? MR. CAL VERT: You bet. As far as the -- the cost per -- or unit cost per miles and reconstruction and construction of our structures? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. CALVERT: Yeah. Sure can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Gene. And with this, we'll take a one-hour break, and 12:45 we'll be back here to start back up again. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back everyone. We took a little bit longer lunch than we thought. Mr. Calbert has now joined us and we'll continue with the meeting. I have to remind everyone that in order to accommodate the court reporter, it would be very good if we acknowledged -- everyone didn't talk over each other and you have to -- need to be acknowledged before you speak, that way everything can get properly recorded as it should. With that, Gene, I think we left off on page 19 and 20. So if there's any questions on those two pages to finish up before we -- this is a very short section, 21 and 22 after that. Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Why is it we take the interest and give it back to the general fund? What's the logic of that? MR. CALVERT: That was just the questions shown where the interest is going to, back to the general fund. Based on the meeting Page 101 November 20, 2006 we had last year, the AUIR, there's actually some discussion of moving those interest funds into this account, but for whatever reason, we did go ahead and show accounting where that interest goes. The reasoning I believe was that since this is a tax ad valorem account, that legally the interest gaining on those ad valorem accounts are supposed to go back to the general fund. I made the mistake. But this just does indicate what those interest funds -- that they did go back to general funds CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was one of the recommendations this committee had recommended last year to the Board of County Commissioners. Obviously, was not one that was -- MR. CALVERT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on 19 and 20? MR. CALVERT: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I see we have a new court reporter. My name is Eugene Calvert, director of storm water management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next page, page 21 and 22. They're actually -- they're one table. Listing of the capital improvement program. Are there any questions on that table? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Did you get any of the answers? My questions really relate to this table. MR. CALVERT: Okay. As I may, Mr. Chairman? The question before we broke for lunch -- there was a couple of questions. One was regarding the cost estimates for the structures as well as the canals and trying to verify the 530,250 was an accurate number. Looking back at the past A UIRs, that particular number was used back in 2003 when some of the cost estimates were derived. I went back through real quick to check on some of these structures that we're going to be constructing in the next five years, and those costs, actually if you bring them back to 2006 dollars, it equates something somewhat less than $400,000. Near as I can tell, it's my quick check Page 102 November 20, 2006 of the records, when the AUIR was developed in 2004, they brought those costs forward to future cost that were going to be spent. We still feel that $520,000 is a -- the $530,000, excuse me, is a good number for secondary structures. Particularly if you look at some of our outreach some of the years going into those things. There's a lot of issues. Other items associated with the 530 being right of way and utilities, et cetera. But we still feel the $530 is a good number for looking at our five year program. Another question that came up regarding the -- would you like me to answer the MSTU questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. CAL VERT: The questions before the other meeting was talking about how much money has been brought in from MSTU on some of our capital programs particularly the last few years. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of our MSTUs -- what we consider our local source funding, also might include some of the other costs in addition to MSTU. Specifically the last two years there has been no money from an MSTU or an MSBU coming into the program. But we have had local cost shares coming in from developers' contributions and things of this nature. But to answer your question directly, no money in the last two years has been coming back in the capital program from MSTU. Now if we look at what we'll be looking at for the next five years, we're looking at MSTUs and other identified revenue to the tune of around 25,000 -- actually 27,000 for the next five years that both identified as either local source or MSTUs. We do have a number of MSTUs or local homeowner's groups that are active that, as we're looking at some of our current projects that will be participating in the local source. And we have about seven of those projects. If you look at that project list on page -- is it 21 again? Yeah, page 21. Some of those current projects that have -- that MSTU's or homeowner associations are already organized, or being organized to provide that local source, include number five, Willow West; number six, Haldeman Creek dredging; number seven, Ibis Way, Lake Inn. Page 103 November 20,2006 That's actually primarily the Lake Inn connection rather than Ibis Way. Number 13, Egret Mocking Bird Lake off of Pine Ridge area. Number 14, Lely storm water project. Number 22 the Poinciana Village Drainage. Number 28, Gateway Triangle. Haldeman Creek dredging, there will be no MSTU funds coming into the project for construction in accordance with the funding policy. The .15 one-third mill set aside. That is a title receiving area and so the county is looking to the MSTU to maintain it and operate it in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Blum. MR. BLUM: I'm a little confused. How many ongoing MSTU projects have you got on the books in the last five years? How many are on the books right now? This is it, 35? MR. CALVERT: We have 35 projects that are on the five-year program. Of those 35 projects, we have around 27 of them are active for this year, FYI, '07. MR. BLUM: All right. Let's go back three or four years. The MSTUs that have been established and are functioning, and no funds have been generated? MR. CALVERT: Not for the capital improvements. Now we have a number of MSTUs that have been established for maintenance and operations, but for the capital improvement program, none. Like I said, we do have some local source funding coming in. A lot of that is developed contributions, right-of-way contributions. Figures into their one-third benefit share cost, but actual revenues, zero. MR. BLUM: You show for one of the accounts receivable -- I mean, I don't know how -- I mean, I know a lot of these things in homeowner's groups they have various ways to pay for them when they sell their house, whatever. Do you have money on the books that's due at a time in the future, a receivable-type situation? MR. CALVERT: No. COMMISSIONER BLUM: I would think there should be. MR. CALVERT: Several of those projects that I mentioned -- I Page 104 November 20,2006 mentioned seven or eight of them recently, we have several of those that are, quite frankly, on hold until we can get the MS TU s or the homeowner's group to come up with an agreement to where they're paid. For instance, the Willow West Quail, they're in the process of organizing their homeowner's group so they can come up with their one-third share for those capital improvements. The Haldeman Creek dredging, that MSTU is being formed right now. It's already been before the board. Poinciana Village drainage, that's a homeowner's group. We've been meeting with them. They are going to be cost sharing on the improvements. We've come up with a way to approach it. Gateway Triangle, that -- the CRA stepped in to provide the local source share community redevelopment organization for their share. So we do have some commitments. We don't have any on the books, per se, as far as accounts receivable. We do have some commitments from these current projects. MR. BLUM: I'm very surprised. I need to do a little homework then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on page 19 and 20. Are there any follow-up questions on those two pages? Let's move on then. MS. VASEY: Uh-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: If you don't get these MST's -- MSTUs, all of the other different kinds of homeowner contributions, what is your policy if they don't meet the one-third? Do you proceed or do you stop? MR. CAL VERT: Well, our policy is to bring it to the Board, certainly the Board of County Commissioners, the funding authority. And we have a program that may succeed through the boards and their consideration, we'll bring it before then. In some of these cases, I anticipate bringing the issues to the board and let the board make the decision. Ifwe want to proceed with the current policy, or make Page 105 November 20, 2006 exceptions to that policy. MS. VASEY: It seems that in the next year you got 23 million dollars worth of projects that are subject to the -- at least part of them __ are subject to the one-third contributions. And that's quite a bit of money. And you're not going to be coming up with the shares, it seems like the program is broken. MR. CALVERT: On some of the programs we actually have a committment. Gateway Triangle, if you look at the 27 projects, its 29 million dollar budget, out of those 29 projects, or 27 projects I guess it is, four of them are major projects. Those four projects totaled around 22 million dollars, just four. And those four are the LASIP project around ten million, the Gateway Triangle, the Gordon River Water Quality Park, and let's see -- Gateway Triangle Water Quality Park, Haldeman Creek dredging. Out of those projects, the LASIP, we do have the local share set aside from the donated right of ways. So we have that one-third cost share as part of this project for this current year. Gateway, as I mentioned, they already stepped forward and provided CRAs provided in one-third cost sharing. The Haldeman Creek, as I mentioned earlier, it's actually a title receiving area. And so we're moving forward on that. MS TU is going to take over maintenance. Our Gordon River Water Quality Park is not so much a flood issue as it is a water quality issue. And that's being funded from the county as well as a number of federal and state grants. So we don't have a water -- a cost share with the local group on the water quality park. Other than some of our agreements like the city and et cetera. As I mentioned too, as we go through some of these projects, we're prepared to only do one-third or two-third solution. So, for instance, Willow West. That's a good example. We really looked at Willow West and designed a system that will really address their flood issues, but it does involve them stepping forward. We're prepared to go forward with those improvements along our county right of way, which are tertiary systems, and not do -- and do our one-third benefit Page 106 November 20, 2006 to them, but leave their two-thirds out of it if they do not wish to proceed with this. So we're prepared to take these issues before the board with the funding scenario letting the board realize, we may not be building a full project. We will be building a two-third structure. MS VASEY: Would you still be able to provide that information on what you collected in revenue for '05 and '06 broken out by those categories that we discussed, and then for the whole five year period? MR. CALVERT: Absolutely. As I said, we won't see any MSTU revenue. I'll break out all the different revenues we received from the different sources. MS. VASEY: Thank you, Gene. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to page 21. Attachment A. Gene, if you move down that particular table, item number 14, the Lely area storm water improvement. MR. CALVERT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have 50 million dollars over a period of time. Are those all secondary improvements? MR. CALVERT: No, they're not. Most of them are. I would say probably 95 percent of them are. A lot of them are tertiary improvements though. Actually probably, I would correct myself. It's not 95 percent secondary. It's a bigger split than that. We have a lot of tertiary improvements that are against our roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are that column -- if you look at the FY '06 to '07 column, does that not total the total on the bottom 29,223,608.19? MR. CALVERT: That's correct. That's what we have budgeted for FY '07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you have them budgeted as secondary systems. MR. CALVERT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You just testified it's not secondary . Page 107 November 20, 2006 MR. CALVERT: Pardon me, Mr. Chariman. All these projects listed through here are not all secondary. They have components -- they could be tertiary systems or they could be a combination of secondary and tertiary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your summary form -- I always separate out what you're working on as far as secondary and the cost for secondary versus the cost for tertiary as you made a statement as far as the cost for those systems on a per mile or per structure basis. There isn't any way of doing that. MR. CALVERT: We can break those out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I have been thinking either you need to explain your numbers, and that would be necessary to do that. At the same time, why did the Lely storm water area double in price? Last year it was 25 million or 26 this year it's 50. MR. CALVERT: It's actually more than 50. If you look at the extended project through there from planned future projects on page 22, you'll see that the Lely project extends two more years. And what we were showing last year on the AUIR was simply a five year report. We didn't have this extended ten year report. That Lely project is actually closer to a 62 million dollar project currently. Also what we did for this A UI process, was brought forward the cost, estimated cost for our construction, to bring it into FY 1011 budget into the out years of FY 12 so that when we're looking at those dollars in the out years of FY 12, for instance. Those dollars are FY 12 dollars not FY 06 dollars. And that's one of the reasons why we're looking at decreased cost. The previous AUIR had just 2005 cost and that was it. As I said, it did extend out beyond six years, but our AUIR didn't show that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got your 2005 AUIR in front of me. And I'm trying to follow what you just said, because let me walk through this. In '06 you're going to spend about two million dollars, in '07 about three quarter million, and in '08 it's going to be seven million, '09, eight million, and '10, nine million for a total of 26 Page 108 November 20, 2006 million for the first five-year segment. Five year segment now reads for this year instead of two million, you're going to spend eight million. For next year you're going to spend eleven and a half million, almost 12 million, and almost eleven million and just under eight million. Those are significant increases in the same general time frame that you displayed in '05. Do you know why you would have gone from two million in '07 to almost eight million in '07? MR. CALVERT: I don't have the attachment for AUIR 2005. Like I say, as we look at those projects, we're looking at the estimated cost for the up years. We're also looking at the project as a whole. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gene, I think it's important that we understand how your numbers for the same period of time. I know you've added some on to the second page. You went for another five years in the future. But for the comparative years that were provided in the '05 AUIR versus this year's you're almost double. And I think we need to understand why. So at some point when you come back, an explanation might be in order. MR. CALVERT: I certainly can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you move down and look at number 23, 24. And 24 you have the same situation there. After you had spent the money that was supposed to be spent last year, you have significant increases yet this year. I don't know how those occurred, but that would be equal -- that would be like the Lely storm water. And then the Australian Pine removal. MR. CALVERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know last year you had two-and-a-half million under work item 515012. This year you have a new work item, 515011 with a different number totalling 2.7 practically. Are those separate work jobs, or are they supposed to be the same job and just the number changed? MR. CALVERT: No, the 5012 -- what's it say after that? I don't have that. Page 109 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The number was 51512 and it said Australian Pine removal. You had a 2.5 million spending a half million a year to do that. MR. CALVERT: In FY 07? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Half million a year starting in '06 for five years. What I'm saying is you've got a different number on this one. It's 515011. In '07 you're going, instead of a half million, you're spending 1188 -- 1,188,000, but your total is about 2.7 million. Again, I just need to understand if you've got two jobs going on, one that isn't shown and one that is. MR. CALVERT: Oh, thank you, Sharon. Yes, the 5112 is actually a different fund. It's a fund 301. Fund projects 5011 is a 325 fund. The 301 fund was a fund that was set up several years ago that has not had any additional funding go into the project so we're trying to finish -- finalize some of those project. The 325 is our ad valorem future project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that first fund still have a two-and-a-half million dollars in it to be spent on Australian Pines? MR. CALVERT: No, it does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where did that money go? MR. CALVERT: I'm not sure what your table is showing. I'd have to get into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My tables show where it went. MR. CAL VERT: I couldn't answer that without getting into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at the next meeting, can you-- MR. CALVERT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Get that answered? MR. CALVERT: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year, items 30 and 31. You had totals of looks like 1.1 million. It was the Belmede Plan. Yes, the Belmede Plan and the urban, Immokalee Urban master plan. You had 1.1 million for each. This year you've got 5.4 million and 3.2. Can Page 110 November 20, 2006 you -- do you know what the explanation is? MR. CALVERT: Yes. I understand now that you have the attachment A from the 2005 AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CALVERT: As we look into the years, even through the FY 07 on up through there, we try to estimate what kind of improvements are going to be required for some of these projects. The Belmede storm water improvement category through there, they're just now completing a Belmede drainage dike. Big Cypress Basin is completing that study. It's given us some better indication of what type of projects we may be looking at in the out years. Same way with the Immokalee Urban improvements. That storm water management project was just completed last year as well. So, therefore, we can now identify some of those projects and put them into our AUIR. That is one of the reasons why, as you look down some of the other projects, the Gordon River extension improvements, the 323334, those projects, as I mentioned earlier are -- we don't have specific projects identified because those projects will be identified in the watershed management plans that are going to be completed in 2010. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your sheet were you just given a copy of the attachment from 2005? MR. CALVERT: I was, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me -- look at line 19. I haven't found number 19, which is your Livingston east/west Imperial Golf Estates item on here. Did that get completed? MR. CALVERT: No, it didn't. That particular project as we got through in the study -- you'll notice that on FY 06 for the AUIR 2005 report, it indicated there was a study going into the design. The study indicated that we really didn't need to do the improvements in those areas. The preliminary findings from the study said that that probably should not be a project for capital improvements. So that's one of the Page 111 November 20,2006 reasons -- that's the reason why we did not include the Livingston project on any future project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another three-and-a-halfmillion dollars we didn't need it. But yet last year we kind of banked on it by endorsing the A UIR and making sure all the budgets balanced and everything worked, including that project. And now you're telling us it wasn't needed. MR. CALVERT: It was not needed. As we updated our AUIR on an annual basis, we look at what the needs are and make those adjustments as they go through. And we look at the current year budget to see what we can do and what potential revenues there are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before your time with the county, a year before you came on board, there was an agreement worked out with the City of Naples where the city was going to provide a million dollars a year for five years to contribute to some improvement for storm water because we were taking on some issues that eventually affected them. Recommendation from this committmee last year was to try to re-initiate that, let's say, cooperative agreement. It appears that you don't know any income coming in from the City of Naples. And a lot of the improvements aren't benefitting the City of Naples. Is there a reason why they're not working with us on this? MR. CAL VERT: Well, yeah. We do not show any revenue coming in from the City of Naples. They are benefitting from maybe a cleaner Naples Bay. But it's also our responsibility from some of these improvement projects because the storm water is coming off of unincorporated lands. And we do have a cooperative agreement. A cooperative, not agreement, but informal agreement where we're working together on several different projects. MR. FEEDER: Mr. Chairman, a couple of quick things. First of all, to your question I met with the city manager and with staff. We've had a number of discussions. The water quality park being one of the cases in point looking for contributions from the city. The city points Page 112 November 20, 2006 out, not necessarily to my agreement, but nonetheless that they pay into this point 15 mill a share that they consider being their efforts to help fund overall storm water within the county and they have their own storm water program as well. So, so far to date we have not seen any funding coming from the city, nor are they shown that direction at this point in time. They note that they logged into the point 15 mill that is funding the storm water program. The other thing to some of the questions and issues I've heard, I would like to tell you that we have some major changes that's obvious to the group we need to make and come back to you. I think you also need to see on this table what has gone through some level of design where we have identified a specific project that we're costing out, and which ones are concepts of need in an area that's still being brought to further detail and analysis, because you've got both of those in here and you had them last year as well. And I think comparing those is getting very, very difficult for this group and I apologize for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, thank you, Norm. I appreciate it. I was wondering in your return to us, is there a way that 148 or 187 canal miles and 15 or 24 structures, they must be on some kind of listing as far as their location goes? MR. FEEDER: Yes. We have a good inventory now. In the hope that the inventory is good now and that we're accurate, that we're not going to test why it's different from the other, I will try to get you an answer. We could have added canal miles as we've taken on new development approved where we said we'll take on the storm water from this system, but I don't know that's the case. I'm just trying to project what it could be. How I remove structures, since I haven't taken any out in number, I don't know if some of them were originally MS TU maintenance structures that now we're not funding as we've done inventory specific. It's conjecture on my part and I don't want to go beyond just telling you it's conjectural. We'll try to get you an answer and be back to you. Page 113 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that if you can get that to us as early as possible, those answers will be available to be reviewed on the aerial photos that the tax assessor's office, which has a measurement device. So I'd certainly like to see if the miles add up. MR. FEEDER: I think clearly what I'm hearing is we'll be done by at least June so it needs to be done by us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you check ahead of time, it might be . WIse. MR. FEEDER: I understand. THE COURT REPORTER: Can I have your name for the record, please? MR. FEEDER: I'm sorry. Norman Feeder, transportation administrator. MR. CAL VERT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. And in fact, that is one of the reasons we brought this inventory up to date. It is based on our GIF. That's where we end up with 187 miles and 15 structures. The structure discrepancy, I would suspect may also be leading to what is considered a control structure. Certainly we're looking at a catch basin. While that is a structure, it's certainly not a $530,000 cost item. So when we look at structure, we're looking at flood control structures, major gates, weirs and those type of things. That is probably why the discrepancy is so much from what we have today based on our GIF and what was listed in previous AUIRs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other questions on the drainage? Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHIFFER: Gene, did you get a chance to look at the reconstruction versus new facility costs? MR. CAL VERT: Yes. Actually, I went back through there and did a quick analysis. I looked at the numbers that we used to derive these costs, and it does vary considerably. A canal mile, you know, you have a lot of different items on here. This is a particular estimate Page 114 November 20,2006 we have most recently. Sitting at 2 point -- 1.9 million dollars per mile. That's the one that is estimated to go out for construction, or for bid here this month. And that is -- that's again Lely project that I've mentioned earlier about taking a small ditch and making it into a big ditch. There are other components that are involved with this thing that mayor may not show up in different structures, or in different projects. So I feel though that the 1.8 million dollars as shown in our AUIR is still a very good number for both construction, new construction as well as reconstruction of our canal systems. Because it does include all the factors you might have in a canal right of way. Utility relocation, excavation, access roads, and things of this nature. MR. SCHIFFER: Considering that, Gene, do you think the inventory, the available inventory number, you should deduct that from it? MR. CAL VERT: Available inventory -- as I mentioned early on, when we came up, looked at the numbers, we determined what it was going to cost us to build all these new structures if we were going to start from scratch. And that's where we backtrack from our capital cost. Because, as we said, we don't have a capitalization in our program. Our reconstruction is really our capitalization factor. Our depreciation capitalization factor. So, the cost to construct these canals, the inventory cost and the value cost reflects on today's cost. Today's dollars to build those things. MR. SCHIFFER: I'm kind of confused. So what you're saying is take one of these miles that you're going to reconstruct -- MR. CALVERT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In inventory it's worth a million eight. It's going to cost you a million eight to bring it up to standards. I mean, isn't the thing worthless on inventory? MR. CALVERT: No, it still certainly has a value in our inventory . You know, a lot of our ditches and canals certainly have some type of drainage capacity at this point. What they don't have Page 115 November 20, 2006 capacity at is to meet the level of service. So if we move into our improvements to increase the level of service, and then we reduce the flooding potential, and it is going to cost us a million dollars a canal mile to reduce that. It still certainly has some value. It's in our inventory now. MR. SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: But there's got to be a difference between constructing new facilities and reconstructing old facilities. It's got to cost less to reconstruct the old facilities since you don't have cost, for example, of right of way. You've already got it. So, and that we hear all the time from Mr. Feeder is the most expensive thing that you have to buy. So how can the cost be the same? MR. CALVERT: As you look at -- I'm not a very good bookkeeper or cost accountant, but as you look at your value of our systems, certainly just like a car, you buy a car for $30,000 and five years from now it's not worth $30,000. It has some type of -- some amount of depreciation. How much is that depreciation on a canal that's been built for the last 20 years? It's very difficult to estimate. But what we've done is say, okay, we're going to have to replace these or upgrade these canals and it's going to cost X number of dollars to upgrade these existing canals. That must, therefore, be our amount of depreciation we had on our system. Or, you know, quite frankly this, you know -- and previously if you look at the previous AUIRs, what we tried to do is bring this AUIR into the secondary system. If you look at the previous AUIRs, they're even talking about costing the primary systems that we don't have any control over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought Mr. Schiffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one of you guys. Whoever wants to go next. Mr. Murray, I thought you had your hand up first. Page 116 -..-_*'''.H.'._.....'''_''_.".._.________._.'''''....~,....._ November 20, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. Is there such a thing as a useful life to a canal as we might have on an improvement, a physical structure? MR. CALVERT: There is a useful life for some of our structures, and also for the adequacy. We do have to maintain and clean them out, dredge them and things like this occasionally. Our structures do have to be replaced. Concrete does deteriorate. And then as we address the level of service, then we are having to update, or that canal lived out its life service so we have to replace it. MR. MURRAY: I think I understand. It's level of service driven. If maintenance were performed on a fairly frequent basis, the canal would serve much of its purpose. But if they haven't been serviced, then the useful life is over sooner. Is that a fair statement? MR. CAL VERT: Yeah, but even if we do maintain it, we're only maintaining it to a level of service that is unacceptable. That's the whole purpose of us trying to upgrade our system is to increase level of service. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But I do agree with Commissioner Caron that there has to be a differentiation in cost associated with renewal versus brand new. And so I think we probably would look to you to bring that out if you could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just break down a lane mile under both conditions and show us the cost. Because you don't -- you know, you've got two costs that are going to be different. You've got an excavation cost that's not going to occur on an existing canal that you have on a new canal, or at least to the extent. Maybe taking something out, but then you also have fill generated from a new canal that wouldn't be generated necessarily from a used canal or existing canal. At the same time that fill is going to be worth some money. You can sell it to Norm for 33 bucks a yard. I don't know how you handle that kind of material, but there is a significant difference between new and let's say refurbishing. And I think that a better Page 11 7 November 20, 2006 explanation maybe by the numbers would be a smart way to go. MR. CALVERT: Because please note though too as we're looking at new facilities versus old facilities, pick a -- as you look at canals, over the next five years, we plan on only adding four miles of canal system, yet 29 structures. Yet we are going to rehabilitate and reconstruct 49 miles. LASIP is a good example. We've got a 62 million dollar project where we've got existing system in place. It's not adequate. That's the reason we're having this lassup project. That's the reason there's flooding in the area. And that's the reason we're building new canals. But they are really replacement of existing canals. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're making the assumption on the form new miles that you're going to find the 39 miles that got lost between this year and last year? Plus you might consider the fact that if you're refurbishing -- your reconstruction is more costly than the new in some -- because of the quantity, maybe your cost is really for the reconstruction, and your new is less because you're going to have -- you're going to retain some of the benefits through the fill, the transfer of the fill for two other departments are for sale in items like that. Hope you aren't just giving that fill away. MR. CALVERT: No, we're not. We are utilizing it on other areas of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that should be a revenue source of your department then? MR. CALVERT: Not necessarily. Explain that then. Since we're doing this back and forth with all the departments. MR. CAL VERT: This is a -- I might have to refer to our legal counsel. But we've been advised that in some cases if we excavate out of our canal, the material excavated is not the county's because it's in an easement not by fee title. So therefore, we can not sell the material because we'd be selling material that doesn't belong to us, but we can utilize the material on other projects.e Page 118 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if Norm's transportation department benefits from 33 bucks a yard in generated fill from your canal, you can't sell it to him, but you can give it to him which means, his budget should be generally less. So it's a revenues source, whether you want to show it on the books as a sale or not. That's all I'm trying to get at. MR. CALVERT: If that can be worked out, that would be great. Because of our scheduling, we cannot always work that out. In our case with our Lely project, Lely, the one we're getting ready to build right now, we don't have any places to stockpile this material so we are going to utilize it on -- for the EOC center. So the county is receiving a benefit from it, but not roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's interesting that you can receive the benefit from it, but you can't legally sell it. I'm just wondering if someone decides they want their fill back, are they going to remove DOC to get it back? MR. MURRAY: It would seem that if the fill is owned in fee, that it belongs to the -- MS. STUDENT: I don't know. I have not been involved in that discussion and I don't know who from our office was, but I can hazard a guess. There might be something in the easement document that will allow the county to use the soil on another site but not sell it. I don't know. Do you know who in our office gave that opinion? MR. CALVERT: I don't recall. I don't recall exactly. I can find that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comment? Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: So you're going to come back with a better number, or outline of what a reconstruction cost is? And the reason I'm harping on it is that's a big number. It dwarfs ad valorem. It dwarfs, you know -- I mean, it's a huge number and I can't belive that to come through a canal costs more the second time. Page 119 November 20,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, hopefully we're going to see how that happens. Any other questions on the drainage issue? MR. MURRAY : Yeah, I do have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR MURRAY: It occurred to me on the Sable Bay portion, Collier had agreed that it would continue to perform and continue that construction. None of these costs are associated with that, are they? That is to say direct cost? MR. CALVERT: Actually they are, sir. Some of the LASIP project, as we look through the out years FY 07, some of those costs associated with the LASIP project include construction of the portion of the Sable Bay . Now there have been -- they're providing some developer contribution, but the cost to build that segment is far in excess of what the development contribution may be. MR. MURRAY: I don't presume to know the details, but I would tell you it seems to be common knowledge that the developer had agreed to perform the work there. I guess it's -- I'll leave it to your knowledge, technical knowledge. I think it's good that we clear that matter up. So, would you know a proportion or a ratio that we're talking about? Just a guess, are we talking 50/50, 30/70? MR. CALVERT: I can check into that. I know our agreement, the county has an agreement to the developer which says we will pay for the cost for construction. And what portion of that cost, I will get back with you on that. They did offer to provide some type -- some of the right of way, the necessary right of way to widen that canal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any other questions on the drainage at this time? Okay. Mr. Calvert, thank you. Is there any members of the public registered to speak, Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: No public registered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Look forward to seeing you next time. MR. CALVERT: Okay. Thank you very much. Page 120 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that we're going to have a change of participants in this particular meeting. I think we'll take a couple minutes pause here while the productivity committment switches its members. MR. BLUM: From my perspective, I'd like to thank you all. It's been enlightening and informative and I'm looking forward to repeating it sometime. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's been nice. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's been fun playing with you guys. MR. BLUM: We'll go in the sandbox together again sometime. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll resume with three new members. The three new members identify who they are and the committee that they're with? MR. BOAZ: My name is Brad Boaz. I'm working on the subcommittee for the water and sewer. MR. BARLOW: And my name is John Barlow, and I'm working on the same committee as Brad. MR. VAN FLEET: James Van Fleet, the same committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Ms. Vasey, you were here before so we all know you. With that, we'll move forward with the presentation with the utility department. Would you proceed? MR. GRAMATGES: Good afternoon. I'm Phil Gramatges, principal project manager with public utilities engineering, and I'm here to answer your questions about potable water, sewers and solid waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's real short and to the point presentation. Are you potable water -- are you in the solid waste -- waste water and solid waste as well? All three elements? Page 121 November 20, 2006 MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll start on page 24 of the AUIR manual. That's county potable water system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it might be helpful, Phil, if you could tell us how the population statistics weigh into your calculations. MR. GRAMA TGES : Well, the population statistics are critical to our calculations because our base on a level of service standards that is key to a per capita used per day. So both, in waste water and water, as well as solid waste, the population numbers are extremely important. We use them as a basis for our calculation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If those numbers were to change, then they would have impact on your calculations one way or the other? MR. GRAMATGES: Most certainly they would, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know they are changing? MR. GRAMATGES: I heard they are, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On that basis, I wanted to make sure the record was clear, we're going to have to be coming back with every element from this point forward in this document because of that simple fact? MR. GRAMATGES: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions? Mr. Van Fleet? MR. V AN FLEET: I have a question with reference to the population figures. And I'm just wondering, if there are certain areas of the county that are scheduled for development that will be outside your service area, for example, Ave Maria. MR. GRAMATGES: Ave Maria is outside of our service area, yes, sir. They have their own utilities. MR. VAN FLEET: Are there any other areas that would be outside that will be developed? You know, Big Cypress as an example? MR. GRAMA TGES: I can't really address all areas, but Page 122 November 20, 2006 obviously there is a lot of growth outside of our service areas at this point in time. The AUIR, as well as master plan, does not contemplate any expansion of the water and sewer service areas for the next 20 years. That would be up to the board to decide. MR. COHEN: If I may. For the record, Randy Cohen. Maybe I can help with Mr. Van Fleet's question because it may be going to population. Our department specifically generates population numbers just for the water sewer district itself not outside the service area. So any of these particular developments that would occur outside of the existing water and sewer district are not taken into account in the tables that you have before you. If the water sewer district was to expand, obviously we would adjust the population figures to include those areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, when you issue approval to a developer say or somebody else that the capacity for their unit exists in your system, are you issuing that approval based on the, say, the ERU's within the unit, or are you basing it upon the population? How are you-- isn't it the unit that generates the need from your department? The dwelling unit I'm referring to, or the commercial unit. MR. GRAMATGES: When a PUD comes for approval, it's reviewed by our department. We calculate the ERCs and based on that we determine how much water they need and then we do a hydraulic analysis to determine whether or not the infrastructure in that area is capable of providing the volume that they need and then we approve or disapprove depending on whether or not there's availability of services to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you calculate the ERCs on that particular dwelling unit, what factors into that calculation? It's the fixture count? MR. GRAMATGES: Fixture count is part of it and it depends whether it is a commercial or residential unit. Page 123 November 20,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk for simplicity reasons a residential, you know, a one-dwelling unit say in Golden Gate -- no, not in Golden Gate Estates. Golden Gate someplace where you service. It has three bathrooms. You have a calculation based on a number of bathrooms and a number of fixtures? MR. GRAMATGES: In that case we use a single family residential unit is one ERC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At any time does the population weigh into that particular element of your calculation? MR. GRAMA TGES: No. That's a macro level of analysis. When we look at a 20-year master plan, we need to look at the macro level. We really don't have much of an idea as to how much of the population expansion is going to be single family, how much is going to be multi-family. We don't even know what the land use factor will be, even in the areas where we service right now. See we base that on a level of service standard that is geared to a per person consumption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Per person then equates back down into an ERC within a particular unit. How many people live in a dwelling unit? MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. There is a calculation. The ERCs is based on a certain number of people per ERC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any questions, we're on page 24. Anybody -- Mr. Boaz. MR. BOAZ: I have a question. Has there been a comparison done? You have a required treatment capacity here as to the actual high level service demands on the system. The actual water produced. MR. GRAMATGES: The way these numbers are calculated, they're based on a peak population. We need to provide service at the time that population is at its peak. So, therefore all the calculations that you see on this table, are based on a peak population calculation. MR. BOAZ: I'm questioning how does that compare on the actual water usage within the county? Do we know what the actual Page 124 .,~-------_. -- - -~--""-~-'- November 20,2006 water production has been? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, certainly, we do, yes. MR. BOAZ: Do we know what the highest level has been like for last year? MR. GRAMATGES: We do know what the highest level has been. In fact, we know in the last couple of months we have exceeded the previous year demand by about 20 percent. MR. BOAZ: How does that number compare to the peak levels that are shown here, the required level? MR. GRAMATGES: I don't know that I understand the question. I'm sorry . We make this table calculations based on the level of service standard that's approved by the board. It was approved on June 6th of 2006. And based on that, on the estimate at peak population, we multiply one number times the other and we determine what the demands will be. As to-- MR. BOAZ: My question is, how does that level of service compare to what's actually happening in our county? MR. GRAMA TGES: The level of service that we use is based on our historical numbers, and the numbers have in deed been coming down. We have commissioned a study to determine the validity of those level of service standards. The results of the study are not yet available. MR. SCHMIDT: Phil, let me help you. What he's asking is, your daily charts. You have production rates. Do those production rates that you're producing right now match the data that's on the table? Isn't that what you're asking? MR. BOAZ: Yes. Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Basically you monitor daily. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Daloney gets a report telling him how much water is being used and pumped out of the plant per day. The question is, how close are those daily consumption rates in Page 125 November 20, 2006 comparison to the charts and the information that's being presented? MR. GRAMATGES: We monitor those daily and we certainly monitor those against these numbers here. And they match fairly close. In fact, the tables do represent what we know to be the actual demand -- MR. BOAZ: So the actual demand is very close to your required demand that is shown in those charts. MR. GRAMATGES: Based on those demands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Moving on we'll move on to page 25 and then sub-notes to 25 are on page 26. Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry. It's stewing in my head. Phil, I'm trying to appreciate -- the chart that we have here indicates a level of service standard, and we know that it's intentionally set at a higher rate. And what I think I just heard was that recently you have come in almost on target with these numbers. I would have thought that your earlier statement of having a 20 percent increase would have still allowed for some fudge on some number before you reach these numbers. Did I mishear you? MR. GRAMATGES: The consumption that we have experienced is due in most cases to the increase in population that we are experiencing. So the fact that we have a level of service standard, doesn't necessarily correlate directly to a total figure unless you take into account the population increases. However, as I said before, we monitor the consumption per capita on a continuous basis. And we know that it has gone from high of about 200 and it has come down. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'm thoroughly confused. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS . VASEY: Before we go on, could you address a question on page 24 ? You've got some retained deficient reliable system, or some deficient reliable system capacity in column 9A that shows up in 2009 and 2010. Would you just address that a little bit and whether that's a problem or not.e Page 126 November 20,2006 MR. GRAMATGES: Whenever we try to estimate the demand, we try to estimate as well as reliability factor. We know that things do happen and we have breakdowns from time to time. We need to make sure that even when that occurs, that we would have sufficient capacity to be able to service our customers. This table 9A is a calculation based on reliability. In other words, we have a certain nominal capacity at the plant. And that nominal capacity is reduced in the case of a plant by calculating what will be the production rate with the largest unit of out service. These numbers in deed would represent the problem if we had a major breakdown that we couldn't anticipate. But if you look at table nine, the numbers are positive, which means that we have sufficient constructive capacity, that if it works at 100 percent, we'll be able to supply all of the water that we need in excess that is shown on that column. MS. VASEY: So you're just accepting a little more risk that something might go wrong, but you hope it won't? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. When we did these tables, the AUIR for last year, the population numbers of course were different. And these numbers were considerably lower. I mean, the negative numbers were. One of them was positive. In fact, 2009 was positive and 2010 showed a minor deficiency of point five and change. Subsequent to that, at the time we did the master plan, and based on recommendations from the -- from the planning commission, we reviewed our numbers. And we reviewed our numbers in the master plan. We then changed those numbers in the master plan, and we changed the numbers in the AUIR. We obtained approval from the board when the master plan was approved to modify the AUIR to meet those numbers. We received the new population numbers on September 27th of this year, we recalculated these numbers, then we find out that on 2009 and 2010 the deficit was greater. At that time when we first did it, it was an acceptable risk. At this time it still is an acceptable risk, it's a somewhat higher risk. But there's nothing much Page 127 November 20, 2006 we can do about it right now. However, as I said before, if you look at table nine, the capacity for production is there, and unless we have a major breakdown, we shouldn't be concerned. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: It may have been explained, but I missed. Anyway, now a lot of the growth is happening in the Estates and they're all on their own system. How does that affect those numbers? And you may have explained it. MR. GRAMA TGES: The estates are not part of the service area for sewer and water. MR. TUFF: Are they part of the population growth number? MR. GRAMATGES: Not in this population number. These population numbers are geared exclusively to our service district. MR. TUFF: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Isn't that kind of the same question. It appears that -- let's go to 2011. You'll only be providing water for half of the population of the county? MR. GRAMATGES: That's about right, yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, if you have a home that is CO'd, got it's COA, everything is done, it's tied into you guys and you service him, it's in your service area, that homeowner goes away for a couple of months, do you benefit from his being gone by having -- need less capacity on your system? Your system is built for 100 percent use at all times; isn't it? MR. GRAMATGES: Our system is not built that way, no. Our system is built to meet peak demand. So if you're in the summer when 30 percent of the population goes away, we don't need the produce as much so we gear down to production in our plants. However, when Page 128 November 20, 2006 the season comes back up, our plants are running pretty much 100 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was getting at. Your plant is based for the occupancy, whether it's there or not. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if someone leaves their home for a few months, even though there is a vacancy, your plant is still geared to cover that home as soon as it's occupied? MR. GRAMATGES: That's right. We need to provide service regardless of how many people are using their homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the case of a hotel that's on your system, are you geared to occupy for the occupancy rate of that hotel if it was full at a particular time? MR. GRAMATGES: Sure, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That doesn't go away. Youjust don't take the pumps and shut them down? You don't move away and MR. GRAMATGES: Unfortunately we can't. All we can do is gear down production. If the demand slows down enough, we may be able to shut down a unit, but most cases we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The infrastructure is there? MR. GRAMATGES: The infrastructure needs to be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Now we'll move on to page 25. Page 26. If I go too fast, just jump in. Page 27. Yes, sir, Mr. Boaz. MR. BOAZ: I have a question in general on page 27. It looks like at the current levels, we're running at the low end of this range and very close to the required system capacity. And then starting in about 2011 with their expansions, the actual planned constructed capacity is going to the high end of this range. If it's been acceptable to run at the low end of the range, what is the change -- why are we going to a higher level of capacity in the future? Page 129 November 20, 2006 MR. GRAMATGES: When we build plants, we have to build plants in a fairly large capacity. I mean, to build smaller plants every year, it's not cost effective. So we need to build capacity in relatively large chunks. And that's the reason you see the line going up and down? MR. BOAZ: But in the future, I'm looking at 2013, we're adding additional things, 2012, 2013 and future years, even though we're not coming back down to that system capacity . We're adding things in the future before we ever get that close to the bottom line. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, because we need to stay ahead of the curve. It takes eight years for us to build a plant. MR. BOAZ: So we're being more conservative in the future than what we currently are? MR. GRAMATGES: No. We need to be conservative no matter what time we are. The line as you can see between 2005 and 2011 shows that indeed we have capacity below the required capacity. MR. BOAZ: What's been the impact? What's the projected impact of that? MR. GRAMATGES: The issue comes down to reliability. We do have a major unit out of service. We are going to have to curtail service. So we need to stay away from that situation. And the purpose is for us to stay within those two lines and keep the capacity there. And we cannot do it smoothly unfortunately. Whenever we do an expansion, the expansion has to be relatively large. They come as a scale. When we build a plant, it needs to be relatively large. MR. BOAZ: Are all of the systems interconnected? MR. GRAMA TGES: In water they are, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on to page 28. Page 29 and 30, 31, 32 and 33 are all one of the tables. So actually the tables continue all the way to page 36 of the ten year period. Have any questions from the table? Phil, I've got to ask you one thing. You are not -- maybe you are. You're funded a little differently than the other Page 130 November 20, 2006 developments, aren't you? MR. GRAMATGES: We're enterprise funded, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So any increases in your cost or your facilities, generally are reflected to increase in the fees that you charge for your services and then -- MR. GRAMA TGES: They are reflected in our charges as far as impact fees and as far as user fees is concerned, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What interaction do you have with the ad valorem taxes? MR. GRAMA TGES: None whatsoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That helps. Thank you. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: One thing that I would kind of like to see that would make it more consistent with the other facilities is the summary page that would show what your costs are, what your sources of revenue are. I know you get it from impact fees, user fees, probably some grants. And I do realize that you're different, but it would be helpful if we're going to look at this as a financially feasible document, you don't really give us all the information needed to evaluate that. I'm not particularly concerned. I do believe you have the money to, you know, to meet your program. But in the future would it be possible to do a summary sheet like everyone else does? MR. GRAMATGES: Most certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey, when you said in the future, so we're clear, did you mean when it comes back for the final reading of this? Because this can't be finished today based on the population statistics that are missing. MS. VASEY: If that's possible. I would appreciate that. I was actually thinking of next year, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't clear what you meant, that's why I wanted to make sure there's no misunderstanding of what you expect so that whatever is expected, it's what the reaction you get, so Page 131 November 20, 2006 MR. GRAMATGES: I believe we can do that, yes. MS. VASEY: I'd also like to compliment you on your bonding document from Moody's. Would you like to just take a minute and tell everybody about that, because I've never seen such glowing reports on the financial ability of a county, and your bonding level, your bonding grading went up. And just as a matter of interest, unless you all already know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we haven't heard. MR. GRAMA TGES : Well, I'll be happy -- I'm certainly not an expert on this area, but I'm happy to address your question. We are funded in several ways, as we said. Impact fees is one of them. Impact fees pay for all new facilities. Impact fees does not pay for 100 percent of all new facilities so we need to have alternative funding. And besides, the stream of cash coming in from impact fees is not there when we need to pay for the facilities. So we need to issue bonds in order to be able to finance those expansions. And obviously bond ratings are therefore very important because they determine the interest that we pay in that commercial paper. We were recently visited by Moody's and one other rating company, which name escapes me right now. And Moody especially was very satisfied with the master plan that we presented to them. They were very satisfied with the shape of our facilities. They visited them all. And with the presentations that we gave them and they increased our rating from Al to AA3. So that was a significant increase in rating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a great rating. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on potable water before we move to sewer treatment and collection systems? First on that is page 38. Phil, do you have a lengthy presentation on this one? MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm afraid not. I am ready to answer your questions. Page 132 November 20,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll start with page 38. Mr. Tuff. MR. TUFF: This isn't on page 38 but I was looking at where your flows come and I pulled some information that showed that your waste water treatment is higher in July than it is in February. And I guess so I'm wondering if you have the same fluctuation that you would for your water use. MR. GRAMA TGES: I have to confess I'm a little bit surprised to hear that. I don't know what you calculated because typically the water drives sewers. So when water demand is high, sewer demand is high. Now, during the summer there is a lot less irrigation because there's a lot of rain. There's more irrigation in the wintertime. So, that takes -- takes a lot away from the sewer system. It's possible that what you're observing is infiltration and water coming in from storms into the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe you can take a look at that issue when you come back. MR. GRAMA TGES: I'll be happy to do that, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions on page 38, any others? MR. BOAZ: I would just ask-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Boaz. MR. BOAZ: If you could explain the difference in the level of service standards between the different areas as to why that is. MR. GRAMATGES: Level of service standards are of course based on history. And we do know the land use patterns for the north are different from the south. We do know that the level of service standards in the north is 145 while in the south is 100. I must explain as well that while potable water is interconnected, sewers is not. It cannot be fully interconnected mainly because you cannot transport sewage very long distances. So we do have different service standards for different areas. Page 133 November 20, 2006 MR. BOAZ: Do we anticipate any change in that if there's redevelopment? Is that related to redevelopment, or is it just the type of housing or -- MR. GRAMA TGES : Well, it certainly will be -- as I said before, land use -- land use will have an effect on level of service standards, so it's conceivable that that will indeed happen, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to page 39 chart. Page 40. Phil, you dropped the capacity -- or your treatment capacity is calculated at 120, and last year it was 145. What caused the decline, do we know? MR. GRAMATGES: You talking about page 42? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, page 40. MR. GRAMA TGES : Well, this is a proposed facility. The 145 is for the north plant. This is the northeast plant. That's the reason why the chart begins on fiscal year 2011. This plant has not been built yet. We have no history for it. We do know that the average for the county is 120. And not knowing any better, and knowing that the land use pattern in that area is similar to what we -- it's not similar to the north or the south, but somewhere in between we decided to use 120. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Last year you did use 145 in the WRF, but if there's -- if it was just a proposed plant last year, I guess it's still a proposed plant this year then? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, that's correct. And it may change again between now and 2011 to be sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or between now and when the population statistics come out. MR. GRAMATAGES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 40 or 41? Move on to 42 and 43. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Aren't you showing we're going to be starting to get in trouble around 2011, and shouldn't something be happening prior to that? I'm looking at the chart on 43. Page 134 November 20,2006 MR. GRAMATGES: That relates to the chart on 42. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We should be bringing something on line around 2010. MR. GRAMATGES: We are indeed bringing something on line around 2014 and further on along 2011. Because northeast plants will come on line on 2011. MS. VASEY: Maybe I can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: On this chart the top line, the pink box line relates strictly to peak population on the left-hand side. And the capacity is the little -- are the other two lines. And so their need stays below their capacity the whole time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The peak population is even a different scale so you can't really worry about that. But, it looks like the available capacity in 220 are going to be right on top of each other in required capacity. So, I mean, most of the stuff we do is much more conservative than -- I mean, we're filling it up to the brim at this point. MR. GRAMATGES: We need to keep in mind that the south county plant is going to be pretty much at top capacity beginning in 2012. So we cannot expand it any further. That volume will be taken by the southeast plant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So these plants will be connected and -- MR. GRAMATGES: There is a -- yeah, what we intend to do is we intend to take some service that now goes to the south plant and divert it to the southeast plant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Which has plenty of capacity. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as capacity, do you have any calculation for the holding capacity in the pipes? MR. GRAMATGES: No, we don't. We have a general idea, but Page 135 November 20, 2006 since we cannot use the pipes as holding capacity, we'd rather not dwell on that number, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, do you know what it is? MR. GRAMATGES: Honestly, I don't know. If I knew, I would tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SCHIFFER: Don't stop it from flowing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, while it flows it's in the pipe. It eventually gets to the facility. And hopefully by the time it gets there, there's room for it because others move through. So there is a value in that capacity that I know we haven't taken into consideration, but it's a great measure of risk, as I've heard the word used, to make sure that there is some extra capacity in the system somewhere. MR. SCHIFFER: Contingency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on to page -- did we leave off on 42 and 43? We're going to get to 44 and 45. Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: This is where you said the other plant is going to connect to -- how many plants are connected together? Earlier you mentioned there is no interconnection. MR. GRAMATGES: There is no interconnection between the south and north plant. There will not be any interconnection between any of the other plants, only to limited capacity. What we intend to do is take some services that are now going into the south plants and divert them to the southeast plants. Needless to say, they will be the services that would be closest to that plants. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you're going to take stuff off line on the south plant, not inner connect them? MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct, yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Then why wouldn't required capacity go down when you take them off line? Does it go down two years later? That Page 136 November 20, 2006 may be the issue. MR. GRAMA TGES : Yeah. It sort of levels off. It levels off as it reaches capacity. We haven't extended beyond 2012. But the blue and the red lines that you see on top and bottom will flatten out from then on. Because the -- unfortunately the colors in my copy are not very good, but the peak population number is flat as well. Needless to say the relationship between the peak population numbers and the required and available capacity is unfortunately it looks they're related or not because, as you can see, they're two different scales. MR. SCHIFFER: I understand that. Okay. So these two plants will not be linked together. But what you're saying is as the southeast plant comes on line, some of the customers, we'll call them of the south county plant, will be transferred over to them. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. MR. SCHIFFER: And then thus if we could look further, which this does, we would see the required capacity start to drop on the south county plant? MR. GRAMATGES: We don't expect that will happen, no, because we'll have the same number of people connected to that plant, so the capacity will stay flat. The required capacity will stay flat. Once -- that plant is almost built. It's built out now. Once we reach the capacity of that facility, we have no room for expansion there. So that plant will run at full capacity from now on into the foreseeable future. So those lines will be flat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When I asked you that question earlier you said that it wouldn't be this tight because you're going to have -- some of the customers are going to go on to the other plant. MR. GRAMA TGES: There is a very -- if you look at the table, you'll see a very minor drop in population, south county water reclamation facility. Now it's not shown on the table. It cuts out at 2012. But from 2012 on it will stay flat and it will -- there will be a small reduction on the peak population. But it certainly would not be Page 137 November 20, 2006 very noticeable in the chart. MR. SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Boaz. MR. BOAZ: Yeah. Let me just ask, what you just said, this plant is based on estimated, based on 100 gallons per day? MR. GRAMA TGES: The south plant, yes. MR. BOAZ: Others being 120 or 145? MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. MR. BOAZ: If that number would go up, then we would have a problem with that sooner and need to move some of that production to another -- MR. GRAMATGES: Most certainly. However, we don't anticipate that should increase because that area is almost built out. So we expect the mix of use in that area would stay the same. MR. BOAZ: So that would only be a problem if that usage changed? MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Any other questions on 44, 45? If not, we're onto page 46. After that we have pages -- tables up to page 52. Break out the yearly projects. Any questions on any of these tables, projects? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I think we're finished with the waste water treatment section. MR. SCHIFFER: Let me just ask one tiny question. What is the area that the south plant covers? How would you describe that? MR. GRAMATGES: Well the south plant covers pretty much from Golden Gate Estates down. Not including Golden Gate Estates by the way because they're out of our region, but to the south of Golden Gate Estates down. I don't -- unfortunately I don't have a chart that shows the exact location of that service area. MR BOAZ: South of Golden Gate Parkway? Page 138 November 20, 2006 MR. GRAMATGES: I would say yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe could you add a little chart showing the district the next time we see you? MR GRAMATGES: Oh, sure. MR. SCHIFFER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's move on to the county solid waste. I bet there's no presentation on solid waste either. MR. GRAMATGES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go right into questions. That would be on page 54 everyone. Starts out with the chart, or actually a table. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I can start if you'd like. These -- this table is totally different than last year's table, and I understand why some of it is different, but how can line capacity be so different from one year to the next? In the prior years too. What I thought was actual is now, has been changed like going back to 2002. Could you talk a -- it kind of shook my confidence a little. MR. GRAMATGES: I can understand. This area is very confusing. And part of the problem is that it is a moving target. We evaluate the available capacity every year. We do it based on aerial photographs, which is industry standard. Unfortunately, those aerial photographs do calculate the available area in different ways. And there is a very real difference from year to year, yes indeed. I'm afraid -- I've given you all of my expertise in this area. MS. VASEY: But the difference is in 2004, you used to have 4.1 million tons of lined sewage capacity available and now this year you have 880,000. MR. GRAMATGES: We need to remember as well, the population number for 2004 changed as well. Because those are estimates. The only firm numbers that we have, and I'm sorry if I am showing expertise that I don't have because this really is CDES, is in 2000 as I understand and I've been told. And the numbers beyond Page 139 November 20, 2006 2000 are calculated numbers. We did notice changes in population for 2004 between last year and this year. You probably noticed that as well. So, once again, this is very much a moving target. I'm afraid I can't answer beyond that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might help us if you walk through-- and I tried to do this for the first one, the year 2000. You walk through how those different columns and the table were calculated. Well, I know that the column one is the fiscal year, column two, the population estimate this year came from the revised estimates the county provided you? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess table three becomes a significant multiplier that can confuse the issue. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because in 2005 we made a strong -- we had a strong discussion about the disposal rate. I remember Mr. Whitus was here and he told us that the fact that we have such good recycling and those bins are just really successful, our disposal rate was going down and down and down, which this graph reflects that. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But last year was 2005 and he came in at that time with a point 75, but was going to be point 82 and then it was going to be continuous point 82 for the rest of the future, and obviously that can change. But prior to that, how could you change the tons per capita disposal rate because it's already done? The tons per capita would have been created and over and done with. MR. GRAMATGES: As I explained before, the number of capitas does change. That number changes a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you backed into the number then? MR. GRAMATGES: Uh-uh. MR. BOAZ: The population actually changed. How does the population in the past change? Page 140 November 20,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's part of the whole discussion we've had since Thursday on population. It's been a real challenge. MR. GRAMATGES: I don't claim to be an expert on the population issue. I can only tell you what I've been told. What I've been told is, the only firm number we have for population is 2000. And everything from there is calculated and estimated, so, therefore, 2004 could change. In fact, it could change again next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you can change the disposal rate, and you can change the population, and wouldn't the annual tons then disposed seem like it should change because that's the one figure that didn't change? That figure stayed consistent. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, because that certainly is the one we can calculate. We know how many tons were disposed every year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly where I'm going. That means that you backed into the number to reflect the reaction to the new population statistics instead of what really was a disposal rate. That's not the issue. The disposal rate was whatever the population would have to be to multiply it to make it come up to the annual tons disposed, which is the opposite. That doesn't seem the way we're supposed to be doing things. MR. GRAMA TGES: I can only suggest that I can take that back and bring it back again with a better explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I don't know if you have another explanation, I certainly -- MR. GRAMATGES: No, I don't. I think you hit the nail on the head. We know exactly what the annual tons disposed are because that we measured. And the other numbers do change so, therefore the population estimates is they change, change tons per capita. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now if you work your scenario in reverse, you have proven that the population statistics that have not come out are false. The ones we were using would have been more accurate because you now know of a fixed number. You have an Page 141 November 20,2006 annual tons disposed. You know what that is. Now it's just a matter of the rate of disposal. That shouldn't fluctuate with the population. That should be fixed, or that should be known to whatever the population is. If you don't have that, and you have to create that, you in essence then are creating the population, which is the wrong way to go. MR. GRAMATGES: I'm afraid I don't-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's as confusing to you as your stuff is to me, but I think I understand what I needed to out of the discussion. Mr. Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. Why would not the tons per capita disposal rate change? I think it would change because they're backing into it. You've got the annual tons disposed. You've got the population, or at least what you believe is the population. That's how you can go back in history and try to come up with a tons per capita so that you can begin to use that number to evaluate future needs. I mean, they're not out there every day measuring tons per capita. They're measuring -- MR. MURRAY: Gross tons. MR. SCHMIDT -- gross tons that come into the facility. MR. GRAMATGES: But you see, up to 2005, Mr. Schmidt's logic certainly makes sense because we back into that number. Bu we need to use that number as an average in order to calculate the tons disposed from then on. Yeah, I realize this is a contrite way to do it, but we cannot figure a better way of doing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying your department had to do this -- did this unintentionally. I know why you had to do it because we got new numbers that you had to digest, but you were stuck with some fixed numbers that were already established. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in the reverse scenario, it seems to work logically then. Maybe our population statistics aren't as accurate Page 142 November 20,2006 as we think they are and that may be where I'm going. MR. BOAZ: That's based on an estimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. GRAMATGES: That's not my area of expertise so I can't comment on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that then let's move on. We're on page 54. Any other questions on page 54. MR. SCHIFFER: I have 54. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You have historical data up to 2005? MR. GRAMATAGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it really is looking good that we're actually dropping quite a bit what we're disposing, correct? MR. GRAMATAGES: That's true, yes. MR. SCHIFFER: Okay. And the other thing that -- and we'll talk about I guess in the next couple of pages is that the volume of the dump, you know that really well, right? I mean, you said you go by aerial photographs. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. MR. SCHIFFER: I mean, wouldn't it be smart to survey if you're getting that big of a change? But you kind of know the volume of that. MR. GRAMATGES: It is surveyed through aerial photographers. I mean, it's the best way that industry has found to survey the available capacity. MR. SCHIFFER: I apprise the four corners of it and make some GPS kids chase it down, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: One of the things that seems sort of odd is that the population that you use relates back to the six months numbers. You know, we were given four month and six months. Why would you use Page 143 November 20, 2006 the six month numbers because you would get totally different information if you use the four month peak numbers? MR. GRAMATGES: Because based on our analysis of previous figures, we determined that six months would be a more accurate estimate than four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the number that David is going to be coming back -- basically told us today is not the number we should have been using because population is based on a peak amount not on a time duration. MR. GRAMATGES: I do think you're going to see quite a bit of changes here once the population changes. You're going to be talking about the same subjects again, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are, that's why I think all this is going to come back and it's going to be totally different. We'll be going back to ground zero again. Any other questions on 54 and 55? Page 56. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Obviously we have to do this in a 20 year cycle I guess. Is this telling us we need a new dump within 20 years? Or new landfill? I'm sorry. MR. GRAMA TGES: We prefer the term landfill. Yes, it is telling you that. MR. SCHIFFER: How long does it take to find and get approved and engineer and -- MR. GRAMATGES: Approximately ten years. MR. SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 57. Page 58, 59. And 60 and 61 are continuing table. Are there any general questions on the solid waste elements of this document? Mr. Bosi, do we have any public speakers? MR. BOSI: No public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well I guess we can cut the staff loose on this one until they have to come back to us anyway. Is that in Page 144 November 20, 2006 agreement with everybody here? Okay. Phil, as usual thank you. Oh, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: I think we need a clarification. Mr. Weeks did not indicate, or I don't think mean to indicate that we are going to have new population numbers for you to digest related to this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, he did. He said that Thursday. He told us -- we challenged him on whether or not today's meeting would be productive, and he said well, we should continue with it but he's going to before the end of the year, when he gets the new population numbers worked out with DCA come back with new tables that we would have to then have another meeting on to finish this out. I mean, did I -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the rest of you, did anybody hear that any differently? MR. MURRAY: Well, I thought I remembered him saying this became a question of the 2003 numbers being legally defensible, and any issues that were in two years of population changes that we wouldn't be able to use those numbers. That was my recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know which-- MR. MURRAY: You don't know what I said? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let me try to say it in English. As I understood it is, that while he did make a statement he would come back with some numbers that we might be able to look at, I didn't get the impression that they were the numbers we were going to be able to use based on our last Thursday meeting when they indicated -- he indicated we would not be able to use new numbers because they weren't approved yet. They still have to go to the BCC and get the numbers approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which he's going to do December 12th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Now, are the new Page 145 November 20, 2006 numbers going to be those? I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. Let me clarify . Yes, we are going to the board on December 12th to ask the board to adopt a new methodology. That methodology then will be part of the EAR based amendment going forward and the CIE, but, the methodology, or we will still not have DCA approval until after the appeal period in probably April or May of the EAR based amendments. As we said before, this is an issue of timing. We're using the currently adopted methodology and the currently accepted standard that it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners for this AUIR. We will not be using new numbers on a new AUIR until the following year. Like we said, we were going to the board to change the methodology, and that will be the methodology we will attempt to use when we come back with the CIE in April. Is that correct, Mr. Cohen? MR. COHEN: Let me clarify that because of the language that came from DCA. Language from DCA is a recommendation that Collier County used median VBR numbers, plus an annual -- plus a seasonal adjustment factor. That seasonal adjustment factor currently is adopted in our comprehensive plans. It's at 33 percent. That number hasn't been changed as well. I recall Mr. Weeks indicating to you that we needed to go back and revisit that number while looking at gas tax revenues, sales tax, also taking a look at traffic projections from daily counters, which is not available yet, but which will be available during next fiscal year. At that point in time we'll be able to come up with a seasonal adjustment factor. At the same time we indicated that we would be getting with VBR with respect to their methodology as set forth in their bulletin that they put out on an annual basis. And also look at the various factors that they use in their model relative to Collier County. They use different models for different counties based on their peaks and their seasonal population. We're bound by our comprehensive plan right now and the methodology that's set forth Page 146 November 20, 2006 in policy 4.8, to use the methodology which is the high VBR numbers for the first five years and 95 percent for the next five years. That's what you have in this particular AUIR. The policy change and the direction we're asking from the board to go forward with on December 12th is a change in methodology from that 90 -- from that high VBR number, and 95 percent using the exact language that was proffered by DCA, which is a change to the median VBR numbers, plus the seasonally adjusted factor, which we renewed -- which will be reviewed by Collier County on an annual basis. There's no recommended seasonal adjustment factor, but I can tell you is that the data that we have in the current comprehensive plan supports the seasonal adjustment factor of 33 percent. And that's what we have to do the data analysis on that we don't have the support right now to change at this point in time. Mr. Weeks will be working on that in the upcoming year to fix that, but it's a very lengthy process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I heard earlier today was that the population statistics that we've been using did not include the extractions of Marco Island, Naples for vacancy rates. There will be a change in the population numbers. They do not know what VBR based it's numbers on, whether they did include in the census of the full county area or other particular points. We asked for clarification on all that because it's going to affect these charts. That isn't a change in methodology. That's defining the methodology we currently use to make sure it reflects what they're supposed to reflect. Not vacancy rates taken twice. Not units on for hotel rooms at 100 percent occupancy that are calculated into the system, as we've had testimony here today. That's not a change in methodology. That's fixing the methodology that we currently have. On that basis I see no reason why any of the basis of these AUIRs for population shouldn't be changed and shouldn't be done to reflect accurately the numbers that we're supposed to be using. It's not a matter of the methodology. It's a matter of the way the methodology is calculated. Page 147 November 20, 2006 MR. COHEN: Well, the adopted methodology in the comp plan is high VBR for the first five years, 95 percent thereafter, and the seasonal population is factored in at 33 percent of the permanent population. That is the adopted methodology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, you can go on and repeat to me what you've repeated continuously today and Thursday. I just told you what I see it as, and that's how I'm proceeding myself. There are 11 people, 12 people here. Each one of us can decide how to proceed. As far as I'm concerned, the acknowledgement that these population numbers are not accurate, would not lead me to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to invoke a document such as this that's going to challenge the ad valorem tax base to such a standard, we're all going to see taxes that aren't maybe necessarily needed until we get to the right numbers. MR. COHEN: And I've got to respond back, that it's incumbent upon us as staff to use the adopted methodology set forth by the board until such time that they change that methodology and we're bound by that policy directive. It's not our place as a staff to make a policy decision where that population methodology would change. Grant it coming out of the review by DCA we fully understand that that population methodology is subject to change and we anticipate that's going to happen as part of CIE, which is a portion of the EAR based amendments. But at this point in time, until that officially happens by board direction, we're bound by that prior poor policy direction. MR. MURRAY: If I may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray and then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We started this discussion by my statement. And I had forgotten what you had done earlier today, and I agree with you. Randy, I think the issue that is being raised has nothing to do with what is legally required in terms of methodology, but instead as associated with components that were discovered at question. Whether the components were appropriate. Whether Page 148 November 20,2006 something was double counted and so forth. Mr. Weeks did indicate that he saw that that might be an issue and he promised that he would come back with numbers that would reflect a correction if that was necessary. In that context, I agree with our chair, and the rest of the folks that are nodding their head, I had lost sight of that. What I was stipulating was what I heard last Thursday and what I had recollected. But I agree with the chair. We should be waiting for Mr. Weeks to come back with that. If you're saying to us they didn't have time or something else, that's another issue entirely. We're not looking to change methodology until the BCC changes that. What the chair has pointed out is something different entirely, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Randy, the population projections that we just went through for this element, where are those? Are those exactly your -- and it was for the landfill. So I guess that would assume the whole county population, correct? MR. COHEN: That is correct. MR. SCHIFFER: Are these the high VBR for the first five years and 95 percent high after that? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Now when people are referring to peak season four and six, is that a methodology that's approved? MR. COHEN: What should transpire is the methodology that was approved was with a point 33 factor when we came to determining seasonal population. And that's what the four month chart will show you. Those are the charts you should be looking at. The six months show a point 50 adjustment and that would be basically factoring a sixteen-and-a-half percent peak population factor, and that's contrary to what transpired in the past. That's what Mr. Weeks was referring to as being in error. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and then Ms. Vasey. Page 149 November 20,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, I was just going to agree with Mr. Murray. What we're talking about is not a change in methodology. Weare talking about correcting the currently approved methodology where we have found -- Mr. Strain has found, some errors in. And those errors were confirmed by Mr . Weeks when he was here earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I would like to say that the solid waste is not based on the four months, it's based on the six months. So that one is out of, you know, out of the parameters that we're agreeing to use here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. Any other comments from the numbers of this -- these two committees? Is it the general consensus to move on to the next element and not take a position on water solid waste and waste water treatment at this time? MR. TUFF: If there's such a strong-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER TUFF: -- disagreement on where we are and what the solution is, I don't think it's doing us any good to move forward until we say here, here's what the deal is. We have us going in one direction and staff going another direction, and doesn't look like we're going to meet in the middle then are we wasting our time? We need to get clarification from the board before we move forward. Becasue last week they also said the number they're planning on are going to be higher than these. That would totally go against what your theory was. We have staff and you going completely different directions. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think that's our responsibility . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. I'm tired of hearing this situation of who's who. We are the ones that were told to put this Page 150 November 20,2006 into effect now with some extra help. I don't think it's their responsibility, I think it's ours. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute. Let me clarify something. What Janet said is right. I asked the question, is this the VBR high and in 95 that was the wrong answer I got. Isn't that right? Randy, you are doing -- you said we can use the four, we can't use the six, but Janet is right, the six is the population numbers in here, not the four and not the VBR high. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just not solid waste. MR. SCHIFFER: Yeah, that was the one I was pointing at. What we should maybe do, Mark, is about two months ago have a discussion on what's the population of the county all by itself and then we can -- MR. TUFF: If we're not going to get those numbers, and that's what I'm hearing-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Mr. Tuff, by the way. MR. TUFF: Oh, sorry. Ifwe're not going to get those numbers, unless we can provide them ourselves, then we aren't going to have anything to vote on later. That issue has to be cleared first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, I think it's going to really be up to each one of the members on the panel. I don't feel comfortable voting on something I know is not right. I will not do so. Unless I vote, it will be negative. Each one of us here has to make up our minds that productivity is -- the committee is going to have to make up their's. And then that's how -- I still think conceptually we ought to move through the document and provide as much input as we can, and then if there's not another opportunity, I think the record will show that we can move it forward in any manner whatsoever if we don't. Let the BCC realize there might be something patently wrong there. I can assure you, they're probably aware of it by now just by the simple meeting we've had so far today at the beginning of this morning's meeting. So any ideas, any suggestions on the productivity Page 151 November 20,2006 committee? Ms. Vasey. MS . VASEY: I don't want to talk unless you recognize me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just helps the stenographer. MS. VASEY: I know. It seems to me it might be helpful if we could find out from David Weeks if he is currently working on those numbers and how soon he might have an idea of what might change. If it's a minimal change, we might be able to go forward. If it's a major change, in the issues brought up this morning, then there's no point in going on. Well, we've tried to get that out of staff on Thursday. And my understanding was that sometime in December we would be reconvened with new numbers. I guess maybe not everybody was under that same mind-set from that meeting. I certainly had thought that. Mr. Schmidt, you got any suggestions as to when David might have any revisions or relook at the population numbers? MR. SCHMIDT: It was my understanding again, what you said if we were just going to tweak the numbers associated with the seasonal population, the other population numbers are strictly from the VBR information we get. I just do not understand, or I do not believe the number change is going to be that significant to dramatically affect what is in your report here today. If it changes by five or ten percent I just, even at those numbers -- as we displayed to you last week, the numbers between the methodology that's being recommended and our current methodology, the numbers being recommended, that is medium VBR, and then the full -- the total of the entire estimate associated with the seasonal population, those numbers exceed these numbers. And I believe would even further skew I guess what we're trying to present here as far as demands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Joe, the problem was not with the base VBR, whether it be low, medium or high. It wasn't as much as a problem as determining what was in the base so that when the add-ons occurred for the seasonal -- the add-ons in this community have been Page 152 November 20, 2006 vacancy rates, hotel occupancy, gas taxes and there was one other. MR. MURRAY: Migration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happens is if the vacancy -- if the vacant homes are already taken into consideration and the PPH generated by those in the base VBR rate, you add them again to generate seasonal population, you're not dealing with a fair analysis for a multiplier for future facilities because you're looking at it twice. You've included it in the base population and you're including it in the add-on seasonal population. The same goes for hotel occupancy. If you get X amount of hotels and they're already built into the system when they get a COA, at 100 percent occupancy, but that's what your department does, you've already got the facility as a service hotel, how is it fair to then say, well, when those are filled up during the season, we've got to have more facilities? That's not right. The facilities are already there because those hotels were COld by your department. If that's wrong, then we have to let somebody know. But until those kind of questions are answered, I don't know how we have an accurate population based seasonally. Now you may want to say during the season we have more people here, but the impacts of the system are through the dwelling units and through the commercial, either square footage or hotel occupancy rates or things like that. Those are what drive the system, not necessarily the population, because the population, every single person that comes to this county, with the exception of the homeless in Immokalee -- I think Mindy said they have a lot of homeless, or whatever. Until you get to homeless people, and that's a very small percentage, everybody else is in a CO'd building. A building that's got a COA that's tied into a system of some type. That's all what we're trying to find out is sort that out so we know we have an accurate number to go forward with. MR. SCHMIDT: And I don't argue that point. That's exactly, I think what Mr. Boaz was trying to ask when he asked Phil on the current usage versus the population because -- and this is the Page 153 November 20,2006 discussion of are we using the right ruler to measure the demand or the needs. Everything has gone back to population, but in reality we know what the demand is for water sewer. We see it every day. It's monitored. But then we convert that back to population in order to create a method projected into the future. And somehow I believe we're putting too much emphasis on the population when in fact the methodology we've been using for the last eight years has proven to be fairly accurate. I'm not -- I'm somewhat puzzled in regards to your concerns. Do you believe we're overestimating or underestimating or you just don't know? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. And I think what you're using is the wrong multiplier. I think what you ought to be using are dwelling unit accounts that your department issues permits where you can predict based on history how many new building permits you'll have each year. That's a real impact on the system. As Phil had testified, there's an ERC associated with it which generates the body in the unit. That is the real impact in the system is when that unit is constructed. Just like you know what the population increase is by new hotel rooms every year. You can come up with that. You can say, in the upcoming years we're going to have a 10 percent increase in population because that's how many new hotel rooms we're putting on line. That's the kind of data correlation that I think generates real true facilities in capital expenditures. Not a population statistic that goes up and down like a roller coaster that we've seen here in different -- and even go back into it for years prior. That is not right. That's just not the way to do it. At least that's my opinion. I think I've said enough on the issue, and I'll just go for whatever this panel wants to do. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, Mark, when I talked to Dr. Smith last week, the impression I got is that he would figure out our population and back it off by what the 2000 census is, which is the 28.8. So he is backing down the population based on vacant andr Page 154 November 20, 2006 seasonal uses. MR. COHEN: Can I clarify something for the record? The VBR population projection, if you look at the permanent population calculation, they look at two things when they look at your 100 percent of your units. They have two factors in looking at what they call in terms of determining what's permanent and what's seasonal. The first factor is your number of vacant units. And they look at that. And that's your initial factor that they look at in determining what is the established permanent population. The second factor they look at is electrical hookups. We know in this county, electrical hookups doesn't really weight in as much because people leave on their electric year-round. One of the things we need to do as staff, and what we're looking into, is trying to find out from VBR how they're factoring in the vacant units. Because when we look at the census right now we're looking at that 28.4 percent factor. Whether or not they're doing an adjustment based on electrical hookups, that's something that factors into whether or not potentially they're overestimating our permanent population. That's a concern that we do have. If they are, then obviously the season will adjust when you look at the medium VBR numbers would be off too. It's something thanks going to take sometime to do in looking at their modeling. And as part of the methodology that goes forward and is being proposed by DCA, we would adjust that seasonal population if they're overestimating the permanent or try to work with them in trying to get them to back off on the permanent. And that's a long term type of prognosis because getting VBR to modify their numbers is obviously a very different thing in challenging them. So those are the things that are encumbant upon us as the staff to take a look at. We've done the initial work with respect to looking at the past population. Both things that were provided by the Borough of Economic and Business Research because they are charged with the official responsibility as providing us as a county, every local jurisdiction in the state with official population Page 155 November 20, 2006 projections. So we have to rely upon them. We provide them with our CO data for the subsequent years for them to utilize and actually put into the system. What you'll see happen is when we talk about population estimates and we see these numbers and you say, well you're going back and you're retrofitting, what ends up happening is they make projections based on past trim analysis. Let's use this year as an example. Our CO data from the prior year was a lot higher. This year we know that it's going to be a lot lower. They projected our population for 2006 to be, I think, a 13,000 increase over last year. Well, we've gotten our estimates for next year based on CO data and now they're just projecting 9,000, roughly 9,000. So these numbers sometimes do back in. That's why you see Mr. Gramatges' numbers with solid waste, sometimes you'll see that back off. You can see an increase likewise if the number was to increase, you know, beyond that 13,000. So, it's not a static number. When we do this AUIR, it's a snapshot in time. We realize we're not going to be exact, but if you look at the trim analysis that occurred over the past ten years using the population methodology that's in place right now, pretty much I think in 2005, based off the projections in 2000, Mr. Weeks' projections were off by 200 people. I think that's pretty close and right on target when you look at a ten year projection period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to come back and reconvene to finish up drainage, and we have to come back for solid waste. Any final vote on the water and sewer, I don't know why we couldn't do it at that time. It will give us time to think about it, and who knows, David may come back with some recommendations on populations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's a way both committees would like to proceed, I think that would be -- get us past this stalemate. Is that okay with the productivity committee? MR. VAN FLEET: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody okay with that? Good. With Page 156 November 20, 2006 that we'll finish up with -- we're done with solid waste water and sewer and I wish to thank those members of the productivity committee that were here for that issue, and we'll take a break until 3 :00 and hopefully have some coffee. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will be a continuation of our AUIR review. We've been working on county parks and recreation facilities to round out the category A improvements. And if we have time, we'll move into category B. We have one new member joining us today, Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: How are you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, sir. MR. BENNETT: Glad to be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Bennett is with the productivity committee. Before we go on too far we ought to establish a time for closing today's meeting and continuing until the 19th, is when our next scheduled meeting date is. We run until 5:30 or six. 5 :30 sound good to everybody? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Five sounds like a great time, but that's up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you have a preference? MR. VAN FLEET: No, not really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody concerned about, besides Mr. Adelstein, about 5:30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to 5:30 and we'll go as long and as hard as we can. With that, we will have our parks and recs department. Hi. MS. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon, members of the Commission Committee. Amanda Townsend, operations analyst for Page 157 November 20,2006 the, operations analyst for the public services division. The 2006 AUIR for parks and recreation facilities addresses level of service standards in three categories: Facilities value per capita, community park acreage per capita and regional -- I'm sorry. Community park acreage and regional park acreage. Would you prefer that I address all three or to take them individually? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to take them individually so we can walk through the document page by page and then we'll get to each piece if that works for you. MS. TOWNSEND: That would be fine. Quickly to address some changes in facilities value between the 2005 and 2006 AUIR. In updating the inventory, we made some changes in order to get some more value from what's already available to the public out there. Those are outlined on pages 88 and 89 in your booklet. We added some new categories of facilities and changed the method by which we inventory indoor facilities in order to get more value out of what is out there for the public. In addition we added new facilities that have come on line for the public this year for a result and net gain of 22 million dollars in facilities valued between last year and this year's AUIR. Another change that you'll see between last year and this year's AUIR is that we started planning into a ten-year window. In previous years, the AUIR showed facilities planning out only five years. We are doing more long-range planning. That's probably a good thing, but it does have one unusual effect on the AUIR which I'd like to explain. If you look at your chart on page 66 you'll see what appears to be spending far more than necessary to meet the level of service standard. This is somewhat of a misrepresentation. The chart reveals the money that parks and recreation department expects to spend on capital improvement projects. However, when these projects are then translated into the inventory that makes up that base line value, the amount that is spent is significantly reduced. I'll give you a real world Page 158 November 20, 2006 example of that. The North Collier Regional Park construction contract was 53 million dollars. The inventory that you see when calculated in the chart in the back of your packet for parks and recreation is 30 million dollars. So that disconnect between what is spent and what is able to be inventories explains that separation you see on the chart on page 66, and I just sort of wanted you to be aware of that. It's a phenomenon that I looked back and is demonstrated historically as well. That's always been the case. I think it's just shown in sharper relief here because you see that planning into the ten-year window as opposed to the five-year window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the end of your presentation? MS. TOWNSEND: Sure I'll take questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recreation. As far as recreation facilities go, can you tell us how they differ from park facilities, because you have community parks, regional parks, and recreation facilities. Can you describe how they coordinate together? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, I can. The facilities that you see inventoried here are either in a community park, a regional park, or even a neighborhood park. If there's a playground in a neighborhood park or a tennis court or a basketball court. We do inventory those. Each facility gets a value. When you're looking at the community in regional park acreage, you're looking at acreage alone with facilities stripped off because those are accommodated for here in the section we're talking about now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the vertical improvements of any type are basically in these numbers? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go back to our methodology of starting with the first page and seeking questions on page 64. I notice you have a surplus instead of a deficit. Nice thing to have. I believe that's directly derived from the increased impact fees so that's a fair statement? Page 159 November 20, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. The surplus that you see is -- I'm sorry. I'm not understanding. Do you mean a surplus is cash or surplus in facilities? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Surplus. It says five year surplus or deficit? In the fourth line down from the top under facilities value. You have excess facilities, or you could have? MS TOWNSEND: Here again that's a function of that phenomenon that I explained when you look at the amount we expect to expend you will see that surplus. When those facilities come on line to the public and they're put into inventory that number will probably come much closer to a zero out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm concerned about its interaction with impact fees. I don't know -- I didn't realize impact fees could be utilized, build up a five-year surplus. Margie, do you have any comments on that? MS. STUDENT: No, but I can check and report back. My general understanding that the impact fees are supposed to be spent for growth. They're in an individual fund related to certain geographic areas of the county and are kept there until they're needed for the expenditure to take care of the facility that is driven by growth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had some understanding similar to that. A little more involved in regarding time frames. If you could check into it to make sure that by showing a surplus such as we have here in the AUIR that doesn't provide a problem for the impact rates that we recently increased. As far as facilities on this page, and I know I asked this question last year, I'll probably get the same answer this year, inside many developments in this county, there are private recreation facilities on private parklands. Those are used by the people within those communities excluding the public. A lot of times the people in those communities have the needs they have right there in their community, and how are we taking that into consideration in the A UIR? Page 160 November 20,2006 MS. TOWNSEND: We have begun an inventory. A privately available recreation facility . You'll see our estimates up there on the visualizer. We conducted a voluntary survey of contacts at PUDs with residential component. We got about a 40 percent return on that. We were able to verify that our numbers, our estimates that you see here, and they're in extrapolation based on a 40 percent return. We could verify that our numbers were close because when we counted up the number of golf courses that we received positive feedback on our survey, that was also 40 percent of what we know to be the golf courses in the county. So these numbers are estimates, but they're an extrapolation based on those survey results that show you what might be out there available privately as far as recreation facilities go. And they're revealing to us -- they didn't show us too many things that were surprising. The basketball court might be surprising to us, however, we -- I thought intuitively probably that there are lots of residents out there who have swimming pools and tennis courts available to them not provided by county parks and recreation, and that's exactly what we found. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do those -- the presence of those, factor into your calculations for level of service for the needs you're asking for here? You got every table prepared. You must have known I was going to ask this. MS. TOWNSEND: I do. Facilities value of course is the level of service standard that's adopted within the GMP. But for our planning services in the parks and recreation department, it doesn't give us a full snapshot of what we need to be providing to the public. Therefore the chart you see there has in the left-hand column the score guideline. That's the statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation planning guide. That is conducted by the division of Recreation and Parks up in Tallahassee. We take those guidelines and adjust them in accordance with data we have based on the particular circumstances within Collier County. For example, you'll see that we have Page 161 November 20,2006 significantly reduced the Collier guideline, or increased the number there by reducing the level of service, and the Collier guideline for swimming pools, for example. The state guideline would be one for 50,000 and we've increased that to one per, I believe it's 100,000. I can't read it from here. And that is in response to that -- to that knowledge that I showed you just a moment ago. There are 245 approximately swimming pools out there to people available, available privately, therefore we know we don't need to provide as many publicly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those charts that you have, can you make those available to us either by email or mail or copy? MS. TOWNSEND: I most certainly can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So I don't forget to ask anything, can you produce any other charts in response to questions I haven't asked. MS. TOWNSEND: That phenomenon that I showed you about the reduction in value for cost versus the value that we inventory, I did look at that historically and I can demonstrate that to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask you. MS. TOWNSEND: It just so happens -- this is just a sample, and I haven't run this number out across every type of facility that we provide, but it just so happens that we let a contract for tennis courts in 1989 and we also let a contract for tennis courts in 2006. So I wanted to look at the percent increase in both cost and inventoried value and what our level of service standard was over time, and you'll see that we've run fairly consistent. You'll also see that we have consistently undervalued our facilities by about 45 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Why wouldn't your inventory value be the cost? Everybody else has done that up until now. MS. TOWNSEND: I'm afraid I don't have a good answer for that. We started with some baseline value back in 1989, and we've Page 162 November 20,2006 been increasing them based on a national construction cost index. But obviously we started with an undervalued base line and I don't have an answer for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your recreation facilities I noticed you're not asking for any ad valorem taxes; is that correct? MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: And if you look at the summary, it appears that you have eight million dollars in excess, which is probably why. If your expenditures are 63, revenues less, encumbered revenues comes to 71, essentially eight mill difference; is that right? In terms of running the government, what does that mean? MS. TOWNSEND: I believe that those numbers should balance out. Is that not -- no. Okay . Yes, I'm sorry. I see where you are. Yes, there is a slight surplus in cash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it goes back to the reason the cash is there. It probably is because of the impact fee bump that they've got that it was quite substantial and that is probably why we don't see them asking for ad valorem taxes. But at the same time I'm sure Margie's answer to that prior question will be important in understanding how that can happen. Any other questions on page 64? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Yes. Would you discuss the encumbered revenues and why that's handled in that manner, because otherwise you're looking at 63 million versus your 85 million. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Those encumbered revenues are simply a carry onto this summary sheet of the proposed cost expenditure for community parkland acquisition and regional parkland acquisition. I wanted to start with baseline revenues that were the figures I received from the budget office and these -- but of course, those revenues are spread across three different level of service categories so it's represented this way which probably is more Page 163 November 20, 2006 confusing than it needed to be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: So, in other words, this is your carry forward? MS. TOWNSEND: No, I'm sorry, not carry forward. Cash allocated to the other two level of service standards that we have to meet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why would you have the community park in this summary sheet then since this is -- why would you have regional park when this is the recreation facility chart? MS. TOWNSEND: We had a total amount of cash that we had to work with, and that cash needs to be spread across three level of service standards for the various projects we're proposing meet to each standard. So this is just simply taking that cash out of the facilities value pool so that it's available to meet those other level of service standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on page 64? If not let's turn to page 65. Sixty-five is a table, parks facilities value. Any questions on that table? You reference the population countywide. Does that include the City of Naples and Marco Island? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you include in your inventory the parks supplied by the City of Naples and Marco Island? MS. TOWNSEND: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't include them in their -- you don't include their inventory, but we include their impact. Do you include the fact that a lot of our residents use their parks? MS. TOWNSEND: No, we do not. As far as facilities value goes, we're using a countywide population number, and we're inventorying what the parks and recreation department has available, Page 164 November 20, 2006 either through -- sometimes through interlocal agreement or usually through a facility that they own and operate. When we come to community parkland, however, we do not count the incorporated areas in the population figures because community parks, of course, are funded by unincorporated impact fees and intended for the use by residents of the unincorporated area. That doesn't mean, of course, that county residents don't use city facilities, and city residents don't use county facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See if county and city people are moving back and forth between their parks, isn't there some value to the community as a whole that we get that ability? If it is, why would we want to include that in our calculation of facilities. It would show that we have a lot more facilities than what you have which means we may need to produce a lot less than what you have. I understand that part of it. I'm just wondering -- MS. TOWNSEND: Here again, as similar to those facilities that I showed you that are available privately, we can look at those and in just what types of facilities we're building, but if historically the per capita level of service standard has been based on a certain way of measuring things to change that, would cause us to need to re-evaluate the per capita facility standard as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if it's been wrong in the past or right, we're going to go forward whether wrong or right the way the past was, more or less? I know. Are there any other any questions on page 65? Page 66 is the chart that we previously were brought to. Then on page 67 through 69 we move into the six month analysis that I think a lot of us hadn't spent a lot of time on. It may not be that relevant to the issue. That kind of gets us through the recreational facilities. Are there any other general comments about recreational facilities? Yes, sir, Mr. Vigliotti. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Can I go back to page 66? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can go anywhere you'd like. Page 165 November 20,2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: At one point I see Golden Gate Estates schools project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: FY12 to 13. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Between 11 and 12, 12 and 13. School project. How would you be involved in a schools project? Wouldn't that fall under schools? MS. TOWNSEND: No, generally these are cooperative projects. Those are two separate, one being Golden Gate Estates Community Park and, you'll see a comma there, and a school project. Those are two separate projects. But very often when the school district brings a school on line, the parks and recreation department will form an interlocal agreement with them under which we will bring some of their athletic facilities up to league play standards with a cash contribution. And thereafter those facilities are maintained by the parks and recreation and available to the public for league play. Teams play after school hours. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Just a general one. I'm wondering if the level of service standard of $270 per capita is not really a very good one because now you're getting more money in. We revised the impact fees a few months ago. We added parks -- I mean, we added beach and boat access on there. It seems like perhaps some of these things that are dollar related are not really a good way to measure your level of service standards. Is that perhaps some of what the problem is between the expenditures of the revenues? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Yes, to answer your question in a word. Generally we find that disconnect, as I said, between what we spend and what we can inventory. And we find that facilities value isn't as good a tool in helping us to measure whether we're providing what the public needs or not as that chart I showed you before taking things on a facility-by-facility basis counting up, you know, looking at Page 166 November 20, 2006 state standards and counting up what we've got available. We do have -- in fact, when we look at the numbers on a facility by facility case, we do show some willful deficiencies depending on what the facility . IS. MS. VASEY: Is there any way we can fix that, any recommendation that we can make as a better measure so that we can avoid, you know, misunderstandings or misconceptions? MS. TOWNSEND: We have been researching how other counties and municipalities write their GMP and how they write their level of service standards in there. It's sort of in the exploratory stages at this point. So far Collier County is the only county that I have found that uses a facility for -- dollar for value per capita as a level of service standard. And we may be coming forward in the future with some recommendations on revising that, and perhaps going with the facility-by- facility basis. MS. VASEY: I was wondering maybe square footage or -- I'm not sure that's particularly relevant, but you know, in the other -- in the community and the regional we use acres per capita which makes a lot more sense because it's not tied to a dollar that gets outdated very quickly. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The recreational facilities, are there any other last questions on that? MR. SCHIFFER: Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing this doesn't show is where facilities are located and what neighborhoods they're in and what the populations are. So, I mean, theoretically they could all be in one corner of the county and this chart would be the same, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's some tables in the back of the general area that break all that down. Tells you where each park is, and what it contains and all the pieces to it. MS. TOWNSEND: Page 86 shows you locations of parks and Page 167 November 20, 2006 then, yes, the inventory on pages 93 and 94 does break facilities down by the old planning districts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. MR. BENNETT: Do you have any statistic -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT -- usage of parks? MS. TOWNSEND: I don't have any with me here today. We do have many. MR. BENNETT: You do have them? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. MR. BENNETT: There's the big new park on Livingston, where the swimming pool is and all that. I was there and nothing was happening with it. There was nobody there. I wondered why. MS. TOWNSEND: Because that's a new facility. We have struggled with determining what the operating hours should be. And we made the determination to stay open more, find out what the use would be, and revise as we go into the next fiscal year. MR. BENNETT: Spending millions of dollars sitting idle there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, looking at these charts, that's not exactly the answer to the question. The question is, is the county broken into any kind of a region where you can see if the populations, since we're doing it one based on populations, that the parks are balanced. MS. TOWNSEND: I don't have those statistics in accordance with population. I do however, and I don't have any with me. I apologize. I do have maps that show the circle of the influence, if you will. A five-mile radius around a community park. And we use those to help us locate new facilities. We don't -- I don't have them by population density. I could do them that way if you were interested in seeing them. MR. SCHIFFER: Since we rank it by population, we kind of Page 168 November 20, 2006 want to know if they're balanced. Move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, if it's okay with everyone, we can move on to community parkland, category A. Do you have any opening comments to make on that? MS. TOWNSEND: Changes between the '05 and '06 AUIR are listed on page 90. You'll see that we have a net gain there of 9.64-acres, none of which involved purchases. Mostly just sort of cleaning up the inventory in one way or another. We've tried to stick with the board direction here and keep our acquisition right in line with need. On page 73 you'll see one spike there in acreage, which is the result of the change in the acreage designation. The property on Vanderbilt -- the future Vanderbilt Beach Road extension in Golden Gate Estates will be reclassified from a regional park to a community park. That is in part in anticipation of some lost acreage as the road comes through that area. Other than that, we've tried to keep our work program right in line with need. We expect to gain 23.2 million dollars in and value with a cash expenditure of only 12 million dollars in the five-year window. MR. MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: I don't think I see it here. But in Conservation Collier lands will be passive parks. It is my understanding that park rangers will be responsible perhaps in part, perhaps in total, for closing or securing the park in the evening. Is that true? MS. TOWNSEND: No. We are taking those on a case-by-case basis and we write an interdepartmental agreement for each one. We have put one of those into effect and added it to our inventory this year, and that is Cocohachee Creek Park which is contiguous to Veteran's Community Park. MR. MURRAY: An interlocal agreement that would indicate who's responsible for what. Is there also a transfer of funds or credits and debits? Page 169 .A'" r.." .,..,..," November 20, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Conservation Collier is reimbursing the parks and recreation department very minimally for that work that we're doing. Just, you know, simple mowing the easement and picking up garbage and that sort of thing on that particular case. MR. MURRAY: So Conservation Collier has a maintenance budget that's associated with that and may in time grow to facilitate that? MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: The loss due to innerdepartment transfer, you're writing that down as an expense, but you're not getting anything in return for that? MS. TOWNSEND: Let me figure out exactly which -- the loss you see there is 47 acres on the Randal Curve. And the 20 acres that I talked about is going to Vanderbilt Beach Extension. We're anticipating that that's going to be a swap. But when that acreage comes back to us it's going to be regional parkland. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why is it considered an expense? MS. TOWNSEND: It's loss of value. It's land that we will be taking out of our inventory. MR. SCHIFFER: And you're getting nothing back, but You say it will show up as a revenue? MS. TOWNSEND: I believe it's 63 acres at Orange Tree that we're receiving back. You'll see that 67 -acre loss between Randal and Vanderbilt Beach Extension. And when we get to regional park acreage, you're going to see a 63-acre gain. And I'm sure that we can work out with transportation vision those other five acres as we move forward. MR. SCHIFFER: Looking ahead I don't see it, but you'll show me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? I take it that your Page 1 70 November 20, 2006 available inventory last year 453, you're adding nine acres. But you're really interchanging a lot more acreage to end up with nine. Is that a fair statement? MS. TOWNSEND: Between last year and this year, all changes are in the chart on page 90 . We are adding -- there was some inconsistencies in the inventory on the way we -- the designation we gave collocated school facilities, so we moved those all to community park acreage. You'll see that's a six acre gain. And then the Cocohachee Creek cooperative agreement with Conservation Collier is another 3.64 acres. The others you see are anticipated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me try to understand. On page 70, your double asterisk, you're looking at a planned inventory change of 116 acres. That's additional, correct? Is says additional. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the next page under -- I don't know what you call that thing. It's two of them though. You're looking at plus 60 acres on the first line and plus three acres on the second line for a total 63, plus the 116 you're looking at 179 positive. You lost 67 acres on the first page under the triple asterisk, on the second page you lost 120. I mean, you lost 187 so you had a negative about nine or eight. Does that factor into the number that you're using for your available inventory? MS. TOWNSEND: I'm sorry. We're talking about two different things, I think. There's available inventory and that's all accommodated for in that first 462.7 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. TOWNSEND: What I just pointed to you about schools and Conservation Collier, that all happened between '05 and '06. Everything else that you have just described is all enumerated there is a net gain of 116 acres. And if you want to see those broken out on a year-by-year basis, you can turn to page 91. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That helps. Thank you. Are there any Page 171 November 20, 2006 other questions on page 70? My typical, just for the record, private developments, their parklands are not included in this inventory? MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they included in any inventory in the county? MS. TOWNSEND: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you factor these in the same by that chart you previously showed us basically by the facilities built upon those lands? MS. TOWNSEND: Now that I know based on the new inventory that some of these preserve areas are providing trails and we'll probably reduce what we consider our local guideline for trail facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are requiring in the new GMP amendment -- EAR amendments that developments provide parks? At least the language in the EAR that we reviewed a week or two ago. MS TOWNSEND: Yes, a new LDC cycle is opening and we'll be working on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are going to provide developers -- you're going to require developers to provide that. Are they going to be getting any credit for that in any way like impact fees or something like that since they are providing for it? MS. TOWNSEND: It hasn't been discussed at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, there's another one for you to research. If EAR is requiring the developers to provide the parklands, then I think we need to see under the recent legislation whether or not that's going to be a mandatory credit against them against park impact fees because that may then have an impact. Page 71 is footnotes to page 70, so we'll move on to page 72. Anybody have questions on page 72? Your first footnote there about the population. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Page 1 72 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The population has been a real fun number lately. Is this the population statistic most recently provided by David Weeks everybody else has been using or are you looking at a different one? Everybody words it a little differently so I'm not sure. MS. TOWNSEND: Community park acreage gets to be its own little thing out there because this is a number that is based on the unincorporated area only. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's probably what threw me because it says population countywide. It's really not county wide. MS. TOWNSEND: Right. You're right, yes you're correct, that is an error. County wide with an asterisk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on the table on page 72? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: All these are 200,000 cost? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That cost is an average, if I'm not mistaken, based on -- you have some more expensive land and some less expensive land and that kind of rounds it all out. MS. TOWNSEND: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: So, would this mean, since parks and recs are using a county unincorporated area, weighted the way we're supposed to be weighting things, and using the four-month peak season, which we're supposed to be using, Mr . Weeks then doesn't really have anything to figure out. He can just look at the population figures used by parks and recs. It's taken out what you're concerned about. At least initially, which is the cities that we don't want included. So there's really not a whole lot of work to be done. It's already been done for Mr. Weeks. At least the initial part of it, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I'm trying to understand Page 1 73 November 20, 2006 what you're-- I'm not sure the 351,844, I'm not sure the source of that. I think what you're saying is because of what was told to us, it doesn't include the cities. If it does -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what she just said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what she just said. MS. TOWNSEND: It does not include the city. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know how that fits into the others. I have to look and see what the other numbers were. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: I'm confused. Didn't she testify earlier it did include the city? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was for the recreational facilities. Lands don't, facilities do. MS. TOWNSEND: Only community parkland does not. Community parkland acreage is the only standard that we use that is unincorporated. It does not include the city. MR. SCHIFFER: And regional park will go back to them including the cities? MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further questions on page 72? Move to the chart on page 73. That would end -- no, we have the four month peak season analysis is over with. Pages 74 and 75,76 and 77 all address the six month peak season. Any questions remaining on community parks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I guess we'll move on to regional parklands. Did you have any opening statements you want to make on that? MS. TOWNSEND: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you said you're going to hold off. I'm just giving you the opportunity. Page 174 November 20, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: Just to outline briefly, changes '05 to '06 you'll see a net gain of 43.2 acres. These are outlined on page 90. They reflect the purchase of the zoo and surrounding lands. Purchase of Margood Resort and some land near Bavia Park. You'll see some losses there that are really corrections to just sort of clean up the inventory. Once again, when you turn to your chart on page 81, you're going to see that great big spike in our inventory for regional parkland acreage. Most of that is a result of the anticipation of the 640 acres that's a committment from South Florida Water Management District. Overall in the five year window, we anticipate an additional 777 acres at a value of$155,000,000. Cash expenditure is proposed to be 1.2 million dollars. Both of those projects that we're anticipating spending cash on, are part of the beach and boat access initiative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, you're not proposing to use any ad valorem taxes? MS. TOWNSEND: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions then on page 78? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Yes. You got -- on this page, five year surplus is 372.8 acres 74 million dollars. Could you discuss what that means to us in terms of a surplus? MS. TOWNSEND: In terms of a surplus? MS. VASEY: It's called a five year surplus and it is that, isn't it? MS. TOWNSEND: Indeed it is. Indeed it is. We will have satisfied our level of service standard for regional park acreages. And again, a lot of this is due to the 640 acres we anticipate in a committment from South Florida Water Management District. But we will have satisfied our regional parkland acreage with the proposed projects better than into 2016. MS. VASEY: So we're not planning anything else, any other expenditures until that time? MS. TOWNSEND: Not other than the two -- the cash Page 175 November 20,2006 expenditures that we're anticipating are those two beach and boat activities. MS. VASEY: Does that really meet our needs? I mean, it's a big chunk and it's worth a lot of money, but is it going to meet the need? MS. TOWNSEND: No. In a word no. We have in the last couple of years gotten several really wonderful opportunities to acquire passive parklands. The land surrounding the zoo which will be Gordon River Greenway Park. The 640 acres that we anticipate from Swift Mud. However, when you have a passive park, that necessarily means that you're not building a lot of facilities on it. And you can run into trouble when you're in your level of service standard for facilities value if you're not putting facilities that add value on that land. So it's something that we need to watch carefully and closely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Back in -- where did the land from the regional park -- shouldn't that be a landing somewhere in this? Do you remember the land that you spent -- the $13,400,000 that was an expenditure for loss of value due to innerdepartment transfer. You said would show up here somewhere. MS. TOWNSEND: The easiest place to find it is going to be in the chart of page 92. Again, that's an expansion of all those asterisks and daggers and double daggers from the summary sheet. You're going to see there that interdepartmental transfer in '07, 60 acres, Gordon River Quality Park coming from transportation as well as in '07, '08, 62 acres from Orange Tree. MR. SCHIFFER: I'm looking for Golden Gate Estates park in Randal that was taken out of the Randal Curve, 47 acres in Golden Gate Estates. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, yes. Those 67 are the trade where you see in '07, '08 we're adding land at Orange Tree. We're trading Randal Curve and the other 20 and Vanderbilt for 62 at Orange Tree. There's a five acre discrepancy there which I'm sure we'll be able to work out Page 176 November 20, 2006 in the future. MR. SCHIFFER: And then it shows up as -- where does it show up in the number? It's under that oppose additional value through innerdepartment transfer, that 24 million number in there? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, yes. MR. SCHIFFER: How do you know that? MS. TOWNSEND: Because I prepared this document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't see any clues in here. Anyway, it's now considered a-- MS. TOWNSEND: Tell me the page number of that summary sheet again, please. MR. SCHIFFER: Well, it's page 70 is where it disappears. It leaves -- MS. TOWNSEND: I got lost in my pages. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It leaves as an expense. MS. TOWNSEND: It's a double double dagger, if you will, is the footnote. The second to last footnote there you'll see your 62 acres or 12.4 million. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's in there somewhere. How would I know that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wasn't quite on the record, but-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, she showed me where it could be. It's not highlighted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be. Did that resolve your question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey's earlier point was well taken. What is parks and recs? I mean, an A TV track out in the middle of nowhere sure isn't a lot of help to the citizens of the county. How are we going to address that? It's like you don't have any use -- like you lost really that land because it's taking up actual land that the citizens could have used and kind of removed it for the system to Page 1 77 ~~,.,~........,~~"., ---"~_..."-..._-,.,,.,..,.~....^ November 20, 2006 regain it. How have you thought about recouping that? MS. TOWNSEND: Well, OHV enthusiasts would argue that, you know, there are citizens that are going to use it. Not only that, but we've got some conceptual plans for that site that will make it somewhat more than just a barren wasteland that A TV s will use. There's a proposal to have an amphitheater. Have places for rock climbing as well, vehicular rock climbing. Have places for moto-cross track, et cetera. You start to add into your inventory for that reason an amphitheater, some pavilions, et cetera, et cetera. All though it is something that we need to be concerned about. And we do need, especially based on that facility-by-facility inventory that you saw earlier, where woefully deficient, in particularly football and soccer fields and in softball fields. Where we have available lands, particularly community parkland, we need to aggressively develop those with those kinds of facilities that are not available out there privately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, see how the future pans out. Thank you. Any other questions on page 78 or 79? We have a table on page 80. A chart on page 81. Are there any questions on that four month peak season section of the regional parkland? Following that is the six month peak season which we have not dwelled on much at today's meeting, for good reason. That takes us to page 86 and page 87. Page 87 is a chart with a ten year facilities development expenditures. Are there any questions on that chart? I'm curious as to what the Keewaydin boat access since the boat access that was the Keewaydin park that recently tried to come through just didn't succeed. What is it that parks are doing with Keewaydin boat access? MS TOWNSEND: It's a conceptual partnership with Rookery Bay to access lands that they have in the north end of Keewaydin that's part of their land management plan to increase access to that area. They have a large upland area with trails through it and it's a conceptual partnership. Page 178 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're trying to increase access to Keewaydin? MS. TOWNSEND: That's the idea. MR. MURRAY: I got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: On; page 86 the facilities -- I'm looking at that yellow dot down there. Is that Ochopee? What is that? A little community -- I'm sorry. That's a neighborhood park. MS. TOWNSEND: In Copeland. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's Copeland. Is that one of the community parks that's really available to the community I would guess? MS. TOWNSEND: It's a neighborhood park, yes. MR. MURRAY: I said community, I meant neighborhood. You're right. That's almost an anomaly, I suspect. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are those neighborhood parks, now that Mr. Murray pointed them out, incorporated into either community parks or the regional park statistic? MS. TOWNSEND: No, sir. Their facilities are incorporated into facilities value, but their acreage is not inventoried in the growth management plan at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they parks that are owned by the public? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the inventory does not count? MS. TOWNSEND: There's no level of service standard for them. MR. MURRAY: Is there equipment there? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, there's a playground there and that is inventory . MR. COHEN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: On this chart, if you add up all the years seven Page 1 79 'h...,__'____.~_<<""h"'"'~,.._. ,.~,,_ h '-""''''>O~'~"m~_.__,_____.,,_~"._~ November 20, 2006 through 11, you got 60 million point four -- 60.4 million dollars of development expenditure. Now if I go back to page 64, your expenditures are 63 million, however, 19 million of that is for debt service and 44 million; is for actual AUIR park projects. I'm having trouble relating those two numbers. MS. TOWNSEND: The number that you see brought forward on page 64 comes from the chart on page 65. And you'll see the first five year growth period has a facilities planned in AUIR of 44 million dollars. The reason for that is the chart on 87 shows when we plan to expend the money or when the money needs to be available to us. And what I've done on the chart on page 65 is delayed that a year because those facilities won't be available to the public, and we won't be able to put them into inventory until approximately the following year. It gives us time for construction. MS. VASEY: So if I add 44 plus 16, I got 60. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: Thank you very much. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the table on pages 88 and 89. Your removal ofa swimming pool. It's in the water park. You took one swimming pool out for two million dollars and it became a water park swimming pool for ten million. That was creative. Is that what you did? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, that is. We made several changes to the inventory based on trying to give ourselves some credit for the cash that we're expending. That's one of them. The other one is the change that you see from counting recreation centers and fitness centers as one, two, three to counting them by their square foot. The reason that that became -- it varied to us this year is that we spent a million dollars and added 3,000 square foot to the community center at East Naples Community Park and when we prepared the inventory, we got no credit for it. So we made that change to start to inventory Page 180 ._+'_e ..,--,..."....__"""'c,,,,,..-.,__ ,_.. ,.'" ~__~_"''"___._~~"..._.__ November 20, 2006 by square footage to try to recoup in the facilities' value some of the money we're spending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, if you had to pay taxes on these facilities, you would be in a world of trouble. Build them for two and they're worth ten, so -- are there any other questions on this chart? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. You're talking bocce courts. You've got one bocce court for $29,900? MS. TOWNSEND: We inventory bocce courts and shuffle board courts -- actually, we used to only inventory shuffle board courts. And yes, their value is 29,900. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We just built one at $7,000 for two courts together and had done it with the same type of surface and all. I just don't know where this $29,000 is coming from or why. MS. TOWNSEND: We can take a look at that. Again, these facility values, as I talked about earlier, they were established at one time and they've been moved forward based on a construction cost index. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I wish you would look at them. MS. TOWNSEND: And we should review them. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It's way out of line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Further down the chart you have two non-motorized vessel launches. Just out of curiosity, where are those? MS. TOWNSEND: One at Clam Pass and one at Sugden Regional Park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the one at Clam Pass has been there for a long time. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. It's a new category added to the inventory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a value on it of$75,000. You Page 181 -'~"'_ ... .....,;_,..."'__~"....._..".,,.,"_.m,_.~....___....."'_._-..,_,"_ November 20, 2006 know what it is? It's an opening for the mangroves for the sand bays that's natural and a chain-link fence that's limited to four foot width. How is that worth 75 grand? MS. TOWNSEND: The one at Sugden is a floating dock with a Hoyer lift and I'm sure it's valued at several hundred thousand, so I'm sort of trying to just take an average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, could you take half of that and put it up at Clam Pass where it's needed? MS. TOWNSEND: That's a fine idea. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions on 88 and 89? MR. MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Have we yet expanded the boating facility at Wiggins Pass? Has that come to pass? MS. TOWNSEND: No. MR. MURRAY: Not yet. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: Those two tennis courts, where are they located? MS. TOWNSEND: At Eagle Lakes Community Park. They should be open to the public within a month or two so we included them for this year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I saw people playing. MS. TOWNSEND: Eagle Lakes Community Parks is south on US 41 almost to 951. MR. BENNETT: What surface, do you know? MS. TOWNSEND: They're hard courts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 90. Any questions on page 90? How did you add the acreage from Conservation Collier to the park system? Is that pursuant to the referendum that parks is really going Page 182 November 20, 2006 to be gaining from conservation collier, or aren't they supposed to keep that? MS. TOWNSEND: In that particular instance we have an inter departmental agreement to care for those acres. So for that reason we've added them into our inventory . We won't be adding all the conservation lands into, but if the parks department has an active role in making those available to the public, then we would intend to inventory them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Margie, is that -- I hate to keep throwing things at you, but do you know if that's consistent with the referendum and how the monies are supposed to be handled in the -- MS. STUDENT: I haven't been involved with that I have to add that to my list, but I do see Mr. Schmidt has his hand up. MR. SCHMIDT: The conservation Collier, the requirement in accordance with the ordinance is to require, or to allow for public access through passive parks. And some of those areas that will be constructed with passive parks, meaning a pathway, a place to park, a pathway to walk and enjoy, I guess the ambiance and the nature, but that would be deemed a passive park. It's not -- there's not basketball courts or those type of things, but it still will allow for public access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any problem with that. I just want to make sure it's consistent with the referendum that the park acreage could be basically transferred and showed on inventory and parks and rec versus the inventory on conservation collier. You can't double dip and show it twice. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not sure as to how much they can count. I mean, I would probably have to defer to Marla or -- there she is. She may be able to -- MS. RAMSEY: We're being very careful with the Conservation Collier because, as you just heard, earlier when we were talking about the 640 acres and some passive lands that come into us that we may have some problems down the road about facilities themselves. So Page 183 November 20, 2006 even if Conservation Collier facilities are available to the public, we may only count the acreage that is accessible. Let's say they buy an 80 acre parcel and they have a pathway that runs through ten acres of that, we might include the ten acres into our inventory. Again, it's going to be by case by case, but not blanket. And we'll have to see how that works out. We don't want to absorb too much in the inventory either so that then we have a deficit in our facilities and no land to build them on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY : Yeah. Commenting on that. The Planning Commission just recently recommended approval of such 99 acres, I think it was. And I know the community, the neighbors have an expectation that parks and recs representative there, their rangers, will come and put a gate up each night, or whatever it is that finally will manifest. There are five parking spaces there. It would be a lot to take into your inventory and create, I think a -- not a good situation in terms of where you want to plan your parks. In other words, they would be forcing themselves to deal with more than they had expected. Perhaps the budget would be -- I think they should be treated in the same as neighborhood parks perhaps. That's where I'm going with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the only lands that you would add into parks would be land that you're going to end up managing, correct? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, so to follow up on Mr. Murray's question, would you then be adding in that Lely storm water management area that they would become a passive park? MS. RAMSEY: Well, that's actually a transportation not a Conservation Collier one. And we have been working with transportation about this particular element, in the fact that they're Page 184 November 20, 2006 going to put in a pathway that's going to be on the ground, mulched, it's going to be wet. A lot of the time during the year, especially during the summer and late spring. And so we're talking to them about maybe an automatic gate, and open and close at certain times. With some real minimum support from us as far as garbage and whatnot. And we would probably not put that in our inventory because it's really not available to the public on a year-round basis. MR. MURRAY: I would think so. It's dedicated as a water reclamation with a passive recreation opportunity, but not a significant one. The benefit that parks would realize by encumbering itself with all the standard acreage for minimum use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on the numbers we saw from transportation this morning, it would be cheaper if it went to parks somehow. Any other questions on page 90? I have one. Your regional parkland changes. You have add Connor Park, five acres. Change park designation from neighborhood to regional. You got a five acre regional park? MS. TOWNSEND: Because it's beach access. It's a parking lot for beach access. And now because we'll have what I call Vanderbilt access number eight, or the Blue Bill access coming on line, it will be much more useful as a beach access than it previously was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bayview Park, you've added one acre. There's some houses on the street I know you've been buying it for this Keewaydin shuttle. Is that one of those homes? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The lease for those homes being rented out to anybody incorporated as a revenue restraint? MS. TOWNSEND: No. The county is using them for housing for interns and that sort of thing. The county is making use of those properties internally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess part of their salary then? MS. TOWNSEND: Marla says yes. Page 185 '..~-""'-".'--"''',>-=''-,*~-.._--,"--'''' "~"."-'^"~"-_...,--_._. November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 91 and 92. Any questions on 91 and 92? You have a Toll Brothers. I assume it's Toll Brothers project. It's on Rattlesnake and 30 acre contribution. Is that the contribution coming from the DR! PUD we haven't even seen yet. MS. TOWNSEND: It's wishful thinking at this point, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you put 60 there just for wishful thinking. Any other questions on 91 or 92 or 93 or 94? That rounds out all of the elements of parks and rec. Any final comments. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would like to commend you on your presentation. You have a very good handle on all the assets you control. MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And I think you got it under control. MR. BENNETT: You have a good memory too taking all that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's nothing left on parks we can -- MR. SCHIFFER: Questions on parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHIFFER: In the initial summary, beginning of the thing they have the six month season where they're looking for additional revenue, we're going northern or -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That is the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, if you're going to speak, use the mike. If you have a question -- let Mr. Schiffer get his answer first and then we'll get to your answer. I think the way David said this morning was that the six month analysis was one that shouldn't have been done. He should have connected it because those are by peak population not by duration of time. And so we've basically not addressed the six month based on that kind of discussion. I don't Page 186 November 20, 2006 know what you want to open that up. Mr. Adelstein, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What's the difference in a parks situation whether it's six weeks or six months or four months? The park is a park and they're going to be used the same way. The area aren't too far apart. Why would you cap one with six months and one with four months? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The discussion on the four and six months didn't have anything to do with the park itself. It had to do with the population, the population analysis that would produce more parkland. It was either a four month peak population figure or a six month people population figure. What David came back and said was, you wouldn't necessarily need the six month because the peak population is the peak population, whether it takes four months or six months. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ifnot, Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Just a comment. In reviewing this it's very difficult to make sense of a lot of these things because, as I mentioned on the 270 per capita numbers, and the big disconnect on the regional parks and things like that, I would hope that we could come up with something that would work better and that would more clearly identify your very valid need, but it doesn't look like that. It looks like it's, you know, big chunks of excess and sometimes not exactly usable and it seems like there should be a better way to review this to be sure that we're getting what we want, which is really the issue of service. The level of service that we want the community to have is very hard to determine in these standards. MS. RAMSEY: We agree that the per capita number has been very difficult for us in the fact that even as, you know, things cost Page 187 November 20, 2006 more, our value isn't -- isn't the same. So we would rather have something that is a little more scientific rather than artistic, you know, in the way that this one is going. So we're going to look at that through statewide just to see what kind of standards are out there and see if there's something out there that's currently being done better that we could, you know, utilize. And we would love to have both you and the Board of County Commissioners to give us some direction to go ahead and seek that. And I know it's a long difficult process in the fact that our growth management plan has these levels and the EAR is being done currently so timing is a issue on it and how we go about making that can change. But we would like to go and move away from the cost per capita. We do not feel that it's a very good indicator of what we need in our community. MS. VASEY: That's not very meaningful to reviewing it. It creates some strange perceptions when you look at the numbers. So I was just commenting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we do take a vote on this particular element, we ought to put something in a recommendation that would contain language that we explore other methods of measurements. MS. VASEY: Okay. I'll work on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would be a good thing to do. That's what we should be doing with each one of these. It's hard to do a lot of that today until we see the impact of any changes in the numbers and how they're going to work out because that may drive a much stronger desire to look at things. It's hard to tell that you're not doing right when you don't have any ad valorem impact. I think that's a good thing. I guess we'll move into category B facilities as, I guess -- maybe that depends. Is there a representative of the sheriffs department here today to talk about jails? Ifnot, there's not a lot of questions. Here they come. Chief Smith. Good afternoon, sir. CHIEF SMITH: Good afternoon, Mr. Strain. Are we ready to Page 188 November 20, 2006 proceed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we are. CHIEF SMITH: For the record, I am Chief Greg Smith, Chief of Administration for the Collier County Sheriffs Office. With me today are budget manager, Jean Myers, and finance director, Carol Golytely. Under category B facilities, the Sheriff is involved or provides input and data regarding two of the category B submissions. One for the county j ail and the second for law enforcement. And I think in the previous discussions you've had today, you've already addressed the four month and six month peak. Have you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we did. CHIEF SMITH: So we have an understanding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're mostly focusing on the four month peak right now. CHIEF SMITH: Great. And with regard to the four month peak, you'll see there have been a couple of adjustments made to the numbers as indicated last year. One is the adding in of additional beds to the Immokalee facility, and a proposed 64 bed addition at the Immokalee site. That would give rise to a five-year deficit out -- and I don't recall the exact year. Five years out, 2010, 2011. Are there any questions at this time that I can answer for you relative to jail beds in Collier County? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet there will be. We'll start with page 97, Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Okay. I was looking at 99 for the moment, but I think it pertains. In that table population countywide we do here, I think, carry countywide because your jurisdiction is within the city as well as in the other, right? CHIEF SMITH: Correct. We provide jail facilities for both incorporated and unincorporated. MR. MURRAY: That takes care of that part of it. Thank you. That's what I wanted to know. Page 189 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. MR. SCHIFFER: Yes. The triple asterisk, which is referring to the required inventory as a statement or a disclaimer actually. Required inventory does not attempt to predict future possible increases in land building equipment costs. I mean, the scary thing about that is what good is that number? CHIEF SMITH: That is not data that the sheriff supplies. That was data that was submitted by the planning department. MR. SCHIFFER: That's the number what it would cost if you build everything for the next five years today? CHIEF SMITH: Correct. MR. SCHIFFER: And isn't the function of this to predict the cost of the next five years? Guess not. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, comprehensive planning department director. One of the issues that's at hand is the jail master plan has not been completed yet. We do not have financial figures associated with that particular facility. As a result the numbers you saw that were multiplied by those particular beds was the existing unit cost. So rather than speculate based on that number, we anticipate having, I think -- I believe the jail study is going to be done within the next year. And when that transpires, we'll provide you with an up-to-date figure rather than trying to be speculative and just guess as of that number. CHIEF SMITH: Also in addition to that, the 64 bed proposed addition that's referenced under the 3.2 bed per thousand line. You can go down three lines and see proposed ARU fiscal year '06, '07 with a 64 bed. That's representative of a 64 bed addition that would be constructed at the Immokalee -- the present Immokalee jail site, and land cost would not be applicable in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on page 97. You have a revenues needed to maintain existing level of service standard. It's a paren three million. That means negative three million. Does that mean you need Page 190 November 20, 2006 three million less than what you're getting? CHIEF SMITH: I can only refer to the footnote at the bottom of the page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read that too. I couldn't figure out what it still meant. It says it's the difference between the definite and present level of service and the difference between the revenues unencumbered. Less the difference between the revenues unencumbered. It ends up with three million one point five. So what I'm asking is, do you need three million more out of ad valorem taxes, or do you have three million too much based on the revenues you're going to be receiving with your impact fees? Does anybody know? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning again. Correct. The footnote on the bottom says if they had the -- with the planned 64 unit bed facility, with their expenditures and their revenues, there would be a carry over of $769,000. That would be applied to the current 60 bed deficit. That number in paren is 3895 is what's needed to provide the beds to equate the level of service requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you take the parens off of it? MR. BOSI: Yeah. No. I mean, to represent a deficit, we normally use the parens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. But like last year the prior documents, when you need revenues you state the amount you need, not as a negative, but as the amount needed. Last year's AUIR says revenues needed to maintain existing level of service not just show the number, 2.543 million. This one shows a number, but it's in parenthesis. Parenthesis generally mean negative. I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. MR. BOSI: There's 3,125,000.87 that is needed to maintain the level of service. I apologize for the parenthesis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The available inventory went up from last year by 78 beds. Where did you get those from? CHIEF SMITH: We added those into the existing 64 bed Page 191 November 20, 2006 dormitory in the Immokalee jail. MR. BOSI: Page 106 is a summary sheet of the changes to the number of available beds that was provided. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when we get to that page, there's some interesting things, because last year in the AUIR we questioned why the concrete beds weren't added and we were told they're illegal. Now they're back in this year. So, I'd like to know why you're counting concrete beds this year, but you couldn't last year. MR. BOSI: I think it does indicate that the concrete beds are not counted towards the state rating capacity and they're excluded from the count this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't even have them on there last year so I was just curious why you would even put them on this year. Do you still use them? CHIEF SMITH: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you still use those concrete beds? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We use them only in booking and temporary holding. No one is housed in those cells for more than six hours under state statute. That's why we don't submit them to be counted in the bed count, so to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what you said last year, that's why I was surprised to see them back up again, but I understand now. Page 98, any questions? Page 99. Chief, last year '05, '06 you had indicated 512 beds in that time frame. 516 beds in that time frame. I'm sorry. What happened to those? CHIEF SMITH: I don't understand the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In that table on page 99, last year on that same table in the year -- '05 to '06 you showed 516 beds planned in the AUIR. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. Got you. And why aren't they there now is the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Page 192 November 20, 2006 CHIEF SMITH: I can only surmise that they're not planned in any current project. I think what they did was back them out until the j ail study was done so they could address the actual need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the way the presentation was last year, they were needed to keep up with things. This year they aren't needed which is kind of nice. CHIEF SMITH: I think too what we tried to accomplish by adding in those beds to the Immokalee side and then there was also some tents that had been erected. And they're not just tents. I mean, these are like super tents. These are what the U.S. military grade tents that we're going to get some utilization out of for up to ten years or so. We were able to add those in and then it kind of negated the emergency of the need to rapidly pursue an expansion. Kind of got us out of the crisis management mode and let us go to the table and do some thorough planning with regard to the updating of the jail master plan so that we can accurately project needs and possibly come back next year with a much more viable alternative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on page 99? We have a graph on page 100. That brings us to the end of the jail section for the four month peak season. Yes, Ms. Vasey. MS . VASEY: In actuality, what would it cost you to add that expansion out on Immokalee? The 65,000 is your average inventory cost per bed, but what would it really cost? CHIEF SMITH: Well, we were discussing that earlier, and you don't really have any site prep or land cost that would be associated with that expansion. So I think you back those out from that number. And the plumbing and electrical has all been stubbed out as well. You don't have to duplicate control rooms because it was built out anticipating an addition, and the administrative support staff needed is already in place as well. So I think you would come way off the 649 number. I can't tell you what it would actually be, but I would think it would be much reduced from that. Page 193 November 20, 2006 MS. VASEY: So it's conceivable that if you waited until the fifth year of the AUIR, you would have enough impact fee monies actually to pay for your requirement for this expansion? CHIEF SMITH: Well, that's probably a question best asked Ms. Patterson because I don't really know where we would stand in relation to those fees collected. MS. VASEY: Okay. The fees are in here according to her calculations in the five year AUIR. I was just trying to see if you actually would need any appropriated fund money if you waited until the fifth year, or whether you would, you know, prefer actual cost be able to fund it with your impact fee. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. And while I would think that is likely, I would just rather not make an assumption based on something I really don't understand to that degree. MS . VASEY: One last question. Why are you waiting until the fifth year of the AUIR ? You appear to be decisive before then. Is there any reason why you scheduled it again? MR. SCHMITT: We don't schedule capital projects for the sheriff. We just certify need and submit them to -- the request to the county commission and it's sent up to facility staff as well as the planning department to schedule those. MS. VASEY: Maybe after you do your thing, we can find out from the people who scheduled it why it was done that way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can follow up on that now. Does anybody have an answer? Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN: I can weigh in on that. MR. BOSI: I can weigh in too. I mean, the one thing when we've had discussions with facilities as towards the timing of the new facilities, they have indicated that they would anticipate facilities coming on line at the time that the deficit starts to expose itself. But they are really banking and waiting upon the numbers that are going to Page 194 ~,~,~___,___,.~_,'h__.'_'" ..~ .." ~_..._,_,_;",~...._...._.....",.~._" November 20, 2006 be generated by the jail master plan study, which Mr. Cohen had indicated is due for completion in the next couple months. And based upon that, the strategic outlay for the timing would be a little bit more defined. And that's in this AUIR they haven't quite identified it. They pushed it out towards the end of that five year planning period. CHIEF SMITH: I'll attempt to build on that response. What the jail master plan is going to try to do for you us is gauge how much more effectively and efficiently the court system is going to run with the increase in judges and initiative that the public safety coordinating council has instituted to push cases more rapidly through the court system. I think we've had any number of discussions over the years that the number of jail beds needed is a direct relationship to how fast or how slowly people go through the court system. Because jails are only local temporary holdings. Once they're found guilty, then they're either off to the state system or they're let go. So I think that what we would do by getting that report, hopefully some of those initiatives have taken hold. And I can tell you now that preliminary data kind of supports that we're moving in the right direction in that regard. It's not going to solve all of the problems, but I think that, you know, hopefully we'll be in a position where we can come back and even request a reduction in the LOS for jail beds if some of those initiatives that have been explored are instituted and held fast for two or three years out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't our job though to not approve things that are deficient? This is obviously a chart showing deficiency. Should they go back and present something that shows -- I mean, what they're saying is the jail study is going to save the day, but as the Planning Commission, is this something we should endorse? Obviously maybe it will be fixed in a couple years, but it takes -- I'm sure it takes two, three years to design and build ajail. So if you're going to pull yourself out, you can barely do it from today, based on Page 195 November 20, 2006 this chart. So is this chart showing a deficiency, or is this chart just a place holder till the jail study comes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi's master plan I think is going to factor into that. Do we have any better information how the master plan is going to address the deficiency? MR. BOSI: Other than when and where and the cost of timing of the facilities, I think Chief Smith had indicated that it directly has a direct correlation to the deficiency if there are findings in the preliminary data or it seems to support this, that the processing of the inmate population has been accelerated by some of the recent moves within the judicial system. That the expected number of beds required or the tenure of the state within the facilities would be shortened and therefore it could decrease the deficiency. But the point is taken, there is still a deficiency in whether there are improvements, or whether there are improvements enough to tackle that deficiency, it's still unknown. We still have to wait for that study. What this document is saying, and it's saying to the Board of County Commissioners, there is a revenue deficit. If we want to maintain this level of service, we're going to have to find additional funds or we're going to have to lower the level of service. MR. BENNETT: What's the holding time now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's Mr. Bennett. MR. BENNETT: In the jail? A year still? CHIEF SMITH: Well, that's the maximum length of time that someone in the county jail can be sentenced to. But what we're finding and, of course, Mr. Bennett, you've been present when these discussions have been held to, that the average person stays in jail about six hours. But once you go past the first appearance hearing, then the average length of stay time is about 28 days. Through some of these initiatives, we've seen that drop back to somewhere between 20 to 21 days. That's almost one-third the reduction. MR. BENNETT: Good. Page 196 November 20, 2006 CHIEF SMITH: We're very hopeful that those initiatives in the discussions we've had that led to getting more judges assigned to Collier County are going to have a direct bearing on that. MR. BENNETT: Got to send them somewhere else. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. Nonetheless it does indicate that all factors relative today, you know, and just what we know, then we're going to run into a deficit in about three years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. There's nothing in the stuff that I read that really alludes to that study. So is the intent of that study to drop the beds per thousand population? I mean, obviously the intent is, because of the timing, isn't to build another jail. So what you're hoping for either we reduce the beds per population, or we reduce the population, I guess. But how do you expect to get rid of this deficiency? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, Brad, I understand your question myself. I didn't dwell on the answer because I want to see what the true population numbers are before I spend too much time. That's where I was going. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The population reducing would solve it also, but. Okay. CHIEF SMITH: For instance, last year we changed from a 2.4 to a 3.2 LOS. Based on what our experience was regarding the population that we were housing at the jail, ifby the initiatives we're able to successfully reduce that and the reduction then becomes a new experience and that we can, you know, count on that being traditional, then we can come before you and suggest that we go from a 3.2 LOS back down somewhat between 2.4 and 3.2. That's action in and of itself would raise the deficit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have to take a short break to allow the court reporters to switch out. It's 4:30. So we'll take a ten minute break. Before we do, Michael, for the rest of the productivity Page 197 November 20, 2006 committee, I think we should just wrap up the county parks, county jail and law enforcement today and we'll continue with the remaining item on the 29th as we have previously planned. So that will at least prepare you for your other member. We'll take a ten minute break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We left off on page 106 and 107. Before we go there, I want to make sure Miss Vasey and Mr. Schiffer got their questions answered as far as they could be today. MS . VASEY: The ones that I had a chance to ask, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VASEY: But I have more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There'll be plenty of time for them all. Brad. MR. SCHIFFER: And mine is -- I mean, I wouldn't approve this chart, but we're expecting a chart that doesn't show that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, last year we did approve a chart worse than that. MR. SCHIFFER: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you want to look about standards being set, you can look at last year's and-- MR. SCHIFFER: Well, maybe I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There it is. It's flat lined even worse, so MR. SCHIFFER: Maybe I voted against it last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move through the pages if that works for everyone still. And we're on page 106. That's the summary page we previously talked about. Page 107. And, Chief, this one's really interesting because this is about your costs. You are the only department other than Gene's structures that did not have a cost from last year increase. Your -- the table you gave us last year, item per item, factor for factor is the same table that we have this year, and I'm just wondering if you really intended it to be that way or if someone just pasted another table in here to give us something to fill Page 198 November 20, 2006 the pages with today. CHIEF SMITH: Just give me a second to consult with staff. Okay. Where are -- where are you getting that from, Mr. Stain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year you produced a AUIR document. I have it right here. It's the same table that you have on page 107. You took off the last column but, basically, left everything else. I'm wondering has your -- have your costs truly not changed from last year? CHIEF SMITH: Oh, the cost per inmate per day? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You added three columns to the end of this year's table. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The rest of the table's the same. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to get to -- your previous cost per inmate was 7.88, the same number in 88. Did you mean to have a different number here this year? I guess that's the bottom line. CHIEF SMITH: No, that's -- that's the cost as it broke down that I submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: And what we do to get that is you take the -- the inmates currently residing in the jail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. CHIEF SMITH: Or inmates in inventory, I suppose, and you -- you divide the operational cost of the jail by that number. So as your inmate population goes up your cost is going to go down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're in pretty good shape then. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Sort of a volume business. CHIEF SMITH: Well, it -- you know, it's no different than -- than, say -- this is a terrible analogy, but it's kind of like hotels. It doesn't cost any more to keep the lights on, so as you add residents then, you know, you increase the profit margin. So, yes, as inmates Page 199 November 20, 2006 keep coming in your -- your costs are going to decrease because it doesn't cost any more for the deputy that you have watching them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's an interesting philosophy. Miss Vasey, did you have some questions you wanted to finish up? Because that's the last page of the section so ... MS. VASEY: Yes, I have a question on that page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MS. VASEY: On the second-to-Iast column -- or third-to-Iast column, you only go down part way through FY '06. Do you have the rest of those numbers so that we can figure out what an average is? CHIEF SMITH: Yeah, we can get those for you. We didn't have them at the time of publication. MS. VASEY: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: We run about -- about two months behind. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Yeah, in light of -- the concern was for the previous questions about reducing costs. In light of the possibility that the new judges being here and we're shortening the time that the people are here, do you think it would be prudent to look and take that into consideration, or do you just want to go with the numbers that you have? CHIEF SMITH: Well, I think we have to go with the numbers that we have just because that's our experience -- MR. MURRAY: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: -- and -- and just hope for the best when-- when we get the study identified and when it's published by the public safety coordinating council. I can tell you now that the judges have indicated a very high degree of receptibility to those suggestions and to those strategies that would decrease jail population. But -- but, again, I need to issue a caveat here as well that, you know, jail populations are also affected by enforcement trends, so if Page 200 November 20, 2006 the community standards changed in any regard then that would have a direct bearing as well on the jail population. F or instance, if we experience -- and I'll use some past history. When Collier County became very active in domestic violence, the issue of domestic violence, a state law was passed, and it made it mandatory that when an officer arrived at the scene of domestic violence that someone went to jail. That had a direct relationship on the jail population. When -- when we voted -- and properly so -- to support the 85 percent initiative or mandate -- the inmate would serve 85 percent of their jail sentence -- where before they could get out in as little as 68, that had a direct relationship on the jail population, so -- and those are things that aren't normally discussed and factored into this report as well. So, say, for instance, if -- if we decided as a country that we were going to harden our stance on illegal immigration, then I would suspect that that have -- would have a direct relationship on our jail population as well. MR. MURRAY: You could save a lot, yeah, get a lot of folks in there. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions left for the jail segment of the AUIR for today's meeting? Mr. Adelstein. MR. ADELSTEIN: It doesn't make much sense to me. Actual construction cost in 2006 dollars -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this is the jail section. This is law enforcement. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yeah, I know, but we're talking about -- it's a construction point. Nevermind. Go ahead. I'll pick it up when it comes around. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's -- we're -- Mr. Adelstein jumped a little bit ahead on page 109. Page 201 November 20, 2006 CHIEF SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on jails. Are there any other issues on jails for anyone? If not, we can move into law enforcement. Chief, did you have any opening comments you wanted to make? CHIEF SMITH: Not really. The bulk of this was supplied by the planning department, and what they -- what they used primarily was the report done by Tindale & Oliver in relation to the impact fee ordinance previously passed. Other than that, there have been some -- some projects that have been placed online by facilities and are moving forward with those. But I can attempt to question -- or answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions from the committee? It will be on page 109. Mr. Adelstein, there you go. MR. ADELSTEIN : Yeah, I just don't understand the statement: "Actual construction cost in 2006 doll -- 2006 dollars which resulted in a surplus of 8.2 officers." It doesn't make any sense to me either. MR. MURRAY: I think I remember that from last year when they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Yes, if I may. I think I remember it from last year. What they -- well, I don't want to speak for the chief, but it seems to me I remember that they had a formula that breaks everything down into an officer cost consisting of all of the capital equipment and all of the support that it relates to, and so I think that's what this is intended to show. MR. ADELSTEIN: Which results in a surplus of 8.2 officers. MR. MURRAY: Yeah. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. MR. MURRA Y: The chief should answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Smith -- Chief Smith, do you want to take a stab at that if you understand the question? Page 202 November 20, 2006 CHIEF SMITH: I -- I would defer to the planning department. MR. BOSI: That simply says at the end that -- at the end of the five-year capital improvement program that the resulting surplus is going to be an 8.2 per -- 8.2 unit or -- unit or officer surplus. That -- that simply -- the footnote's saying that the actual construction costs are utilizing two -- 2006 actual cont -- construction cost numbers to derive the cost of the proposed capital improvement project, that the result of all the officers that are -- that will be added based upon that mon -- that -- that number, that -- that dollar figure will result in a surplus of 8.2 officers. MR. ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on page 109. Miss Vasey. MS. VASEY: I couldn't find an expenditure for debt service on the EOC. Is that -- is that something wrapped up in something else? I find the -- the bond proceeds for fleet management in the EOC, and I find the -- under expenditures the anticipated loan payments for fleet, special ops, and Orange Tree, but I don't see anything on the EOC. When you have the bond proceeds, it seems like you should have the CHIEF SMITH: Again, that -- that information's supplied by the county. We don't have any input in that regard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi, who did that one for the county? MR. BOSI: That was myself and Miss Beth Yang. We went through the coordination between the facilities, the sheriffs department, and the office of management and budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They basically supplied the -- some raw data, and you guys incorporated it into this document? MR. BOSI: Into the -- to format it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because Miss Vasey's point is absolutely correct. There's -- there certainly is a disconnect between Page 203 November 20, 2006 the way the revenues are listed and the expenditures are. MR. BOSI: And that's a question, unfort -- I -- I will have to come back to because we will have to coordinate through the office of management and budget. They -- they're the ones who provide the financial snapshot for each individual department, so the specifics of why that's not showing up I couldn't -- I couldn't address, but I will address it the next time you get together. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. Also, we -- we need to coordinate that item, also, with government buildings as well, too, in dealing with that particular public facility. So we'll -- we'll tie all those -- all those parts together. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else? While we're on that page in the revenues -- and I know you're going to address these, but while you're looking at it you might want to -- you have a -- the second-to-the-Iast line above total revenues, the anticipated loan for the sheriffs ops building and Orange Tree substation, 20 million. In the same section, the revenue section further up, you have sheriff funding of the special operations building, 11 million, then in impact fees anticipated for loan payments, fleet and Orange Tree substation, 2 million. Is it 20 million on top of those loans from the sheriffs department -- or the funding from the sheriffs department, or is the 20 million supposed to supplement that in regards -- like, pay it back, or how's that to work? You have a total of 33 million just about going to those two items, specials ops building and Orange Tree substation. Is that the budget intent? MR. COHEN: Commissioner Strain, those numbers were provided by office of management and budget, and we'll have to check with them to find out the exact financial rationale behind those particular numbers, and we'll get back with you on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 204 November 20, 2006 MR. COHEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One more. The third item down, impact fees anticipated for the AUIR. You have other listings of impact fees. Is this one that you're going to get back to us with an answer on? Because I -- I don't under -- I don't know why that's separated out. What does it mean? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's also the surplus. MS. VASEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I notice -- well, let's just strike the line and strike the surplus, and we're back to zero. That's where I was going next. I-- MR. ADELSTEIN: Good thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if 109 -- we're -- we're kind of lost on answers on 109 and I'm assuming 110 because that's a footnote, and we're looking at the -- page 111. We have a law enforcement chart there. Does anybody have any comments about the chart? I notice the sheriffs administration is suggesting that the delay of the 27 million showing up occur. Is that what -- staffs not supporting that footnote double asterisk? Or is that a delay -- or I should sayan advance? What is it that you're trying to get by that double-asterisk footnote? MR. BOSI: The preliminary data that was provided to us for the sheriffs department had -- had the administration building completed in the 2010, two thousand -- the end of the -- the fifth year of this first five-year planning period. There wasn't a deficit at that period of time, so through coordinations with the sheriffs department, facilities, and the planning staffwe made the decision to push it out to the first year of the second five-year period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That is in agreement with the sheriffs department as to the need, timing? CHIEF SMITH: I think we acquiesced, truth be known. Page 205 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked the question. Okay. Acquiesced under pressure. Miss Vasey. MS. VASEY: It seems like you're getting an awful lot of new buildings with the EOC, your share of that, with the special ops, the Orange Tree substation. Do you really need a new admin building? Because it seems like when people move into some of these new buildings that ought to create space for you where -- where they used to work. Why are you needing a new building? CHIEF SMITH: In discussions with the county manager, he thought that he would like to see a new admin center built here because of -- the location of our current space on Horseshoe Drive is advantageous for the county to possibly move in once that's vacated because it's close to their developmental services building. MS . VASEY: So this would just be moving the property -- moving people that are in a currently owned building or a leased building? CHIEF SMITH: No, currently owned. The county owns the building. MS. VASEY: Well, won't you get some revenue from that if you -- not you, but, I mean, transaction-wise if you leave a building that you're in and now that you're in a -- you're -- you're in a new building, it seems like there ought to be some credit somewhere, wouldn't there? CHIEF SMITH: I would assume so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. VASEY: Somebody else is going to move into the old building of the county, I would assume, so where is the tradeoff? MR. BOSI: Well, I believe that would probably be an additional revenue stream, but until, I think, that there's more solid plans for when and when -- MS. VASEY: Oh. MR. BOSI: -- the timing and the costs associated with that Page 206 November 20, 2006 transaction -- at that point in time, when that would become known, it would show up in future A UIRs as an additional revenue stream that would go to offset the cost of the construction of the new facility that -- that would be planned that would -- for the first of the second-year period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: Let me take a little bit of a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't you want to show that-- wouldn't you want to show that up in the AUIR planning for the second five-year period of the -- under the government buildings? MR. BOSI: I guess if you knew -- if you had an anticipation of what that revenue was and if there was a identifiable figure, I think you probably would do that, but because it's in the -- in the second of the five-year -- second of the five-year planning period that in -- without the exact figures of what that -- that revenue would be, we have pushed that -- pushed that off and haven't identified it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you keep referring to it as revenue, and Miss -- Miss Vasey's point is well taken because you're going to create a $27 million impact by vacating another building and moving into this complex. The square footage of the other building should be accountable in the -- in the like future somewhere. When it's vacated some agency is going to pick up the square footage of that vacant land over there, and that's going to go on their books instead of the sheriffs books. I think that's what you were trying to get at, wasn't 't? I . MS . VASEY: Right. It makes a -- it makes a very odd perception. Maybe just a footnote there that says that there will be some revenue, something applied in some way describing the situation because when you look at it -- the question I got out of it was you're getting all these extra space; why do you need more? Well, he doesn't need more. He's -- he just needs different, so it seems like that should be made clear somewhere. Page 207 November 20, 2006 CHIEF SMITH: Well, we -- we do need more. The square footage -- yeah, I know. I could have took (sic) the easy way out and just remained silent. No, but -- but, no, we do need more square footage, and -- and the size of the projects are going to yield additional square footage for the sheriff. But it's an important point to make because if you do include the new admin building in this AUIR then your point's well taken that there -- there should be some identified surplus if -- if it is the intent that we vacate that building. So far those have been some of the discussions. MR. COHEN: Commissioner Strain, I think Miss Patterson could weigh in on the facility type and how the allocation would occur if the sheriff s department was to vacate that building. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy -- Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm -- I'm over here. The way that this works on any of these types of facilities when there is a transfer from one public facility to another is it's addressed in -- on the inventory for the particular public facility. So if it starts out as a law enforcement building and then becomes something else, a general government building, it will be removed from the law enforcement inventory and moved onto whichever public facility it's going to become, and it would end up on their inventory, and so that would be -- but that would be determined at the time once they vacated and they decide who's going to go into that building because it's currently owned. It's not -- it's not a leased building or anything like that. It is a current -- it is a current asset. It would just have to be determined where the appropriate inventory is for it to -- to go to. MR. COHEN: And I know one other point that is under consideration by the sheriffs department also -- and, Chief, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you have some operations in that particular facility that you may not want to relocate from there that's still in the discussion phase if I'm correct. Page 208 November 20, 2006 CHIEF SMITH: Correct. Correct. We're -- we're a long way from a solid plan. There's just been very preliminary discussions. The admin building has been on -- in the works for probably three years now. It's identified in the campus-wide master plan, so that -- that is solid. One day they will build that, but we are -- we're still in development of how -- what our need will be and if we will vacate that whole building or half of it or just exactly what. So we are going to be giving up some space if -- if that does come on line. In regards to Orange Tree, you know, with the growth out there, we -- we desperately need a substation. Right now we are occupying a -- a double-wide trailer that the sheriff purchased out of -- out of his budget and that the school system was very gracious enough to let us stick on the corner of one of their properties because the population growth in that community could not wait for the county to bring a building on line. We -- we just had to move quicker than that. And -- and then as some of the budget talks developed a couple of years ago we decided that, you know, that -- that's not a bad situation temporarily, so when we had discussions about going ahead and building a permanent Orange Tree substation we were able to delay that a couple of years in order to get the special operations facility underway, so that's kind of the -- the -- the agreement that was reached, that we would -- we would delay -- we would maintain where we were at in the -- in the trailer at the Orange Tree community so that we could get the special operations center built, which the sheriff has been funding through his turnback each year, and then we would also look to go into the EOC as a partial tenant of that building, the com center and East Naples substation. Again, it's all growth directed. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, where do you include the officers in Marco Island and the City of Naples in your calculation for available inventory? CHIEF SMITH: I'm not really sure how many we have on Page 209 November 20, 2006 Marco at the current moment. How many do we have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I mean, how many -- Marco Island has their own police force. So does City of Naples. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are their officers? Not the sheriffs deputies there. I mean the city officers there of each city. CHIEF SMITH: I don't think they're reflected in this number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then on your table on page 111 you reflect a population countywide. If the population in the cities are covered by their own city police forces, wouldn't that population countywide be reduced to the population unincorporated? Well, maybe you're not the right person to answer that because I know you -- you supplied -- you supplied the data but not the -- CHIEF SMITH: It's an intriguing question, I'll give you that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've been asking that kind of question all day. Back to the population again. Mr. Bosi or somebody want to venture a-- MR. BOSI: The only thing I can say is it would make -- it would seem like the utilization of the countywide population without discounting or -- or factoring out the population of the municipalities that provide their own policing services would -- would be an error on our part, and I think that the -- the utilization of the unincorporated countywide population might be the best approach. I'm not sure if -- if that is a satisfactory answer, but that's only -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, you're -- you're just where I thought you should be. Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I -- we -- the East Naples civic recently had the sheriffs office come in and show us a presentation on a new sectoring operation, and one of the questions that was asked was do you folks go over to Marco Island or to the city, and the answer was, yes, they do. They still get calls, and they still go Page 210 November 20, 2006 to those locations. Now, the impact, the dollars we're talking about, may -- may not be as significant. But just to make it clear -- and it -- it was stated that -- that, in fact, they do go to aid and they do go in response to calls, direct calls. So how meaningful that is I couldn't say, but at least it needs to be said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I wouldn't doubt they go to anywhere they're called, but, I mean, if their basis for their existence is countywide then we need to include officers countywide; that's all I'm getting at. CHIEF SMITH: Commissioner Strain, if -- if I could, it is an intriguing question and one that we're -- we're asked all the time, and while we do not routinely patrol those streets there are elements within the sheriffs office that -- that do have a routine function inside the incorporated areas such as warrant service, such as -- such as civil process service, and -- and then there are any number of times when we're called on for mutual aid. And -- and I would -- would be in agreement with the previous statement, that, you know, that's not that often, but we do supply technical assistance on complex investigations. We supply school resource officers that work in -- in the incorporated areas from time to time. Crime prevention also goes into the incorporated areas from time to time. So -- so there are some services that we do provide on a countywide basis, not just to the unincorporated area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think this goes to somewhat maybe Mrs. -- Miss Vasey's statement earlier about the 270 per capita for parks using -- across the board. You're using 146,541 capita cost per police officer when I think, based on what I've just heard, the police officers that go to the incorporated areas go there rarely versus their -- or not as frequently as the police officers that are generated through the unincorporated areas, so may be there needs to be some kind of factored adjustment there. Page 211 November 20, 2006 It certainly seems unfair to allocate that kind of cost for the population that it serves at such a lighter level of service, so I think that's something somebody ought to look at before we get this back together again. So anyway -- MR. BOSI: Meaning would -- would -- I mean, maybe I'd suggest that that may be a recommendation that you would -- you would forward on to the Board of County Commissioners as how -- how we approach the -- the A UIR purpose for law enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you certainly can forward recommendations. We know how those fly. MR. BOSI: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions or comments on law enforcement? Basically, we're on the table on 111 and the graph on page 112. Yes, Miss Vasey. MS. VASEY: On page 112 you show when your new facilities are coming in. Well, I couldn't find the special operations building. CHIEF SMITH: It's -- it's right there, fiscal year 07/08. MS. VASEY: Sheriffs operations, Orange Tree, and emergency . serVIces. CHIEF SMITH: Sheriffs airport operations, Orange Tree substation, and emergency services center. The airport operations and special operations is the same building. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. CHIEF SMITH: I'm sorry. MS. VASEY: I'm sorry. I didn't know that. CHIEF SMITH: No. No. That's not your fault; that's mine. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on the law enforcement for pages -- through pages 112? The six-month issue is discussed from page 113 to 116. Then we have a map on page 117, which we can have any questions. And 118 and 119 is the capital Page 212 November 20, 2006 expansion projects listing and the leasing facilities. Are there any questions that remain of the law enforcement element? MR. MURRAY: Interesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: On that map it indicates a Marco sheriffs substation. CHIEF SMITH: We do maintain a building on Marco. MR. BENNETT: Yeah, there's always been one. MR. MURRAY: So you have a presence there, in fact? CHIEF SMITH: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions or comments or statements concerning -- Mr. Tuff? MR. TUFF: This last year the sheriffs building on Horseshoe was taken out -- said it was going to be taken out over here, and I would assume it was put over there, but I don't have my -- it was on last year's instead of -- I have just a handwritten note that said this is going to come out and go into county government buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. It looks like they're delaying that removal by a few years. MR. TUFF: Yeah. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're looking at 2011 now. Okay. No other questions? Chief, thank you very much. CHIEF SMITH: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume then that the consensus of this board is to wait and come back with this at the final meeting and see where we can go at that time. MR. ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think that wraps up all we can expect to accomplish today without getting into areas that would require more people to attend for the remaining 20 minutes, so at this point I assume then -- well, this meeting will be continued until the 29th at 8:30 in the morning in this chamber room. Page 213 November 20, 2006 MR. ADELSTEIN: Are you serving breakfast? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? No. The issues that we'll be discussing then will be the library, EMS, governmental building, and dependent fire control districts, and anything else that opens up between now and then. And, Mr. Bosi, because the productivity committee has split this up into subcommittees, if there are other issues coming back for that date, I certainly would like to give them the opportunity to know ahead of time so they know to be prepared to be there, okay? MR. BOSI: I would coordinate -- coordinate with Mike Sheffield. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, I guess the meeting will be adjourned and continued until-- it will be continued until the 29th at 8:30 in the morning. MR. SCHMITT: Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, you do have the 30th this room scheduled as well and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't-- MR. SCHMITT: It depends on how you want to carry this over and if you just want to deal with the remainder of these issues and wait for the 30th to go through the entire document again based on-- on -- what you are asking for us to do is look at the population projections, or do you want to try and accomplish that on the 29th as well? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see a meeting on the 30th if we've got the whole day on the 29th. But is your staff going to have something to respond to in regards to the population? MR. SCHMITT: I -- I don't anticipate much of a change in the population other than evaluating the methodology . We've been through this. I -- I don't know how many more times I can express the issue here is we're going to look at the seasonal population. We'll come back and validate, basically, what we're doing with the seasonal population. We'll come back and talk about how the BEBR estimates Page 214 November 20, 2006 the population using the medium and high. We'll validate if they do, in fact, take out the number of dwelling units that they believe are not occupied during a period of time. Other than that, I'm not sure what else you're looking for. Have you -- are you actually looking for a complete redo of this entire document based on what you believe we should be doing as re-evaluating the population? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, we asked specific questions today. We were given specific answers that basically admitted they didn't -- you didn't have answers to the population issue. One was involving the vacancy, whether -- how it is in the census, the basis for the BEBR and the -- how the vacancy numbers were or were not extracted from our population numbers. In reviewing some of these items that we also went through today, the last one, for example, we're using a full county population statistic when we maybe should only be using the incorporated statistic. I think we showed that-- MR. SCHMITT: But, again, that is a recommendation of this panel. We've been using that for the last eight years on the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even if it's admitted that there-- some of these issues have not been looked into or they are maybe in error you're not going to change them. You're just telling us it is what it is, and we've got to live with it. MR. SCHMITT: Well, no, I'm not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's -- if that's the statement from staff, then I just want to get it clear because -- MR. SCHMITT: I'm not -- I'm not saying you have to live with it. You certainly have the -- the authority to -- to make a recommendation. I'm not sure -- what are you looking for as far as population numbers? That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get to the -- the real number, and if you -- if you're satisfied that these are the real numbers Page 215 November 20, 2006 and you're not going to change them based on comments and discussion, then I guess we'll live with it, but I'm just surprised that staff didn't want that assistance and look to do a complete and accurate portfolio for this county to move forward, one -- instead of one where you're just going to dig your heels in because that's that. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, for the record, Randy Cohen. Myself, Mr. Bosi, and Mr. Weeks will be meeting tomorrow morning. The topic of that discussion will be, obviously, your request for us to do a more in-depth analysis of the B -- of the BEBR numbers. We will come back to you with a full analysis of what the Bureau of Economic and Business Research does with respect to the vacant housing units. We'll also take a look at the other housing issue that you -- population issues that you raised today. And I would anticipate that we will probably provide an e-mail to the productivity committee and the CCPC detailing what we will be providing to you prior to that meeting on the 29th. MR. SCHMITT: And I'll add that that analysis will do a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the current population projection we're using now, look at if there are any changes, and evaluate through a sensitivity analysis how much of an impact that will have on these various areas that we're looking at. A 10 percent change may only be a 1 or 2 percent change when you're looking at the impact it has on the projections, whether it's water, libraries, or whatever you're looking at, and we will do that. I -- what I'm trying to explain is -- is if it's that -- I won't call it insignificant, but if it -- if -- if it's that kind of an impact, I would recommend that it's best that we understand where we are and then move forward to next year's AUIR to make the needed adjustments based on what the DCA tells us in regards to how they want us to do population projections. So we'll be prepared to discuss all that when we come back next week. Page 216 November 20, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Miss Student, do we need a motion to continue this until the 29th? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue this meeting to the 29th? MR. ADELSTEIN: So moved. MR. MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Murray. All those in favor signify by saying "aye." MR. BENNETT: Aye. MR. VAN FLEET: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. MR. ADELSTEIN: Aye. MR. VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MR. TUFF: Aye. MR. SCHIFFER: Aye. MR. MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. We'll see you-all on the 29th at 8:30. ***** There being no further business for the good of the county, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:15 p.m. Page 217 --'----."-.-~--.".-,..,..'",-----.~-'~'~.,,&'__>_,_'__~._~___O,M"'_'"."".,..."......__ November 20, 2006 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Rose Witt, Danielle Ahren and Karen Blockburger. Page 218