Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/29/2006 AUIR November 29, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 29,2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Larry Baytos Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Robert Murray Janet Vasey Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Steve Harrison, Collier County Productivity Committee Page 1 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 8:30. If everybody could rise for the Pledge of Allegiance, please. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. And welcome back to a continuation of the annual update inventory report for 2006, otherwise known as the AUIR. First matter of business today is the roll call for those members in attendance. Ms. Caron, if you could do that for the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain is here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney, Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Tuff are absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Adelstein. I knew I was going to miss at least one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have from the Productivity Committee, Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a quorum for the Planning Commission, so we're going to be able to make Page 2 November 29, 2006 recommendations today by motion. It's my understanding that the Productivity Sub-committee that's here today will weigh in on the issues they're here for, and we will go through the other issues as the day progresses. We will start today where we left off last time. I think the first one would be libraries. Once we finish the balance of the first review of this AUIR, we're going to go back and respond to staffs responses to us from our last meeting, which will begin with drainage. Transportation was finalized at the last meeting. Some general rules that we need to keep in mind. This is being recorded by a court recorder. And Kady is desperately over in the other room trying to move these cameras around when each one of us speaks, so it's important that we speak slowly so the minutes can be taken accurately and that each person be recognized in order to speak, and that we don't talk over one another. The objective today will be to get through the AUIR and put forward as many recommendations as we can. There are going to be circumstances where we and staff may not agree. At that point I would like staff to tell us how they would prefer to go forward, whether it be with a recommendation of denial, or a not positive recommendation, or whether or not there's a possibility of coming back with some corrected information in the near future on other dates that we already have possibly scheduled. I also had hoped for today we would have a clarification to the population issue, because that has a -- that is a main driving force in this document. I've been told that Mr.Weeks may not be here today. If he gets here, we will have that discussion, I hope. If he doesn't, we'll just have to see how the day proceeds. With that, Mr. Bosi, I guess we'll turn it over to you. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Strain. To begin this morning's proceedings, Amanda Townsend will be presenting the Page 3 November 29, 2006 library's portion of the AUIR, which is a Category B facility. MS. TOWNSEND: Good morning, commission members and committee members. I'm Amanda Townsend, Operations Analyst with the Public Services Division. The 2006 AUIR for libraries looks at two adopted levels of service in Category B, those being square foot of library building per population and library collection for population. I'm guessing that we want to talk about them each individually? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. TOWNSEND: Looking at square foot per population, the level of service standard is .33 square foot per capita. We're using a unit cost of $343.50 a square foot. That is the unit cost that is adopted in the current library impact fee study. In general, we are proposing three projects in the five-year window, those being an addition to the Marco Island library, the South County Regional library , an addition to the current Golden Gate library . Upon completion of those three projects, your level of service for libraries will be satisfied through 2014. It is important to note that the Marco Island proj ect will be funded entirely through donations. The other two will be funded through impact fees. We do not know those hard proj ect costs at the time, which is why you see the unit costs based on the square foot cost in the impact fee study. We are expecting that those projects may come in higher. We are also expecting to finance those proj ects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on the library buildings from the committee members? Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: Yes, I have some questions regarding the usage. I have some charts here based on some data that came out of the librarian's office during the impact fee studies. Page 4 November 29,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the overhead work so that the public can see what we're talking about? Maybe we have an extra copy we could put on the overhead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whose document is this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to find out. MR. BA YTOS: The -- during the discussions on the impact fees, we got into a little bit of the issue of changing use of libraries as the internet boom grows and reading habits change and whatever the issues are that are driving changes in library usage. So rather than just look at population growth, which as you see during the six-year period there, the population increased about 33 percent in Collier County compared with the base year of 2000. However, the door count, that's how many people are coming through the library doors, really has increased much less than that during that time period. Basically then what you get to is the bottom line there is the annual business per person indicating less reliance on libraries as a source of information, reading, entertainment or what have you. My suggestion is that this information be considered as part of the library planning, rather than just taking the population projections, which will result in, I believe, overbuilding of libraries and overbuying of books relative to the actual usage of these items by county citizens. I'm all for big libraries and I think we have some great ones. But as I look at the building program, to me it ignores the issue of technology and changes in the use in the population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does staff want to respond to that? MS. TOWNSEND: When we get to talking about library collections, we're going to talk about that, changes in technology, and talk about some different ways that we can measure collections to perhaps capture some of those trends that you're seeing here. We don't have at this time I think a case for a strong relationship between the square footage of a library and the changing in Page 5 November 29,2006 technological trends. MR. BAYTOS: Well, I would think the two would be linked. If you have fewer people using libraries, seems to me that would scale back the number of square feet that you need to serve the population and presumably the size of the collection as well. As I look at the size of some of these proposed libraries, they're really huge. MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, I'm the Library Director. I'm a little surprised at your chart. From memory, we had about a 1,500,000 visitors in '05. In the '06 fiscal year that just concluded, we had about 1.7 million visitors. A lot of factors influence the number of people who come to our libraries. I'm actually a little bit surprised that we went up in visitors, door counts, in fiscal '06. Libraries were closed in October last year for Hurricane Wilma. We also lost circulation as people evacuated early for the storm. And if you remember, the storm took a long time to come. All those kinds of factors make a difference in our door counts and in our circulation. We've also done some renovations of some facilities and we've removed collections from availability. And if you looked at the same time period for circulation, you might notice a drop, too. Currently, for example, at our Naples Regional Library on Central Avenue, we're doing a major carpeting renovation, and we packed up 70,000 nonfiction books and stored them. While they're out, obviously there's no circulation attached. As people come to the library and unfortunately are somewhat disappointed, even though we're trying to deliver books from other locations for them, they're certainly not checking out as many. There are really a lot of factors that affect circulation, door counts. We do an actual door count also. It's not an estimated door count. Some libraries do an estimated one. But we have door Page 6 November 29, 2006 counters that are read daily and the information is collected and then reported on yearly. So we do feel it's fairly accurate. But there just really are a lot of factors affecting the number of people who come to libraries. Many of our -- more visitors, are they coming electronically? Sure. A lot of people are coming electronically. And we're trying to provide ways that they can get content electronically as well as by visiting us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have those door counts available so that this commission could see copies of them? MS. MATTHES: I don't, but I can provide that, sure. MR. BA YTOS: Just to clarify. The chart is based on data that I believe you gave the Productivity Committee this previous summer. We did not, obviously, have the 2006 data -- MS. MATTHES: Right. MR. BA YTOS: -- so we could have added that. But that's the data that we were given, so it is what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be helpful to the rest of us to get that same data so that we can see it. MS. MATTHES: Certainly. I can do it for the fiscal year '06, comparing it to fiscal 2000 to 2006. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, a statement made earlier, your square footage is based upon population, on door count, right? MS. MATTHES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your .33 square foot per capita. MS. MATTHES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are population-based. MS. MATTHES: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And so if you have a change in door count, regardless -- and visitor count, it's not going to have any affect on your requirements for square footage, because you've geared it all around population. Page 7 November 29, 2006 MS. MATTHES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. Ms. Vasey and Mr. Harrison. MS. VASEY: I think that's where we're going with it, we want to see if maybe that is an incorrect or perhaps not a totally representative measure of level of service standard to be used in the future. Maybe there are other things that could be used to kind of capture some of the other work that you do, but it may not need to be so much square footage, it may -- if people aren't actually coming to the library, you still need to support the population, but in other ways, and that could affect your capital building program. So is there a possibility you could study the issue and see if maybe there is a more representative level of service standard? MS. MATTHES: Certainly. We've been talking internally about changes, obviously, in technology and in the library world and how we can continue to provide service to our customers. Some of the ways are, frankly, going to be electronic. We're starting some new initiatives shortly. Probably in January you're going to see some downloadable audio books where you need to make one visit to us to sign up for the program, and then after that you can download audio books to your home. And CDs and audio-book cassettes have been very popular at libraries. Not -- their popularity has really increased greatly since the impact fee ordinance for libraries was implemented in the late '90's, or early '90's, I'm not sure exactly when it was implemented. There are other ways, other services that libraries are expected to do that maybe aren't necessarily square footage driven, yet we find ourselves having to -- having trouble actually holding all of our collections that we're supposed to have according to the AUIR and impact fees on shelves. We don't have the physical space to hold that. A really good example is our reference books. And it relates to Page 8 November 29, 2006 the cost per book. Our book cost is about $25. If there were no technology, that book cost probably would have gone up to 75 to $100 each. Why has it remained pretty much at $25? Because we don't buy as many of the expensive very reference books that we used to. We've had whole series of books that we really no longer need because we have access to them online. So there's a huge change in libraries because of technology. We're trying to address that, and certainly some of your thoughts are of value that we need to really consider for the type of standards that we use in the future. I think we're really on the cusp of change on a dramatic scale, and where libraries have not traditionally been at the forefront of change. We kind of let technology work itself out and then adopt it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison? MR. HARRISON: The demographics of who is using the libraries, do we have any idea what proportion are students? MS. MATTHES: This has really actually remained pretty much standard for the last 10 years. About 22 to 25 percent of our usage is by children, and for children's books. MR. HARRISON: We've raised the question collocation of facilities in the Productivity Committee. And I asked about the demographics because of the possibility of locating them on school grounds. MS. MATTHES: In the early '90's, we had some talks with the Everglades City school system. And the public down there, they wanted us to collocate in the school, or some of them did. Not everybody wanted that to happen. There are some social problems that have risen in recent years about who's welcome on school grounds, and sometimes the schools are more reluctant to have a public library there that's open to anybody and everybody. So I kind of see that trend diminishing a little bit with public schools. Page 9 November 29, 2006 We did have some talks with Edison College about collocating with Edison. They had very few resources to put into our South Regional library and had a lot of expectations of us, that we want to talk about financing. We have looked at those in some ways. MR. HARRISON: We made the same recommendation to the Sheriffs Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Excuse me, could you expand on what you had said about the library and the school is kind of concerned as to who comes to the library? MS. MATTHES: Ifa school and a public library are located together, a public library accepts anybody into the building. To get on school grounds now, you need to check with the office first. You need -- sometimes if you're working you need background checks. The whole issues of sexually -- sexual crimes. MS. RAMSEY: About two years ago -- Marla Ramsey, public service administrator. About two years ago or so, the Jennifer Lunsford Act came into effect at the school systems. And there's a lot more fingerprinting going on now to get access. There are a lot of security issues at the systems. And having a facility that's open to the public, it doesn't matter about who the public is, but just open to the public who doesn't have a reason to be on a school ground interacting with our children is a concern. It's a concern in what you're talking about here today as well at it is at some of the park facilities that we have and how they secure their facilities and allow people to come and go off those facilities. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. And if25 percent of the usage is for children, that means there's quite a few children in our libraries. Why wouldn't that hold true? MS. MATTHES: Well, the nature of public libraries is different. The Jessica Lunsford Act doesn't cover libraries, and the primary focus isn't children. Page 10 November 29, 2006 There are some discussion of -- staff-wise of the county of increasing background checks for those people and volunteers, staff and volunteers who work directly with children. But the general public, the purpose of a public library is to be open to anybody without question. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Well, we would encourage you to pursue, you know, how mechanically this might be accomplished, maybe with an independent building so that there's no compromising of the security of the school building or whatever. But we have the real estate, we have the parking lot, and that's where a quarter of the users are. It would seem like it's worth pursuing. MS. MATTHES: We'll certainly leave every option open. And if the opportunity arises, we'll certainly discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a couple of questions as well. Your required inventory went up last year -- from last year. Can you explain why? It went from 148,716 to 161,716. MS. TOWNSEND: It's a function of population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your proposed AUIR remain the same, 51,000. So population going up for one year, wouldn't it have increased the need for future years as it went up also? MS. TOWNSEND: The proposed work program satisfies the level of service requirement within the five-year window. In fact, it satisfies through 2014. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though you've increased your required inventory, the proposed A UIR inventory can remain the same MS. TOWNSEND: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's what you're saying. Page 11 November 29, 2006 Impact fees. Did you get an increase in impact fees last year? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know that the revenue stream you show here is less than what you showed last year? MS. TOWNSEND: No, I did not know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if your population increased, would then the population has to be housed in something, unless my argument about the housing holds true, and I think that you're helping me prove that, you should show an increase in impact fees not a decline. And I'm just wondering -- last year you showed impact fees at 10,597,405 with the caveat that you were going to anticipate additional fees beginning in early 2006 because of increases. Those increases did occur? MS. TOWNSEND: Those increases did occur. It takes a considerable amount of time to start to see them, because they're implemented and then you start to the receive money. There's a delay there. However, it's also important to remember that the impact fees; the full revenue stream is split amongst library buildings and library collection. So it could be, and I have not looked, but it could be that you'll see an increase in the impact fees on the collection side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Between last year's impact fees for the building side and this year's impact fees for the building side, do you know why they would be showing a decrease? MS. TOWNSEND: Probably because more money has been allocated to collections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Collections is the next segment? MS. TOWNSEND: Correct. MR. BOSI: Commissioner Strain, if you recall on the 20th, the transportation presentation, you can -- they indicated within three -- year three, four and five of this current five-year capital improvement Page 12 November 29, 2006 element, that they expected decreases, their impact fee revenue to decrease within the subsequent years of three, four and five. That may be that same -- that trend that showed a decrease within impact fees for transportation I think would be directly in proportionate relationship to the decrease in impact fees that libraries may be showing, and that may be the explanation as to why they are showing less of a revenue stream -- less of an increase than maybe you had anticipated based upon last year's revenue stream compared to this year's revenue stream. That would be my interpretation of why that possibly would be without another reasonable explanation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you under the understanding then that 50 percent of the library impact fees are paid at the time of COA like they are in transportation, and that was the reason transportation told us that most likely their impact fee revenues decreased because they're paid early when people come in the year to prior for their permitting? Is that happening in libraries? MR. BOSI: Not that I'm aware of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that your argument then holds a lot of weight. I would certainly would like a -- can you tell me to the page where we may be able to find this change in impact fees? MS. VASEY: 127. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 127? Your revenues last year for impact fees were 3,818,700 for that category. They went up less than a million dollars. So this year they decreased about the same in library buildings. But that means you've got no increase in impact fees figured, even though you got an increase after the AUIR was issued last year. Is that a true statement? MS. TOWNSEND: My quick math between last year's AUIR Page 13 November 29,2006 and this for impact fees for both collections and square footage shows an increase of about $500,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me add them up then. About 14.5 million this year. And you've got about -- well; my little calculator just isn't what it used to be. You've got 14.1 million this year. So with the population increases that we've had on that David's -- using in his statistics, your impact fees are increasing at a much lower rate. What is your explanation of that? MS. TOWNSEND: I do not have an explanation for that. MR. HARRISON: Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. HARRISON: Amy Patterson was in the room a few minutes ago, who was the administrator of all impact fees. Are you over there? Maybe you could shed some light. Is the collection point any different on the library impact fee than any of the others, or are they all up front? MS. PATTERSON: Hi. For the record, Amy Patterson, I'm the impact fee manager at Community Development and Environmental Services. The point of collection for library impact fees is issuance of the building permit. I missed -- I was out in the hall, so I missed the beginning part of this conversation, but I can tell you in actual numbers, library collections are up 3 percent from fiscal year '05 to fiscal year '06. What it's reflecting is only about two months of the impact fee increase that was adopted and put into effect of June 12th of this past fiscal year, June 12th of '06. So you're not going to see the full effect of that increase for many more months to come because you have -- it takes time for applied- for permits to actually be issued. Anything that was applied for prior to June 12th would be on the old fees. Anything after June 12th would be on the new fees. Page 14 November 29, 2006 But it's not just the application; you have to wait for that, for the review process, and for then those building permits to be issued. So we weren't going to see -- we found that between six and nine months out is when you start to see the full effect of that impact fee increase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just from an estimation (sic), did you know -- have you calculated what the expected revenue stream is on a per year basis from this increase in impact fees? Basically how much did they impact? How much did they increase from, to what? MS. PATTERSON: I do have those numbers. Not at my fingertips, but I have my laptop here so I could pull that up and have a look at it and let you know if you can just give me a couple of minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. We'll probably have other questions. I appreciate that. MS. PATTERSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of Amy before she digs into her laptop? MR. HARRISON: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Looking at the collection page, looking at the required collection, is this all media, whether it's print media, electronic media? It's all sorts of media? MS. TOWNSEND: Right now the collection figures come from both books and audio-books. Shall we finish with library buildings first and then move on to collection? Are we done --? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I still have one more question on library buildings. Mr. Baytos, go ahead with yours and I'll ask mine. MR. BA YTOS: My question is regarding the size of the two proposed libraries, 17,000 square feet in Golden Gate, 30,000 square feet at South Regional. What is the basis used to, you know, estimate the size required? Page 15 November 29,2006 I noticed 30,000 square feet, that's more than the Naples library. And I believe part of the Orangetree Library is about 15,000 square foot that's dedicated to the collection. And I just wondered what are the relative populations that lead you to go towards this proposed size? MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director. South Regional, we used an area of five or so miles around the library building and concluded it was -- the population that we were figuring on was about 90,000. And that worked out to about .33 square foot, you know, roughly per capita in that area. I also would like to note that we expect, obviously, the population in the southern part of the county to grow a lot, and we made plans to increase that building in -- sometime in the distant future by another 30,000 square feet to accommodate additional population in the area. But that's far beyond the 2015 date. We obviously have no firm plans, but the building was planned with the ability to add 30,000 square foot to that building. Golden Gate, we also took the population within the area of Golden Gate, and off the top of my head I don't remember what that population was. But we also tried to account for the way the building is used. F or example, we have a very nice library out in the Estates, but people who live west; significantly west of the Estates we find not using the Estates branch library. They come into town for other things, so they're often driving by the Golden Gate City library and that's their main library of use. So it was a combination of mostly population, but some recognition of actual usage patterns for that building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Last year you had a line item under revenues titled For Prior BCC Policy Directive Pertaining to the Golden Gate Library Project: $6.9 million. Page 16 November 29, 2006 What is the status of that in relationship to this year's AUIR? What was it, where did it go, how did you incorporate it, what's left of "t? 1 . MS. MATTHES: I'm sorry, I don't have that. Was it under buildings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. I have the page here, if it helps. MS. TOWNSEND: I'm sorry, just page number? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 80 of last year's AUIR. MS. MATTHES: We were anticipating -- we were anticipating an impact fee increase, and I think that 6.9 related to that anticipated impact fee increase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well then that's another question then. Last year, instead of that line item pertaining to the Golden Gate library project, as it seems to be on that line on Page 80, it really pertains to additional impact fee revenues you're expected to receive? MS. MATTHES: Frankly, I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because then where are those revenues? You show not that much of an increase in impact fees this year. MS. MATTHES: 6.9 do sort of match what we anticipate Golden Gate library costing, or what we did anticipate it costing then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I guess if you had it in last year's AUIR as a revenue stream and you put that forward to the public as a bona fide source of revenue, what happened to it? That's kind of where my question is. Whether it's an impact fee increase anticipated, which then it doesn't fit the impact fee revenues you're showing. MS. MATTHES: We think it's bonds, because we borrow money and pay it back with impact fees, so that probably was bonds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would like a better answer. Is Page 1 7 November 29, 2006 there a way you could research that and give us a better answer? That's a big number. And if it's kind of floating out there, it would sure be nice to grab it and put it where it belongs. MS. MATTHES: We'll check and let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to go back for a second. You had said the last library you did a five-mile radius and you took the population within that five-mile radius. MS. MATTHES: Five to seven for South Regional, yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do you do everyone five to seven or are you going to have circles inter -- overlap where you count the population twice? MS. MATTHES: We try not to count it twice. But we also know that people use a variety of libraries, they tend not to stick with a library. Some people -- usage patterns also dictate what we do. We know that people who live in the northern -- just south of U.S. 41 on 951, in that area, they're more likely to come into town and use the East Naples library currently. And we anticipate those people will be using the South Regional. They're much more likely to do that than go down, drive to Marco to use that library. We also know some people bypass a small library and go directly to a big library. It just -- South Regional is a regional library , Golden Gate is a community library, and the focus is slightly different. There's a large walking population within the Golden Gate area that already walks to that location. There's other people that, as I said, that they're coming in from the Estates area. They're not driving out further east to the Estates library, but they're driving in to the Golden Gate library. The regional library , five to seven miles is a good target population. A neighborhood library is generally much smaller, three to five miles. Page 18 November 29, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So the five to seven miles basically is an arbitrary best guess. MS. MATTHES: Right. And also, we're trying to use our automation system to actually capture the zip codes of people so that we know where they're coming from and what libraries they're using so we that can provide a more targeted service to those people. For example, many people in Immokalee don't use any other library. But we have a number of people who live in closer to 951 or Immokalee Road and the western part of the county that actually work in Immokalee, so that's their primary library. There are a lot of demographic variations of what we see. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, you know, some of the answers to the questions you've been asked, and I know you're going to be looking at things between now and some other point in the future, really lend an lot of credibility to Mr. Baytos' suggestion that we look at a different means of calculating library usage -- library needs than strict population. In fact, your population randomly of pulling people in isn't consistent with the population statistics; it's consistent with your knowledge of the use of the area. Door counts or something like that should, I think, severely be considered for libraries in regards to how they respond in the future. We're still on library buildings. Are there any remaining questions? Mr. Harrison, did you have a question on that? MR. HARRISON: I do. Recently I read in the press that our population is at or approaching 40 percent Hispanic. How does that figure into our plans for facilities, both location as well as the content that's there? MS. MATTHES: I'm trying to think. Ten years ago library staff did a three-year grant, probably more than 10 years ago, 12 years ago Page 19 November 29, 2006 we did a library services and technology grant, and we wrote it for a bilingual librarian in the Immokalee area. And that's when we started dedicating a person who was bilingual to that kind of service. But we all know that Spanish-speaking people are not limited to the Immokalee area. We have large numbers in the East Naples, visiting the East Naples library, also the Golden Gate library, and also in the Estates area library. We have staff -- we prefer to hire bilingual staff members when we can. And now we do have a number of people who speak Spanish, and a few Haitian, as well as English, and they're fluent in Spanish, not just get by Spanish. And we have collections that are targeted to the reader who would like to use materials in Spanish at all of our libraries. But where the population is more concentrated Hispanic we certainly have more materials appropriate to those populations. We've also started a literacy program that teaches tutors how to help people learn to speak English, as well as people to read in English who don't already read in English. And that's been as very positive program for the library and for the community. We do bilingual story hours for kids. MR. COHEN: Just for the record, Randy Cohen. Just to correct the 40 percent figure to let the CCPC and the Productivity Committee know, in 2000 the Hispanic population in Collier County was 19.6. And at this point in time it would be nowhere near approaching that 40 percent figure. So that source was probably an inaccurate source. But it is growing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on library buildings? Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: I have one last point. I know we want to get back to the issue of population assumptions, but there's one, I think, very relevant point here. The data that 22 to 25 percent of the users Page 20 November 29, 2006 are children I think is important. In the newspaper recently, in one of the unending articles about affordable housing, they talk about the impact on the number of school children in Collier County. The article says that normally growth would be about five percent a year in the number of school children in Collier schools. However, this year the increase was not five percent but 12 hundredth of one percent. It looks like the school-age population, if this is any indication of things to come, will be very different than the kind of projections used to justify the programs that we have in mind here. MS. MATTHES: Really, since the mid-'80's, our usage by kids has remained about 22 to 25 percent because we've -- that's an easy answer -- because we've targeted our book budget to buy based on usage and we've traditionally done the 22 to 25 percent children's materials out of our book budget. And that really has remained very steady. In Golden Gate City, that's much higher. It's closer to 30 percent children instead of 25 percent. But overall for the system, it's 22 to 25 percent for children's materials. We also have a lot of home-schoolers, parents checking out children's materials. That's also reflected in the 22 to 25 percent of the circulation of children's materials. MR. BA YTOS: That wasn't my question, but I suggest we move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Based on the lack of information that we have to questions we've asked, I don't believe we can take a position on this one yet. Is that -- have concurrence with all, everybody here? MR. BA YTOS: That would be the same for our committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to -- yes. MS. TOWNSEND: I understand that we need clarification on the summary sheet figures between 2005 and 2006, particularly the Page 21 November 29,2006 per BCC priority line item on the 2005 AUIR. Specifically, are there other specific questions that we need to address? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had two other notes. Number one, we asked for a copy of the table referencing your door counts. Number two, that we suggested that you take a look at any other types of standards that you might use for calculating your needs in lieu of population. Now, maybe that won't have an impact on this year's AUIR, but it certainly may have an impact as a carry-forward recommendation from this committee if you come back with something that seems worthwhile. Is there anything else? Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: I raised the question, you recall, of collocation. If we are going to put forward some others, I would ask perhaps for a contact with the school district and where their plans might accommodate collocation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And staff, when they responded to you with their concerns over security, I don't know if that had settled that matter. But if it hadn't, we will certainly need to explore it. MS. TOWNSEND: Is that specially for the three projects you see proposed in this year's AUIR or for future projects? MR. HARRISON: No, any new construction. So if we have any green field construction in mind, where can we use existing land inventory, whether it's county owned or school district owned. MS. RAMSEY: If I could clarify then. Marla Ramsey for the record, Public Services Administrator. Can I clarify, in the three projects that we currently have budgeted, designed and ready to go, you want us to look and see -- MR. HARRISON: I didn't realize that's where they are. MS. RAMSEY: They're already in design and we're bidding Page 22 November 29, 2006 them as we speak, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest you look at that as another method of meeting the demand for libraries in the future and determine the feasibility of it when you come back to us. MS. RAMSEY: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will that work? Okay. With that, let's move on to library book stock, which starts on Page 127 of this year's AUIR. Do you have any opening comments? MS. TOWNSEND: Sure. You'll see that we begin with a 21,000 book deficit as we open this five-year window. We propose to do away with that deficit through book purchases over the course of four years. Those will be ad valorem generally. Replacement books are purchased at a rate of four percent per year. The replacement book schedule has fallen behind some. That's pretty much the reason you see the deficits you do. So there's a little catch-up to do on replacement books that should eliminate that deficit within the five-year window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you do all your book checking out and checking in by computer? I would hope you would say yes to that. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a way you could tabulate-- because you do take door counts, and you do have books coming and going, mostly going is what would think is most pertinent. But how many visitors, how many books they take out? MS. MATTHES: Yes, we do calculate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you had a door count table provided to us and with that a per person book use, you could actually determine if there's a better way to -- based on library buildings, then possibly to look at using book counts, book needs based on door counts, on the number of -- on how many an average person uses. Page 23 November 29, 2006 Kind of like a persons per household use in population statistics in Collier County. Is that something you could explore? MS. MATTHES: Sure, yes. Without giving you specific figures, the books per registered borrower checked out in Golden Gate City is higher than books checked out per person at almost any other library, because we have a lot more kids at Golden Gate City and they check out the piles of books, whereas the adults pick the big books generally and are -- don't take ten or 20 at a time. But certainly, that's something that we can look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's interesting, because that's just how persons per household work in a population. Immokalee has a high PPH, whereas the coastal area has a very low PPH. But we use a standard, sweeping broad PPH of2.39 across the whole county, when in essence there are very strong differences in different parts of the county just like there are in library books usage. MS. MATTHES: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think -- I don't know if that is something that could correlate to the library buildings, though. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My question, does that figure include audio-books and everything you have to offer or just -- MS. MATTHES: The circulation includes everything. Audio-- books, video cassettes, DVDs, actual books. Yes. We have other counts for usage of our online data bases that is not reflected in the circulation at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have more, Bob? MS. TOWNSEND: Let me clarify that just for a second. The circulation figures do account for all media types. However, for level of service standard, only print and audio-books are kept. MS. MATTHES: The quantity. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thanks. Page 24 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: We had a figure last year for a unit cost for audio, and we don't have one this year. Is there a reason for that? MS. TOWNSEND: It was listed last year and then there was a footnote that said the difference was negligible. So we made the decision that if the decision was negligible there was no need to include it in -- COMMISSIONER CARON: And it is still negligible this year? MS. TOWNSEND: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: My second question is, when you go down to revenues, under grants, it's half of what it was last year. MS. TOWNSEND: That line item is a combined number for grants and ad valorem. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which makes it really low then, if it's also ad valorem on top of that. MS. TOWNSEND: Last year the four percent replacement book schedule for ad valorem was included. This year because it's not a growth related issue, it was not included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So last year in terms of revenue from ad valorem and grants we were up close to two million -- over two million, 2.4 million and this year in grants and ad valorem we're at 458,000? MS. TOWNSEND: There is another ad valorem stream that we will be using this year for that four percent replacement books that's simply not on this summary sheet because it's not growth-related. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh-- MS. TOWNSEND: It was there last year. It wasn't growth-related then, it's not growth-related now, so we eliminated it from the summary sheet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does it provide? Page 25 November 29, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: It provides that four percent replacement of the collection for books that are lost, damaged and stolen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have, even though the population grows and you have more books used, it isn't growth-related, so that means you don't have more books damaged, lost or stolen, then, right? MS. TOWNSEND: Well, a rate of four percent of the collection remains constant. The collection grows. But four percent of the collection -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You lose more books when you have-- MS. TOWNSEND: More books in quantity, but not more books in proportion to the collection itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a standard budget item of four percent against the ad valorem tax base that is not included in the AUIR any more. MS. TOWNSEND: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I guess that's sort of what's confusing me a little bit. On Page 128 you're showing a very large deficiency of 21 ,000 plus books. And deficiencies generally can't be made up by impact fees. So you should be having ad valorem funds to cover that. In that $25 a book that comes out to $525,000 and you're only showing 458. So is the collection -- is the deficiency including some of this replacement but the dollars aren't, or what's the disconnect? MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not sure exactly I understand your question, but let me walk you through the chart on 128 and we'll see if we can get there. In the fourth column you'll see new books planned in AUIR. Those are intended to be funded with impact fees. In the fifth column you'll see additional replacement books. When we started out I was explaining that we have a deficit because we've been fallen behind. We haven't been replacing at quite Page 26 November 29, 2006 at that four percent per year. So those books, that deficiency is intended to be made up through that ad valorem revenue stream. Because we've fallen behind in our replacement books, so we'll make that up. The growth-related books in column four are a direct response to those population projections. The books in column five will be funded through ad valorem and are to make up that deficiency. MS. VASEY: But your deficiency in the second to last column is 21,000. And don't you have to make up that deficiency to get to zero at the end of FY11 on this chart? MS. TOWNSEND: We do get to zero in FY11. MS. VASEY: So then you're buying 21,000 books. MS. TOWNSEND: We're buying in fact almost 200,000 books. The increase in population each year is then multiplied by the 1.75 books to get to how many books we'll buy with impact fees. MS. VASEY: Right. No, I'm not concerned about the impact fee portion, it's the ad valorem. It doesn't look like there's enough ad valorem money in for the deficiency that you have to make up at $25 a book. And that can't be -- you can't use impact fees for making up deficiencies. MS. TOWNSEND: No, we're not. MS. VASEY: Okay. So 21,000 times $25 a book is $525,000. On Page 127, you're showing $458,000 of ad valorem and grant money. MS. TOWNSEND: I do see that. However, because the population proj ections change within the -- we can't make that whole deficit up in one year. So as we move through the five-year period, the population projections change also. MS. VASEY: Right. And those books are being made up with impact fee money. MS. TOWNSEND: Correct. MS. VASEY: Got that. It's the deficiency I'm concerned about. Page 27 November 29, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: The deficiency in the end of the five-year window will be made up with the 18,329 books that will be purchased with ad valorem. And that translates into the $458,000. MS. VASEY: Okay, I guess then the problem is why there is a deficiency of 21 ,000, starting with the AUIR period, and you're making up that deficiency with 18,000 books? MS. TOWNSEND: Because the population changes, there are new book purchases as well. The deficiency -- if we were to purchase no replacement books, if that fifth column weren't there, the deficiency would be, in the year 2006 at the top of the column, 21,000. But because of the changes in population proj ection, that deficiency would be, at the end of the five-year period, only 18,000. Because it's a function of the population and the population projections change each year. MS. VASEY: But there are no replacement books. Okay, look at FY '06-'07. There are zero replacement books being taken care of in this fiscal year. So how are you getting from 21,000 to 18,000? MS. TOWNSEND: That is a purchase in slight advance of the deficiency. MS. VASEY: Say again. MS. TOWNSEND: That is a purchase in advance of the deficiency. We're purchasing some surplus books with impact fee money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't you show that in the right year that they're being purchased? MS. TOWNSEND: I'm sorry, I don't understand that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're adding replacement books in advance of the year shown on here; is that correct? MS. TOWNSEND: If you look at column four, you'll see that in 2007 we're scheduled to purchase 40,000 books. That's probably a budget number. That's probably not a function of population, because Page 28 November 29,2006 we wouldn't have had the population statistic when we prepared the budget, the new population statistic. So that 40,000, if you take the difference, if you take the difference in the collection required, that 40,000 is more than what would be required for just the one year change in population. MS. VASEY: So you're making up a deficiency with impact fee dollars. Well, if you've got three thousand books you're buying and you're not using ad valorem dollars in part of your deficiency -- and you're not using ad valorem dollars, then you're using impact fee dollars. MS. RAMSEY: I believe that we're just not reflecting this last year's replacement books on here. If you go to the second line, under surplus and deficiency, the second column shows you 18,329 is our deficiency going into this year. You're looking at 2005-2006 deficiency. So drop down a line and it's 18,329 is our deficiency going into this year. And then you go to the replacement books, it's 18,329. There's our starting point and then our ending point at the end of the five-year. So you're looking at last year's numbers. Drop down another line, and you'll see the numbers that we're looking at this year. MS. VASEY: So these don't -- on this line this is not a year-end number, this a year start number? Oh, that's quite confusing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the additional replacement books are purchased with impact fee money or not purchased with impact fee money? MS. TOWNSEND: Purchased with ad valorem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where are the impact fee money purchases shown? MS. TOWNSEND: In column four. Page 29 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: I apologize. I was also confused. That top line probably should have been deleted from this table moving forward into the next year, and that's an error. MS. VASEY: Or maybe just a footnote that says that this is the start of the year and not the end of the year. Because I just assumed that it was the end of the year. And that would be the start of next year. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think that's the point is it needs to be footnoted, because it's very confusing. MS. TOWNSEND: I wholeheartedly agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: It doesn't -- yeah. These are your numbers and you can't figure them out, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Two related questions, if I might. You're showing the total number of books in the collection, but it doesn't tell us how many different titles there are. I'm sure when you're buying books for ten locations; you're not buying one, your buying ten or something. And related to that, Marilyn, you made a comment about the online resources. Are we going to see much more in the next five-year period of online collections so that we're not buying as many paper books? MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, Library Director. How many like reading a book on line on a computer? I don't see too many hands. The technology to read books on a computer on a small screen is not very good yet. The book is still the best invented random access device available, despite technology. And libraries have really used technology to the max. Five years ago they tried to sell e-book readers, and six -- four of the six companies went out of business. And the product of the two Page 30 November 29, 2006 other companies remaining in business has changed dramatically. Will that change, will it continue to change? Yes. You don't see the use of technology reflected in this AUIR at all, other than audio-books, and that's minor technology. Some of us are paper-oriented. Some of us still do a lot of computer work, too. But for many things, a paper book is still the standard. As I said before, reference books are an exception, there's no need to buy an expensive reference book for two or three hundred dollars that somebody can look at online and take out the section that they need on line. So we're trying to use technology where it makes sense, and ignore it where it hasn't advanced far enough to make most of us comfortable in using it. Does that answer your questions? MR. HARRISON: How about the number of titles? MS. MATTHES: Number of titles is not really relevant to the number of books that we have. Certainly it's a lot lower number of titles that we have than the number of volumes. And what -- in a library what difference it makes is how long somebody needs to wait to get not just the best sellers but JK Lasser's, Your Income Tax, or travel books to wherever. And we try to purchase appropriately for what our customers are asking. And the technology lets us know easily how many people are on a waiting list for a particular book, whether it be bestseller or children's book or whatever, and then we purchase more copies as needed. Some books, some authors we know are going to be wildly popular, and we try to purchase a great number of books, copies of those books before they're published so we have the stock that we could provide. Not just the book in paper, but the audio-book as well. That's something that's very nice in recent library technologies that when John Grisham writes a new book, it's out in audio-book almost at the same time as the paper book. MR. HARRISON: Is your catalog online such that I can make a Page 31 November 29, 2006 request -- MS. MATTHES: Yes, it is. MR. HARRISON: -- and it can be brought to my local branch. MS. MATTHES: Yes, you can. It's my account. The URL is-- web address is colliergov.net/library and then select catalogue. And there's my catalogue on there where you can log into your account, you can keep track of what we've read, if you want, or you can delete that. You don't have to keep track of what you've read. You can reserve books and they can be sent to your local branch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Yes, you mentioned that this particular level of service standard addresses the books and the audio . Would you discuss a little bit what are the option are that we could use that would capture some of this new media count that you're going to and maybe be more representative. MS. MATTHES: Sure. Libraries have always changed with the times. Some slower than others. There was a time when paperback books were not acceptable in libraries. They're widely available now and a major part of our service. Records, the old vinyl records were a problem for some people. It wasn't traditional library service. Some libraries do a lot of different things. With the technology, we've moved into -- actually, we're moving more away from video cassettes into DVDs. We formerly had really large collections, and I can't give you a specific number, but we had significant numbers of video cassettes. And people aren't using them as much. The newer technology, DVDs, most people have DVD players, they're pretty cheap. What's beyond that, I don't know. Something else I'm sure is coming. There's downloadable movies to your computer or to your portable device. The state library, the state Florida Library Association sets Page 32 November 29,2006 standards of service so that libraries can have something to strive for. And in Florida, that standard is moving more away from books per capita, and it's moving towards items per capita. So that would include not only the books, the paperbacks, the audio cassettes, we still do have some audio cassettes, music on CD, music -- books on CD, video cassettes and DVDs. And there's some other minor multimedia kits available for kids and some adults too. And that standard is changing statewide and they're talking about more items per capita and not just books per capita. I looked at what our -- the Florida Library Association recommends, and for all items per capita they say that an essential collection is two items per capita. Our current level is about 1.95 per capita. But they go a little bit further, they say essential is the first step. That's what everybody should have. The second level up would be enhanced services. And then a third level would be exemplary services. What it tells you other than a number and how much you need to spend on a particular collection is an estimate of how many items you need to provide good service to your user group. The higher your population doesn't necessarily mean the higher the number is for exemplary service. Actually, the smaller populations need more items that they can get their hands on per capita than the larger populations. Immokalee in particular is a good example. They're far away from everybody. Essential service for them might be 2.5 items per capita, because they don't drive too many other places, generally. And in a large urban area, two items per capita, because you can distribute those items across the group easier and have more items collectively for the audience. So we are looking at that currently. The impact fee ordinance says 1.75 books per capita, and .33 square feet per capita for buildings, and that's something that we need to address through the Page 33 November 29, 2006 impact fee ordinance first, I think. Amy is nodding yes. MS. VASEY: Well, I'm thinking ofa recommendation to have you look at that as a potential change for the future, so that we do get a representative number for the level of service standard based on what you think. MS . MATTHES: Another point that supports your question and your thought is that this year the County Clerk's Finance Department moved our budget figures for audio-visual materials into capital items, meaning they last more than a year. So that's where books have been also, in capital. So now all of our material budgets are in the capital line items except for periodicals and electronic data bases, which are subscription-driven and not specifically an item. So that also supports your interest. And we have been starting to look at that. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on library books before maybe we listen to what Amy may have found on her computer in the last 30 minutes or so? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again, for the record. The question on the revenue projections associated to the impact fee increase related to the executive summary that went to the board on this increase, the revenue projected was about $751,000 per year. It was about a 35 percent increase. The caveat on that and what may differ a little bit from the budget numbers is when they take into account how long it will take before we start to recognize that revenue. And that was related to the permitting that we discussed before, at the issuance of the building permit. F or the second thing is that our revenue proj ections are based on historical permitting activities. That's not only number of permits -- this is a residential only fee -- not only number but type and size. So Page 34 November 29, 2006 variations on the number of permits, the types of permits and then the size of the homes will have an effect in the future on the revenue, either up or down. So if you see larger homes, it may spike up your numbers a little bit, or if you see smaller homes or less permits. All of those things may cause a variation in our revenue projection. But we do try to get historical trends and that's how we project out our revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your actual historical trends are not based on population, they're based on housing unit expectations. MS. PATTERSON: Housing unit expectations. They're based on our actual permitting activity, which is what the impact fee is tied to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have pretty good records, including, you noted the square footages and everything. MS. PATTERSON: We have the ability to take the information that we need and utilize it so that it's fairly accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that 751,000 per year in addition to the existing impact fee? MS. PATTERSON: In addition to the existing impact fee. That's going to get you somewhere in the neighborhood of about $2.6 million per year. The other thing that you have to recognize is over the five year period the impact fees are required to be updated every three years with an indexing in the mid-years. Both of those will create a variation, or an increase. In the event that we continue to have an increase in population, there will be an increase of some degree in each year for the indexing and then in three years. So you'll see in this five-year period these numbers do not reflect indexing or a rate increase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you review these summary sheets in regards to the impact fee allocations that each department uses before Page 35 November 29, 2006 they're given to us and assembled? MS. PATTERSON: We review them but not to make them match our revenue projections, because they match the budget proj ections, which again can be slightly more conservative than ours. We make sure that it's reasonable and that nothing jumps out as being inaccurate. The number that we give to the board is only if in a perfect -- if everything happened perfectly, that things are reproduced as they happened years ago, that that goes into the future. And that's all explained in the executive summary that these things may not happen. We've had times when we've had a large number of large homes built, which spiked up your revenue. But that's not something that's going to happen necessarily every year. So we're heavily reliant on the budget numbers and we work closely with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you say that you look and see if these are reasonable, that reasonability goes forward as a revenue stream or revenue source that then plays into the argument that we have ample impact fees right now to meet the needs of the revenue streams that are shown on those AUIR summary sheets. Let me -- and I know you're going to jump into something here -- you may want to wait until I finish what I'm saying. If you totaled two numbers up for books and library buildings, you're looking at a yearly revenue stream of2.9 million from impact fees, which is in contrast to the 2.6 that you just stated, which brings us down over a million dollars shy, which if the board knew that, might say okay, we need to raise library impact fees to get the revenues up to where they need to be in order to provide for the library stream that we're talking about. And I'm wondering had anybody looked at that reasoning in regards to this document? MS. PATTERSON: Raising impact fees? Page 36 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The values shown-- MS. PATTERSON: -- or that there may be a $300,000 difference between what I might proj ect and what they might have in the document? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the quest -- what I was going to say. But we need to not talk over one another. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She has to write down what we say. And you talk fast like I do. Now that you know the question, maybe you can provide the answer. MS. PATTERSON: I guess in part, a couple of things -- and it's difficult for me, because I know, like I said, that I have indexing coming up every year, then I have a major increase -- or a major study, I don't want to say increase, but a major study in three years. So if their numbers are reasonable compared to mine, a million dollar shortfall over five years is not something that anything could cause that. If we saw a major revenue shortfall, certainly that would be something that would be brought to your attention and to the board's attention. But also, we have major construction cost increases. That's something that we regularly make the board aware of. That, you know, is something that is going to be a policy decision going forward on whether or not that's something that's got to be covered by impact fees or by another revenue source. If that's something that the board wants to continue to push with these impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're looking at about a 10 percent difference in the number that you told us is expected from the revenue stream based on the new impact fee rates versus what they've used as this revenue stream shown in the AUIR for both buildings and books. And that's a million and a half dollars just about; if it's three million a year times five. That's -- if the board knew that ahead of time, next time they come up for review of impact fees they might Page 37 November 29, 2006 realize that this one needs to be adjusted if it's exceeded. MS. PATTERSON: This one probably already needs to be adjusted, unfortunately. I mean that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Already after last year's? MS. PATTERSON: Already after last year's. That is a -- you know -- and that's why I'm saying that this is going to be a policy decision of the board of how far they want to go with these, if they want to continue to have to adjust them more frequently, which is what we talked about the first day, is that we're bringing forward the most accurate numbers that we can when we adopt these impact fees. But six months later we're finding that the construction costs have gone up beyond what we have in the impact fee, and then that's going to create a shortfall. This is what we went through last year with the Golden Gate library. We had done a study a year prior and already our construction costs were outdated by a huge number, nearly double. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the other side of the coin is all these calculations sitting in front of us, including the ones for books and library buildings are based on population statistics. And all that might change if we have a different way of calculating need based on usage, such that roads -- and roads base their stream on usage of the roads by traffic counts. You guys have traffic counts on libraries. It might be reasonable to hear another report on this that might be a better way to go. MS. PATTERSON: If direction came down for us to review this using some other methodology, then certainly we would get with the consultants and the appropriate people to do whatever needs to be done based on whatever direction that we're given. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the library? Mr. Murray, you've been quiet today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you have nothing to say, Page 38 November 29, 2006 you say nothing, I hope. I do have a question for Amy, just for clarification for me. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's not a problem. With regard to -- you use the term smaller homes and larger homes. A smaller home is -- how do you consider a smaller home in terms of population? MS. PATTERSON: Not in terms of population. That's for the application of our fee schedule. What we have is a tier grade schedule that has three different sizes of homes. Now, a smaller home may have more people in it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: But that's -- you know, that's not -- I was only speaking of that if a smaller home has a lower rate, that may affect your revenue directly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any documentation attempt to determine population within homes? If we're thinking about changing methodology, that may very well play into it because of the simple fact that in smaller homes you're likely to have more younger children because people are not as wealthy as they might be with a larger home. MS. PATTERSON: And this is a discussion that's come up. But it almost -- where on one hand it -- you understand there's more people in a smaller home, and also it's the teachers and the other people that are buying the smaller homes that then you're going to push a larger fee onto. Because if you go looking at things by numbers of persons per household, you may actually have different than what we have now, which is a higher fee for smaller houses and a lower fee for bigger houses, which may be more fair. I don't know. It's something that would have to be reviewed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I wanted to bring that out because that was going through the mind that when we attempt to find Page 39 November 29, 2006 an alternative means to evaluate, what we get is a circular argument, and that's a real concern. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I just wanted to address your comments on the problems with using the impact fee data. That's been something that's bothered me through throughout this whole review, because the impact fees basically are built on prior history. It's not based on any projections -- I mean, they are increased according to inflation factors for construction costs and things like that in between the study years. But the figure that we're using now inmost of these facilities is based on the construction costs that were sometimes from the last three years average. So they're really not very representative. And we're getting into a situation where the costs are understated. For example, we saw in transportation, the last two projects have come in almost double the unit cost that was in the impact fees, which is what is used in the AUIR. So -- and that's showing up in almost all the other facilities, too, except for the couple that looks like they didn't use the impact fees rates. And yet the revenue stream is based on what the impact fee revenues are expected to be. Now, that's pretty real. I mean, unless you change your rate, you're going to get that revenue. But the expenses are very much understated, because we know already that they're not realistic. So it seems that the whole process, and I was really going to talk about it later, but since you brought it up, I think the whole process has got sort of a disconnect to that effect. And I'm not real sure how we deal with it. Or maybe we just recognize that it's there. But it could be very big in terms of the dollars involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It could be huge. And that's where my concern has been since we started talking about the statistics we're using to base everything on. And everything generates from a statistic, even impact fees. My concern is that we're using maybe not Page 40 November 29, 2006 the best statistic for the right purpose. MS. VASEY: I share that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other library book stock issues? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as far as taking a position on this one, the -- staff has indicated, and I'm trying to understand this, that there may be an adjustment needed for impact fees for libraries and books. Yet you're looking at revenues to maintain existing level of servIce, none. If you're suggesting that the impact fees are insufficient, wouldn't that be something you'd want to look at as a recommendation instead of -- you know, basically you're saying by the words none here your existing level of service is met and the future level of services for the next number of years are met, and therefore everything is okay. I heard someone just contradict that statement by saying that you will be needing impact fee increases. Do you want to address that in this AUIR or do you think it would be a good thing to address? MS. TOWNSEND: The way that it's currently addressed in this AUIR is on the summary sheet for library buildings, you'll see the double asterisk that says that the per square foot value is based on the impact fee, and that we do expect the constructions costs to be coming much higher, and that those projects will need to be financed. The only concern at this point is that if those constructions costs come in so much higher, that the projects would need to be financed for a longer period of time and therefore, we would run into trouble that way. So there's an acknowledgement here. If it would be the pleasure of the boards to put that in a recommendation, we'd be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as far as how to proceed with the Page 41 November 29, 2006 -- we know on the library buildings, that they're going to come back with some refinement to that. Do you want to wait and review the library books at the time the buildings come back or are we ready to take a position on library books at this time? Are there any outstanding questions from the panel that may not have been asked? We had some statements that were similar to the statements made for the library buildings but I'm not sure they're going to be effective in changing anything on library books as far as this AUIR goes. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I would suggest that we wait and vote on them together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. I have no preference either way. Nobody else? Okay, that's what we'll do. I think that's it till we get back to parks, which we hopefully will get to today. And I want to compliment you, I don't know what you do or what your position is with the county, but you certainly have a wide range of knowledge over the topics that we've been hitting you with, and it's good to see. Thank you. And with that, we're going to be starting a new element next, which would be the county emergency medical services. Why don't we take a 15-minute break now for the court reporter and for Kady. We'll be back here at ten minutes after 10:00. Thank you. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll resume the meeting for the A UIR. And just so everyone knows, we're going to try to take a lunch break around a quarter to 12:00. That leaves time for those who must eat at the place downstairs to be able to get in the line early. But we'll see how it goes. Page 42 November 29, 2006 The next item on AUIR today is the Emergency Medical Services Section. Chief? CHIEF PAGE: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services. The level of service standard is approximately one unit for every 15,000 population. For the numerical figure is 0.000068 per capita. The unit cost is 3,385,166 per new unit 1,931,348 for a collocated unit. That's a blended cost for a new unit of 290,560. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was quick. CHIEF PAGE: Just doing my part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure there are going to be a lot of questions. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, sorry, but I must have misheard my unit cost. I may have been preoccupied. I apologize. I have 3,809,785 per new unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were new sheets issued, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I missed that, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are -- I know there's going to be a lot of questions, but let's start with the panel. Anybody have any questions from -- Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: Couple of questions. One is we understand from the papers that there are considerations about different ways to organize EMS and coordinate with Fire and so forth. Is there any indication when that study would be done or -- CHIEF PAGE: You're talking about the merger study? MR. BA YTOS: Right. CHIEF PAGE: We're continuing to meet each month. I have another meeting coming up in just a few weeks, I think mid-December. The last meeting, I believe all of the information has Page 43 November 29, 2006 been submitted for budgets. Number of apparatus, things of that nature. The cost analysis is continuing to work through. It's going to take at least another, I would predict, three or four months, at least. They're talking about bringing in a facilitator to help that group work through that. MR. BA YTOS: I have a question that sort of relates to that. I know -- I live in the North Naples district, and my neighbors tell me that sometimes they'll dial 911 and then the fire department shows up and EMS as well. Does that kind of overlap and duplication exist in the other fire districts as well or is that unique to North Naples? CHIEF PAGE: No, it occurs throughout all of Collier County. We help train their paramedic firefighters to work -- or work under the same medical protocol that they do. And there are five units located throughout the county that actually have our personnel on their fire trucks to respond as an ALS or advanced life support first response engIne. So we do that cross training both with Fire and EMS. MR. BA YTOS: But -- so in the data that you indicate how many calls you want to meet within, what is it eight minutes or something, what was that number? CHIEF PAGE: Eight minutes travel time. MR. BA YTOS: It's possible that maybe your team didn't get there in eight minutes but it's possible the fire department team was there within eight minutes. CHIEF PAGE: Their level of service standard is actually four minutes for the BLS component. But what NFP A recommends, is that advanced life support arrive on the scene within eight minutes. MR. BA YTOS: So is there -- in the data that you use, which I guess are countrywide or provided by some objective association, is it typical that this kind of -- it's new to my experience, this kind of duplication. Is that typical, throughout the country they have this? Page 44 November 29, 2006 CHIEF PAGE: Well, I would have to say that typically throughout the country EMS is generally handled by a fire service by itself and a third provider actually provides the transport. MR. BA YTOS: So we're unique in that we have this overlap. CHIEF PAGE: That's correct. There's only probably in the State of Florida just a handful of countywide EMS providers. MR. BA YTOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I'd like to continue with that line of discussion. You mentioned that there are five units that have the EMS-trained, Dr. Tober-certified paramedics on them. It would seem that those units at least are up to the same medical protocols and capabilities as your units; is that correct? CHIEF PAGE: There are some equipment differences. In other words, they're not carrying a 12-1ead EKG machine, they have a four-lead. They do not have some of the drugs and medications that typically would be found on a transport unit, generally because they wouldn't have enough time on scene to start using that. Some of the narcotics are not there. It's just based on what the medical director has identified as the necessary equipment for a first response unit, meaning the LS engine as opposed to a transport unit that may have some more advanced equipment like listening to heart sounds, things of that nature, with an EKG. That's called an auto-core, and it's typically not on a transport unit -- it is on a transport but not on a first response engine. Let me just add something else here. When you talk about the medical director's certified paramedics, there are Dr. Tober-certified paramedics within the fire districts themselves. They're not all just with county EMS. Over the years we've had a number of our personnel go to the fire districts due to pay increases, things of that nature. So there are paramedics within North Naples, East Naples. Marco Island has a Page 45 November 29, 2006 number of firefighters that have been certified through the medical director. MS. VASEY: I guess where I'm going with this is that your level of service standard is one unit per 15,000 population but you only count the units that Collier -- that are under the Collier County government EMS. Whereas there -- you mentioned in your AUIR there are 19 other units that are fire departments provide, five of which are your own employees on that -- what do you call it, transfer where you-- CHIEF PAGE: Cross train. MS. VASEY: Cross train. So it seems like we have a level of service standard and we have really exceeded it, because there is a whole lot more EMS service out there than is being counted as serving the population. So I'm wondering if there isn't any way -- oh, and by the way, we need 11 new stations in this AUIR period, and we're under-funded by $1 7 million. It just seems like there should be some way that we could count at least part of the other service that's out there responding to the needs of the populace that isn't being counted here. Is there some way we can get at that? CHIEF PAGE: That's a very good question. I'm going to give you the Jeff Page answer, and then I'm going to turn it over to my database administrator, Dave Stedman. We had first initially when we had gotten with the fire chiefs and talked with this concept, the concept was that we have 35,000 responses, we're only transporting 21,000. We need to increase our ALS response capability. It works out in theory good. But I can tell you that at any point when there's a fire in any district, and in some cases in a mutual aid you'll empty out all the districts to go to a fire, all of those ALS engines are gone, they're not available. Page 46 November 29, 2006 At the same token, over the years we've collocated stations. And generally a fire station is built for the fire load capacity for an area within a five-mile range. That's not necessarily what works best for EMS. When we collocated the station, we are both responding to the same car accident, the same heart attack. Where ideally in concept it should be -- let's say the EMS transport goes first, I'm holding back the ALS engine to take the second call in that district. And then they respond out to that call and then the transport units go in to that second call to provide transport if it's needed. That really hasn't -- that mindset hasn't worked. It still continues to this day where two units working out of the same station are going to the same call. And so that's part of the problems that I see with this. But I need to have Dave answer some additional on that. MS. VASEY: Well, one just follow-up on your comment, please. If both the ALS unit and the EMS unit have gone to the same medical emergency and another call comes in, can't one of those peel off and go to the new one, or do they have to both stay on-site? CHIEF PAGE: There is -- there are some components of, say, a car accident where there are hazards there. It would work if a non-ALS licensed pumper or engine responded to a car accident with us. Then that pumper is not committed, it can take care of the hazards, the fuel, whatever it is and work that scene with the medical crew and still reserve the ALS engine back. But typically what happens is on an ALS call they're both going, both ALS units are responding. And we really don't have the control to tell the fire department, and say no, that's not right, you need to do this. I mean, I know -- in theory it should work correctly, but it just hasn't happened to that effect yet. As I said, on any given day if there's a fire or something along that line, those ALS units are just not available to be dispatched to a call. Page 47 November 29, 2006 MS. VASEY: And Dave had something then to -- CHIEF PAGE: Did you have something to add with-- MR. SUMMERS: Just to elaborate. Good morning, Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services. I think it's real important to make sure, and you all may be aware of it. Let me make just a little distinguishing comment here. That as we look at our service as what we call the third service EMS provider, that is each one of these components that we build into, for example with the ALS engine response are augments on top of an ALS engine programs many, many years ago, and I won't tell you how old the gray hairs are, but will tell you that it was primarily geared to the cardiac scenario, okay, so that we could get year quicker or have more defibrillation available to us earlier. And that was years ago, and that has subsequently evolved and the fire department has been good partners with us from that. But all of our service issues and all of our critical care, which is what Collier County EMS provides, is that critical care within, in a very large county, very long transport times. So always consider the care that's administered in the back of the transport unit as a continuum of care. The fire departments and EMS arrival are the initiator of care. But that is sort of a building block, if you will, for what takes place in the back of the ambulance as a continuum of care and a continuation of advanced care all the way to delivery of the emergency department. So I would share with you that one of the things that you always want to keep in mind is that your service delivery is based on the transport component and then you augment that with the ALS engine program. And I just wanted to clarify that for you just for as minute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Seems to me that hospitals have this same issue of, you know, what level of service in an emergency room, and they use a triage person to say okay, you need this with that. And they Page 48 November 29, 2006 also ration the capacity of the hospital. So it seems like where we are is we're almost in a saturation mode sending out as many possible support services without really stopping to perform a triage-type function in saying, you know, what is appropriate, we think for that event or -- maybe it's a liability issue that makes us do it. CHIEF PAGE: Well, I think any time you have -- take a car accident, for example. You have a car accident call come in. Typically there's not any kind of notification as to whether there's any injuries. Nobody knows yet. But typically that generates a response because we know through history that typically people are hurt and want to be transported. I think you're correct, you have to respond and hope for the best. And, you know, if you look at our cardiac arrest save rates. I mean, last year we had over 38 percent saves. And that's unusually high for any area. So I think we're doing the right thing by what we may call over-saturation. But a critical component of that are response times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, you have 22.5 units in available inventory shown this year. CHIEF PAGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year you had 21.5. You've increased one unit? CHIEF PAGE: Actually, are you talking FY '06, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking the first line where it says available inventory 9/30/06, so I guess that's, if that's what you're -- CHIEF PAGE: Yes, it was one unit that was added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which unit was it, a relocated unit or a new unit? CHIEF PAGE: It was a new unit, but not necessarily a gross station, per se. It was a station that we went into J eepers Drive, and also the station that just actually got completed this week on Santa Page 49 November 29, 2006 Barbara that was in the works for a number of years finally came on line. So one of the coexisting stations got branched out where I had two units working out of there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the reason I asked is your value cost of36,913,149 is not much above last year's. And I'm just wondering, last year you had 35,295,095, which is a million six increase. But your new unit costs this year went up 21 percent. Your co-unit cost went up 4.9 percent, but your value cost only went up 4.6 percent. How can you explain that? CHIEF PAGE: Okay, the Jeepers Drive station that we went into this year for FY '06, that was a -- we bought 37 percent of the cost of the building alone, East Naples owns the actual land. I think our -- it cost us less than a half million dollars for that proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the value to the public for the inventory, because we base everything on the future required inventory at a value, not whether, what kind of deal you can cut but what the value is. And the value of the inventory that you have on a per unit basis, whether it's co-owned or it's a new unit, because it's there, it has the value of what I would assume one of those values to be. Now, let me go a step further. Last year you had 10.5 units of equipment. This year you got 11.5. Last year you had six owned stations, this year you have seven. Last year you had four collocated stations, this year you only have five. Now, that's a net increase of 2.3 million in assets. I'm just wondering why it isn't reflected in the available inventory values that way, because that drives the bottom line as far as ad valorem needs go and as far as dollars. I don't understand why it didn't come out that way or it didn't come out different than it is right now. Page 50 November 29, 2006 CHIEF PAGE: Well, what I have here on the screen is how we came to this -- the calculation of the inventory. Are you able to read that or is that too small? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we all have screens; I think we can see it. CHIEF PAGE: That basically is how we came to that figure, and that's what it's based on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your equipment last year was a lot higher, double that number, 889,794. So your -- that explains why your equipment, the value this year has dropped tremendously. Maybe last year it was too high? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, it was based on the impact fee study. And unfortunately the impact fee study only addresses our owned stations, not those additional stations. So what happened is it effectively inflated what the replacement costs would be for equipment and things of that nature when you're dealing with just 11 stations versus 22. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the impact fee study is erroneous? CHIEF PAGE: Well, I can't say that. But what I'm saying is that for impact fee purposes and the way they're calculated, it's only on owned stations, not stations that are leased. So although you may have 22 units, you may only own 11 stations. And if you just base the numbers or the cost associated into that 11, everything else is inflated. So for AUIR purposes, we're using the 22.5 figure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I heard what you said. I don't believe I understand it. Which then brings into a value or cost problem on your table. And I think Amy is going to have to shed some light on the impact fee study so I can try to understand what it is that you said. Where did you lose the collocated unit? Last year you had five, this year you have four. CHIEF PAGE: Just a second. I had to check with my operations analyst on this. But I believe what happened was for the impact fee study, the Jeepers Drive station probably was considered Page 51 November 29,2006 an owned station, and for the AUIR, because we own a portion of it. And for the AUIR, it would be collocated, or vice versa. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying in the '05 AUIR, the Jeepers station was collocated and in the '06 AUIR, it's owned? CHIEF PAGE: That's what we believe to be the case. It know for the impact fee study, that was identified, I believe, as an owned station, because there was a percentage of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to figure out how that's going to factor into your table and your numbers, because it's hard for me to understand how a value cost could be so minimal an increase from last year. Or if last year's number was as erroneous in regards to the equipment you say it was, then the numbers driven from last year ought to have an impact on this year. Just sitting here, I can't do that without sitting down with the table and recalculating it. But you would have substantially less value than last year. You would have gained more value this year, which means last year's revenue stream would have had to have been adjusted to offset that loss. Well, maybe -- CHIEF PAGE: Ifwe had -- you know, if you looked at the first documents we had provided you. If we had continued to do what we did last year, using the impact fee study, that available inventory would actually be 46,467 ,000. You can see quite a reduction just based on the fact that you're using more units instead of the 11 that would have been used from the impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe Amy, would you be prepared to answer some questions on this particular impact fee issue in regards to what their impact fee value is today, what the projected revenues are, and how their impact fee rate differs from the library's impact fee rate? MS. PATTERSON: Sure. Amy Patterson, for the record. Page 52 November 29, 2006 One at a time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, the library impact fee rate. We just got done discussing that one. It's a certain value, I don't know how much it is. You didn't tell us, you just told us what the total income would be. What is that a per square foot basis? MS. PATTERSON: It's a per unit, but it's delineated by size of unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how much is it per unit? MS. PATTERSON: I don't have the fees schedule in front of me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how does that compare to EMS's impact fees, above or below? MS. PATTERSON: It's above but different because EMS is also charged on commercial construction per square foot. Library is not. Libraries are residential only fee. So if you compared a single-family home cost library to EMS, the library fee is higher. But you can't just make that straight comparison, because EMS is also charged on commercial construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you see for the impact fee revenues over a five-year period on a yearly basis or a five-year basis for EMS in the predictions that you provided with the impact fee study? MS. PATTERSON: Our last year's collections for EMS were 926,684, and we are estimating an increase which is coming pretty close to the 1.2 that we're showing on the AUIR. We're showing 1.22 per year. But again, and this one's even more difficult than -- any time you add the commercial construction in, it's a little bit more difficult than a straight residential fee, because you have to take into account the trends with commercial construction, and things like Wal-Marts and Targets being built can add unusual spikes into your numbers. So it's Page 53 November 29, 2006 more difficult to project things like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, their net impact fee increase is a little over $600,000 from last year's. Is that reasonable to expect over the next five-year period? MS. PATTERSON: Again, it would depend on the trends for commercial and residential construction. But the budget office, taking their number, the impact fees anticipated, it's coming up with a number of 1.2189 million. And the difference from the '06 926,684, it's reasonable, assuming that nothing unusual happens with permitting activity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're saying your last year's impact fees were expected to be -- were 926. MS. PATTERSON: Actual was 926,684. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're looking at 1.2 this upcoming year. MS. PATTERSON: That's a $292,000 increase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The Chiefs comment about the equipment value, can you shed some light on that? MS. PATTERSON: For the impact fees, we're only allowed to include in the impact fee as our inventory things that we actually own. And that's where we get into this issue with the leased stations. We actually own the equipment that's in those leased stations, so those things are of value and those have to be accounted for in some way, the same as the equipment that's in an owned station. So even though we have 11 owned stations, I think it's 11. Eleven owned stations, we -- 11 owned stations, we also have equipment that we own in the rest of the leased stations, so that equipment does have a value. And that was addressed in the impact fee study, but we can't address the leased stations as far as the value for the actual building, because they're leased and you can't -- we don't own them and therefore, you can't place that burden onto the fee-payers. We can Page 54 November 29, 2006 only put in our inventory those things we actually own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said 11 owned stations, there's only seven. MS. PATTERSON: I thought there were -- is it 11 owned stations? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, I believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The impact fee study reflects how many? But if you can't include the co-owned -- MS. PATTERSON: Co-owned -- can't include the leased. The co-owned are different. We own a part of the station. Let's say we own half of a station with a fire district. That portion that we own is included, because we own it. We paid for it. And the way that I think about it, there's three different things, there's things we own completely. That would be stations, only EMS stations. There's things that are collocated that we own a part of, say it's 50 percent Collier County's and 50 percent East Naples Fire District. We take into account on the inventory that portion that we own. And then there's things, where we just lease them, and those aren't counted at all, except for the equipment that's in them that we own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many leased stations do we have? MS. PATTERSON: That would be a question for Jeff. CHIEF PAGE: Nine in the study is what was reflected there. There are some stations hat -- nine from the impact fee study is what Paul was telling me on that. As far as there are some stations where we actually have no lease. For example, on Marco Island, we collocate with them. There is no lease involved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that under your collocated total of four, the one on Marco Island? CHIEF PAGE: Let's see. Page 55 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that be our missing station? CHIEF PAGE: Well, I don't know that we would reflect that as a collocation in the sense that there's any monetary value. We didn't help build it. I think for -- what we're identifying as a collocated station is a station where you take, an example would be Grey Oaks where East Naples, North Naples and Collier County EMS has pooled funds to actually build that station. J eepers Drive is a collocated station in my mind because we contributed the funding to build the station. A leased station, even though I may be leasing three rooms in a North Naples station on Pine Ridge, I don't consider that collocated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but I think where I'm seeing a disconnect, my understanding of it is functionality. You need so many stations. You need so many functional stations. You have 20 functional stations right now, from what I can see. You've got seven owned, four co-owned and nine leased. Now, the nine leased, and then one that is in Marco Island, I don't know where that goes yet. So that means you have a potential of ten extra stations, and you're saying you need 11 more. Well, if you're not counting those functional stations, even though they're leased, no matter how they are, they're there, they have equipment, they've got personnel, they're there, wouldn't they be part of the system? Wouldn't they be -- I mean, I understand where you're going, it would be nice to have all owned stations, but if you have a functional equivalent of that, isn't that what the public needs? CHIEF PAGE: Well, I would agree, and that's why it's not reflected at each unit costing us 3,385,000. We realize that there will be some collocated stations. We're trying to get away from leasing stations. Although there are opportunities that come available to us to where there's no lease involved other than our goodwill. But there are -- I can give you an example. We purchased property, or the county has property available for us at Heritage Bay, Page 56 November 29,2006 951 and Immokalee Road. There's no cost for the land, we're building the station. North Naples, we've had some discussion with them, would they like to collocate with us there, and we have to work out what lease arrangements would be involved, are they going to own part of the building, things of that nature. I can't tell you what the future will bring. Sometimes we typically fall into situations to where another entity is building a station and we're piggybacking with them to collocate. So that's why we use a blended rate to get to the cost of what it's going to cost to build these facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need the facilities to replace the leased or collocated stations that you have? CHIEF PAGE: No, no. These are future growth stations. That the City of Naples, for example. That's a station where we have down 8th Avenue South and 8th Street. I can't buy any property anywhere near there. There's just no property available to build a station. That will always be a leased station with the city. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The term blended, okay, meaning that you're basically pushing all your dollars into one bag there. Aren't you possibly cheating yourself by considering a possibility in the future that you may have some benefit that comes out of someplace that you didn't expect? Wouldn't you be more effective in your planning if you were to relate it only to your own projections of need and what those real costs are? CHIEF PAGE: Well, I think that you're correct in that we can predict based on population how many additional stations are going to be needed and where. But whether we're going to be able to collocate, there are some properties that are out there right now that are already platted to be collocated with fire and EMS. Fiddler's Creek is one of them. That, with some of the other districts where we typically Page 57 November 29, 2006 historically have collocated, some of the fire and EMS stations, that we can proj ect out. But I can't tell you that it will always be that way, because again, what the fire load need is may not be where an EMS station needs to go. That's something Lee County has had a similar problem with. They've tried to collocate, and in some cases it's worked to their benefit, but not all the time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I assume that in your planning, you predict where your needs will be and you have -- maybe you even have a map and you've located by push pin where you'd like to have a station. That would be a basis for at least the premise for the cost of construction, if not for land. Is that the process that you use to plan your future in the out years? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. If you look up here on your monitors there, these dots actually reflect where we have responses in excess of ten minutes. Let's look at the four growth stations that we're talking about this particular year. This station here is Vanderbilt and Logan. This is the one I mentioned about in Heritage Bay. This is an area that we're currently talking to North Naples, both of us have a need to get near Old 41 and New 41. There's a site here that we've identified about a mile north of that Old 41-New 41 intersection. We're also looking at collocating with public works. And Goodlette Road, just south of Immokalee about a half mile. So we're trying to saturate in those areas. You can see this year, here this pocket will be addressed by these two units. Also, this unit will address this pocket, the need for up here. So we've mapped these out. Now, there are a number of fire districts that have their stations identified out into the future. If we get invited to participate in that, and typically we do, then we'll try to collocate with them. Page 58 November 29, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a recommendation, perhaps, you would see the benefit in it. Perhaps in the future years you might want to -- or soon you might want to change that chart to reflect, perhaps using a color coding to reflect where collocation exists, and where -- set up your legend and qualify it. Visually we can appreciate perhaps a little bit easier what you're trying in the abstract to convey. Thank you. CHIEF PAGE: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Speaking of working with other stations, soon in this AUIR we have the Ochopee and the Isles of Capri stations coming up for expansion. Are you relocating those two locations or those locations today? CHIEF PAGE: Well, currently we share facilities right now. We actually lease from both Ochopee and Isles of Capri for our portion of space in the stations that we're in. But there has been considerable discussion for the Port of the Islands area. That's been going on for a number of years. And I think we're having a meeting within the next week or so with some of the residents out there of possibly long term lease, land donation. I mean, that's to be decided down the road. For the Isles of Capri area and just south of Fiddler's Creek and the Mainsail Drive area, Chief Rodriguez had had discussions with the developer there about possibly providing him some land there. And would EMS be interested in collocating there? Yes, we would, for a number of factors. But I don't really make all those decisions, you know that's something that Mr. Summers would address and the manager and ultimately the board and our advisory counsel to determine is that the need for this place and time. Now, we can run these maps every day if we wanted to, but I will tell you that although we have projections here in the AUIR of where the future stations will be, that's going to change, I'm certain of Page 59 November 29, 2006 it, because it's changed in the past. Historically we make our best guess of when the land will be available. Ave Maria, there's property set aside for both fire and EMS. How soon we have a need to build there, it may not be next year. It may be the following year. Because there may be more docks in an area that I need to go on the East Trail and so we're going to build at Fiddler's Creek beforehand or whatever it is, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Iflmay? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that vein, I don't mean to be -- I don't mean to dispute you, but if you had a plan to build an Ave Maria because of a need, you wouldn't deny that need then go someplace else, you would have two needs, would you not? CHIEF PAGE: That's correct. No, the number of stations is fixed for what the projected need is, but which unit goes up first has a lot of variables here. In other words, East Naples, they're getting ready to build a station. Do I want to collocate? Yes, I'm moving that project forward a year ahead of time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So to some degree you have a crystal ball issue and you're trying desperately to find out where you can spend your dollars most effectively. That's the way I interpret that. CHIEF PAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Yes, on your Page 136, under the revenues, you're showing your impact fees, commercial paper loan. And then you have a general fund loan to make the commercial paper debt service payments. And I see up in expenditures where you're making that same amount of $7.3 million in payments. How are you going to repay the general fund since you don't have the impact fee money for these new stations that are required by Page 60 November 29, 2006 growth so you're borrowing from the general fund. But it doesn't really look like you're going to be -- it's going to be possible to make those repayments out of impact fees. How would you do that? CHIEF PAGE: That would really be a board decision. These numbers are provided by budget, and I can't really tell you, other than drawing from the impact fees over time to repay that money, when that would occur. My goal is to try and keep everything as cost effective as possible because I'm hoping that I don't have to build stand-alone stations. But I can't predict what a fire board may decide as collocating, things of that nature. So I think that each year as we review this, we have to look at the numbers. I mean, I certainly had a cost saving in the four units that are going up this year. Two of the units, one we bought the property for, I think, about $260,000 because it was county owned and we bought it for transportation. It had a pump site. So that was a savings there over the 900,000 that was expected for what would be our cost for land. The Heritage Bay site, I didn't have to spend 900,000 on land there because it was county owned land. The site with public works, that's a county owned facility. We're joining them in building a two-story structure. So that will be a cost savings both in the cost of the construction and there was no land cost for us to go there. The site at Old 41 and New 41, my expectation is North Naples will join with us in the purchase of that station. So I'm way ahead of the game for this particular year in the fact that I did not have to build stand-alone stations. MS . VASEY: I guess the concern I've got here is, one of the things we're supposed to be looking at is financial feasibility. And it seems like that line is sort of an outstanding bill that may actually belong in the additional revenues required line. If you don't have a real way to pay that out of the current Page 61 November 29, 2006 funding that you receive, it seems like maybe that's, you know, more unfunded than funded, that 7 million. Maybe we could ask -- you got that from OMB? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. MS. VASEY: Maybe we could ask tp.em to discuss that with us a little bit. Because it -- do you see what I'm concerned about? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: It may be okay, but it just sort of raises a flag when there's no source of payment identified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's an item we need to follow-up with, Chief, so -- and have a -- OMB needs to address that issue to resolve the matter. That would be important. MS. VASEY: And I do have one more thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, then Mr. Harrison. MS. VASEY: I can't quickly find what your cost is per acre for land in the AUIR. Do you recall what that is? CHIEF PAGE: Do you have it there? 325,000 an acre. MS. VASEY: 325. Okay. I'd like to just mention that some of the facilities are showing costs that agree with the impact fees and some are not. Transportation does. Almost everything we've seen so far does. There are two coming up now that don't, and I just want to bring it to your attention. I don't know if it's right or wrong. But the impact fee shows 300,000 per acre. And your building costs you're showing in the AUIR, 400,000 per square -- I'm sorry, 400 per square foot. And the impact fee shows 251, I think, per square foot. So I just wanted to bring up at this point that there is a difference. There's another facility that's going to have the same thing. Everyone else is complying pretty much with what the unit costs are, which has its own problems in understating the actual cost. But I Page 62 November 29, 2006 wonder about consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe last year we discussed the relationship of the impact fees to the AUIR. And I thought the resolution on that was they had to be comparable. And maybe you need to take a look at adjusting your numbers to the effect of those acreage costs that are in the impact fee study. I believe that is the study that is a legal basis for level of service standards. Amy, do you want to weigh in on what document prevails or what numbers prevail? MS. PATTERSON: The impact fee study reflects the best and most current information at the time of its adoption. However, in the case of EMS, they have a more recent bid that shows that the actual construction cost is even more than what is adopted in the impact study. We find this happening more and more. I think we talked about this last year. N ow some of the other ones maybe don't have formal accepted bids, or there's other reasons why. Now, we may know that there's going to be a cost difference, but we may not have actual documentation of that. That's why you're going to see some that match the impact fee study because we may not have actually an estimate or an accepted bid in hand. And so while we might think that they'll higher, until we actually have that documentation, we can't say that that's so. In the case of EMS, I believe they have a higher bid and they're showing you that while the impact fee study says it's going to cost this much, this is what real dollars are today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to recall the discussions from last year, which we had a lot on impact fees. I think the issue was more critical if the costs were lower than the impact fee study than if they were higher. Page 63 November 29, 2006 MS. PATTERSON: It plays into your level of service. The impact fee only establishes what you have, what you've paid for and what's your existing level of service. If you -- and costs and all these things factor into establishing or creating that level of service. If all of a sudden everything costs more or even if you just decide that you want to improve your level of service, there's nothing that restricts you from doing that except the funding. But if you were to find that your level of service was actually lower than what you were charging an impact fee for, that's where you run into problems, because then you're actually imposing more onto growth than you've paid for yourself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey, did you have something further to follow up with? MS. VASEY: I can come back later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison next and Mr. Baytos after that. MR. HARRISON: I'm just troubled by the disparity here. If we look at the available inventory, which didn't cost us 36.9 million, it cost us less than that, but in any event, that's 1.6 million per unit. And yet the required inventory we're pricing out that differential, those next 11 units, at the 3.3. I'm very impressed with the creative ways you've gone about collocating or leasing or doubling up with other facilities, because we're coming in less than the million nine because of the creative ideas you're injecting, and yet we're building this AUIR on something that's maybe doubled. The 3.3 million is about double what our actual IS. SO -- of course the people up here want to encourage as many of these creative ideas to continue as possible. And if we can actually bring them in at, you know, a million six, million nine, whatever the bargaining on Naples is to do, so much the better. But that, you know, knocks out the need for the general fund financing component entirely Page 64 November 29, 2006 if we can get them done for a lot less. CHIEF PAGE: Well, I think I explained last year when we had this discussion, for purpose of planning, I have to plan for the worst case scenario. And this is my worst case scenario. Hopefully we'll be able to continue to establish these stations in a collocated environment. But I can't predict that. MR. HARRISON: But you appreciate, we don't want to tell the taxpayers that we have to ratchet up the impact fees or the ad valorems to meet this level if we don't think that's really what's going to happen. CHIEF PAGE: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: Yes, one summary comment. The proposed AUIR for the coming five years, $3,900,000 is 44 percent over the same figure of last year's AUIR of 22.2 million. At the same time, we have all these discussions going on as to possible ways to reorganize. I personally don't see how we could support the kind of capital expenditures in this AUIR with all these other issues. Even if some kind of merger doesn't take place, it seems to me that some logical outcome is an effort to reduce the duplication of effort. And so I just -- the numbers to me just seem grossly excessive relative to other things that are going on currently. And I know you can't predict the outcome of those, but to talk about saying let's start rolling or planning this program and buying property, to me I just can't -- I can't justify it. You know, no disrespect to any of the work put in it. But I understand, as you said, you're putting the worst case scenario. As the taxpayer, I'm trying to put on what's the scenario from the taxpayer point of view. CHIEF PAGE: Well, I think in defense I would tell you that the EMS department as a whole is very cost efficient. Ad valorem, the draw from the ad valorem was .15 for EMS, I think, in '06, FY '06, where in my district I paid 1.5 for fire services. Page 65 November 29, 2006 I think from a public safety standpoint, and of course we do take in revenue to counterbalance that, but we pay more for green space than we do for the EMS services in this county. So although I understand that these numbers are certainly alarming, but again, this is what we predict to be the worst case scenario. We think we'll come in under that. And certainly we're hoping that the impact is not as high as is reflected here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief -- go ahead. MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, may I -- Dan Summers, director of emergency services. You bring up a very valid point, sir, in that how we -- our palms get a little sweaty related to cost. I think the challenge that we have is that, remember, not only are we a service provider, but we're a medical provider. So we have the challenge of construction costs. We have the challenge of facilities costs. We have apparatus costs. But we're also in the same environment that medical care is in today with the 26 to 32 percent annual increase, just because of our medical components, our new technology and our medical training. So I wrestle with Jeff on sticker shock, and I support your concern on sticker shock. But unlike the other traditional governmental services, the additional component that we have is medical technology and those costs and that Collier County is bringing forth a survival rate of far above the national, in the 36 to 48 percent range. So there is a lot of trade back there and a lot of debate on both sides of that. But I think when you look at patient outcome and delivery and the trauma care that's provided by Collier EMS, I think there's real cost benefit there. Thank you. MR. BAYTOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Right now your level of service standard is one Page 66 November 29, 2006 unit per 15,000 population. However, you are currently providing right now one unit per 17,000 population. And that's because of the deficit that you have in units. Why is that not sufficient? Why must we go from where we are today to one per 15,000? I'd like to -- since that is a lot of money, maybe if we could understand why that was important, it would help. CHIEF PAGE: Well, the national standard that we used and which was approved by the EMS advisory counsel is NFP A 1710, and it talks about this eight percent travel time, 90 percent of the time. Right now I believe we're just below 81 percent countywide. If we were to continue with this level of service, we would effectively going -- be going back to a permanent weighted calculation -- I'm sorry, a permanent calculation, instead of the weighted. And we would remain typically about 80 to 81 percent of meeting that goal or criteria 90 percent of the time. That's a decision, you know, the board would have to consider. I can tell you that when we went to the board after the last A UIR, I think we had wanted to increase this service level over a longer period of time. Initially we were going for two units in FY '07. The board thought it important enough to go ahead and get this up to speed faster and actually gave us direction to go ahead and put up four units this year. So I think from the board's perspective it's important that we provide this level of service, and in comparison to other cities and departments and things of that nature, when you're doing those benchmarks typically it's rated what percentage are you meeting this 90 percent response time. So that's something we continue to try to -- with the location of stations, things of that nature. We're continuing to try to meet that mark. But if we were to keep it at the same level, that's really up to the board. MS. VASEY: Well, just to follow on with that, if you have four Page 67 November 29, 2006 units that are just about ready to come on. And I think you said somewhere that you had staffing pretty much set for it. What kind of an improvement do you think you'll get out of those four immediately in terms of response times? Will it go up -- I'm sure it will go up higher than 80 percent, but are we going to get a lot closer to the 90 percent with four or -- CHIEF PAGE: I believe we will. And I think next year when we come back to this meeting, you know, this all will change again, and maybe that can be looked at. I think you had mentioned in an e-mail, the possibility of having another study done to look at that level of service standard to see if the population factor that we use right now needs to be updated. I think it does. In fact the last impact fee study, when it initially was sent out for the bid included a component that would address looking at that level of service standard. That particular provider that the county had contracted with subsequently lost the contract and it went to another agency, and it did not include that part of the request. So that's something we need to look at, certainly we're working toward that. But I understand what you're saying, but I think that these four units will get us fairly close to that 90 percent. And when we're taking a look at it next year, some of this may need to be adjusted again. MS. VASEY: You mean some of these -- let me see if I understand. You're saying that with the four units we could be getting close to the 90 percent, eight minute mark. And then, then you'll be looking at, it might be profitable to look at the connection between units per population level of service standard and see if that still is necessary to get you to the eight minutes, 90 percent level, which is what you're really trying to get to. CHIEF PAGE: Right. MS. VASEY: And then so maybe you would need fewer stations as a result of -- okay, I just wanted to -- Page 68 November 29, 2006 CHIEF PAGE: If you look at Page 138, you see the four units that are reflected there. And that's still showing a deficit of 1.1 units. Let's say that these four units come online and we hit above 90 percent. Well, then typically that would say that the level of service standard should be lower, correct? So I think that's where I'm trying to get to is that let's take a look at it next year, see where we are. Historically that one for 15,000 seems to have worked over the years. But there's a lot of variables there. Traffic and station locations are certainly a major player in that. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, how's your pneumonia today? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's pretty good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm freezing up here. I'mjust wondering why -- we could save so much money in this county if we had reasonable temperatures in our buildings. And maybe if Chris at facilities management is listening, or someone could call 774-8380, and ask them not to have us freeze. Thank you. Mr. Harrison, I'm turning numb up here. Probably that's good for staffbut maybe -- Mr. Harrison, if you could go forward. MR. HARRISON: For future thought, kind of an off the wall idea, the Sheriffs Department permits officers to take their equipment home if they live in the county. When I look at the dispersion of your cost of equipment versus real estate, is it conceivable that we could spend more on equipment and allow the people to take it home with them and spend a lot less on real estate? You know, if you're staffed for 24-hour service, I'm saying okay, you've got one unit of equipment is 470. So we triple it, so everybody's got their own truck or whatever. But it's just, you know, for future thought. How could we avoid spending quite so much on real estate and still have a lot more equipment to improve the service level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be interesting in your Page 69 November 29, 2006 neighborhood to drive home in an ambulance and then go shopping with it the next day. CHIEF PAGE: Or just don't provide any sleeping quarters. You just rotate them out. MR. HARRISON: You wouldn't want to see any boat hitches on the back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just wondering, last year some of your problem also was associated with ambulance services for NCH to transport people. And I believe that ended. Did that give you much of a boost, availability, change the figures significantly? CHIEF PAGE: I believe so. And-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it reflected here? In a gross way? I'm not asking you for a specific line item. CHIEF PAGE: Well, the -- I believe it is, because obviously our response times have improved, I believe, probably two or three percent in the urban area. So that probably is a reflection of part of that. But they've been in existence now for probably two years. So they do take a number -- probably three thousand calls of what used to be inter-facility transports that we were tied up on. They have removed that from the equation. But there still be are some requests for Marco Island's health care facility that they own where our units are being utilized there, but prevent some response time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To some degree they're a revenue source as well; is that true? I wouldn't think -- CHIEF PAGE: Yes-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- it's not intended as a revenue source but it is a revenue source. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You use NFPA-1710 as a basis Page 70 November 29, 2006 for lost level of service standard. You do as well, though, keep an incidence rate record, do you not? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. But the 1710 is not really what's based as to develop that level of service standard. That level of service standard went back as far as 1986. And back then that standard was used in the City of Naples at a population of say 18,000. And we were using at that time a six minute average response time. Averages are no longer used out there. They go to a fractile response, which is more accurate because 50 percent is on time and 50 percent isn't. But that level of service standard also seemed to work back when we were under permanent population, or weighted population figures in 2001, I believe it was, worked with the fractile analysis also. It got us around what the standards should be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I guess I'm not really clear yet on -- you are subscribing to a level of service and you have a percentage that you're meeting. You say you're up to 90 percent. Does your incidence rate also -- is that what you're using as your basis to achieve your 90 percent? Your incidence rate, what I mean by that, if I'm not clear, is a call comes in, you respond to the call, action is taken, and you record that fact. And that's where I'm going with that question. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, yes. I can have Dave Stedman actually respond -- he's the one that always coordinates all those numbers. But if there's a specific question you want to ask him -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to establish, at least for my mind anyway, is that you have a level of service standard, but you also have the reality of the incidence rate of how frequently you're called and how well you are able to get to the scene, et cetera, et cetera. And I was just wondering what it is, are you using as the benchmark. Are you using the incidence rate or are you comparing that against a level of service standard? Page 71 November 29, 2006 And you further confused me because you now said that that NFP A-171 0 is not your basis. So I'm sorry if I'm out of sync with it, but I'm trying to follow. CHIEF PAGE: I'm hoping this will help explain a little bit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A little dark. CHIEF PAGE: Dave's going to give you some printed copies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You must have anticipated the question. CHIEF PAGE: Well, actually, you know, we look at these all the time, so -- MR. STEDMAN: For the record, Dave Stedman, database administrator for EMS. I want to quickly explain what you're looking at here. On the far left obviously you're looking at the zones. As you go across to the right, you'll see the percentage -- ignore the columns of numbers because those are just totals. But the percentage under the headings is the percentage that we made it there in that amount of time. In other words, zone one under four minutes, we got there 30 percent of the time in under four minutes. Our level of service standards is under nine minutes, because in this particular document, we're also considering turnout time as well as travel time, which is how fast they get out of the station and get in the truck. So that whole standard is nine minutes. The eight minutes that we've been talking about is actually en route to arrival, which is an NFPA-1710 standard travel time. So you'll see that -- and I don't know if this exactly answers your question, because I was a little confused about the question. But you'll see that these are the percentages for each of the zones that we're accomplishing in under nine minutes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you. And I apologize if I appeared to confuse. But what I was attempting to do was determine how -- I know you have to use composite numbers, and I know you Page 72 November 29,2006 have to get to a certain point. But I was wondering if you were just using a standard, okay, subscribing to it, or whether proving that standard against your realities and where that fell. And this does bring that to it. That brings me to the conclusion I needed. Thank you. MR. STEDMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chief, do you charge for your ambulance services to the public? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are the revenues for that shown? Or why are they not shown? CHIEF PAGE: I guess I would say that the reason that they're not -- certainly the revenues do not cover all of our costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, then you wouldn't be here today. So I realize that. But if it's revenue, it certainly would be nice to show it, I would think. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Aren't you using that against your operating costs, those revenues? CHIEF PAGE: Correct. MS. VASEY: It's not used against the facility cost, I believe, from our budget reviews. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, find. That would have been an answer. Thank you. Currently do you have any general fund revenue going into your -- on a regular basis going into these funds here, your facility funds? Some departments have an acknowledgement that every year they get some ad valorem revenue from the general fund going into their department. Do you have that in here in regards to facilities? CHIEF PAGE: Not for capital expenditures of building new, no. Traditionally that comes out of impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your equipment; 11.5 vehicles. You Page 73 November 29, 2006 have 11 stations, seven owned and four co-owned. Where does this other .5 vehicle end up? CHIEF PAGE: Typically we have what we call a seasonal unit where four to five months of the year we'll put up one to two 12-hour units to address that seasonal influx. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, to that is -- and basically you have one vehicle at every station? CHIEF PAGE: Not necessarily. I do have some -- the four growth units that are coming on line this year, two of those units may be housed at a specific station. For example, Golden Gate, reflected as 70, you can see that even though we have a unit right there in the middle, there's still a number of calls in excess of ten minutes. That's because that unit is transporting so often, it's vacated. One of the additional growth units will be stationed there with 70, so therefore, I don't really need to build a station, it's already there. And I've just saved some more money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're talking about units. We do mean ambulances, is that -- CHIEF PAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, equipment. CHIEF PAGE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many ambulances do you have at the leased stations? You have nine of those, so I would assume maybe nine units. CHIEF PAGE: Oh, yes, there would be one at each station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do those show up in the available inventory anywhere? I can't see where. CHIEF PAGE: The units themselves? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. CHIEF PAGE: Yeah, they're -- of the 22.5 units, they're reflected in that. The equipment, is that what you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. I'm puzzled then by the Page 74 November 29, 2006 footnote. I thought the units that you're -- you went by that, not the footnote, that diagram you showed with the circles on it. I thought you looked at equipment as another contributor to the value of your facilities, because you -- and if you did, I'm just wondering why wouldn't we count equipment that's at the leased facilities. I understand why you can't count the leased facilities as a value, because they're not owned -- CHIEF PAGE: We're talking about this one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. CHIEF PAGE: Okay. That's only the equipment that's there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to need to use the mike, unfortunately. There's a portable there somewhere. CHIEF PAGE: Okay. That reflects the equipment at a leased station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the seven owned units down below, the 3,385,166 is not only for the station but for the equipment that's there as well. CHIEF PAGE: Correct, all inclusive. And this, again, is the blended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why with the seven and four, when you added them together, they came so close, I thought the two were together as far as counts go. So you have 11.5 units, nine of which are at leased stations and 2.5 are floaters. CHIEF PAGE: When you say 2.5 are floaters, what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have nine leased stations and the 11.5 units of equipment only represents -- is incorporating those nine leased stations, then you have excess equipment that isn't at some of those nine leased stations, or is it all in the nine leased stations? CHIEF PAGE: I'm not sure I understand his question. MR. BOSI: He's saying you have 11.5 units within stations that Page 75 November 29, 2006 are leased, but you only have nine stations indicated that are leased. So one unit per each station, you have nine stations -- he's wondering, have they doubled up somewhere? CHIEF PAGE: Well, we do have stations that are doubled up. So obviously I'm not counting the two units out of Golden Gate stations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure that's what your -- I understand your earlier statement, so that's fine. CHIEF PAGE: Immokalee has another station that's doubled up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice on your table that you're starting out with a surplus deficiency of negative 3.6. Is that a carry-forward from prior years? CHIEF PAGE: It's because we went from a permanent population to a weighted population last year, and that created the immediate need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a restructuring or a different understanding of the statistics that make up the population would certainly have an impact on the deficiency or a surplus that you would show in that column. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That's all the questions I have. Anybody else have any questions on the EMS portion? Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Forgive me for another stray thought, but places like NCH have hundreds of people to meet the seasonal peak, to keep their service level up in season. Do we do anything along that line here in terms of extra units ready for meeting seasonal peaks? CHIEF PAGE: Well, we do put up seasonal units if it meets the criteria at the point where the number of calls for a given day, let's say we were over 140 calls. You know, then I'm going to put up a seasonal unit. But we do not hire -- where NCH may have traveling Page 76 November 29, 2006 , nurse s -- MR. HARRISON: They do. CHIEF PAGE: Okay. We don't have the ability to bring in a paramedic or even an EMT on a seasonal basis. In fact, there's very much in the state a shortage of paramedics. We've done quite well in recruiting. I think right now we have probably 12 field vacancies. There's a couple going through the process for all of the growth units that we have. But there's just a shortage of paramedics out there. And to try and bring them in on a seasonal basis, we don't do that. What we do do is allow our own paramedics to work overtime and fill those voids. MR. HARRISON: You're probably aware they lease hundreds of apartments to bring people in seasonally to meet their needs. CHIEF PAGE: Great idea. MR. HARRISON: After seeing the supply and demand on EMS people, that's not a possibility. CHIEF PAGE: No, sir, I just don't see it. There's quite a void with more fire districts getting involved with the ALS side and getting away from Fire. They've been drawing quite a few paramedics off from the EMS providers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that wrap up -- Ms. Caron, and Mr. Kolflat after Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 149, EMS replacement cost. First I'd like to make a comment, and that's that I'm glad to see that laptops and mobile radios have come down significantly in cost. We were looking at $7,200 laptops last year, and $8,000 mobile radios last year. And now we're down to four and 37, so that seems like a good thing to me. CHIEF PAGE: Again, that was due to us using the impact fee numbers, and that's why the equipment costs have come down. COMMISSIONER CARON: My question is though now, this year on portable radios, the increase over last year is like 28 percent. Page 77 November 29, 2006 Is that a real figure, that portable radios have increased that significantly from year to year? I mean, I understand -- I mean, everybody's got their cost increase, but that seems like -- CHIEF PAGE: Are you saying the unit cost has increased 28 percent? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHIEF PAGE: I'm being told that yes, there is a 28 percent increase in that line item. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just find that remarkable, as I did the laptop price and the mobile radio price last year. So hopefully next year this will be down as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, Mike, the sheets I have on this EMS section were apparently the original ones. I don't have the revised ones. For my file could you get me a copy of the revised? MR. BOSI: Absolutely, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And -- if I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fascinated with the 28 percent. If it's -- it seems extraordinary, out of what the norm of inflation would be required. Therefore, it suggests that there must be some embellishment, some kind of addition to the radio that would make it more effective in communication or something. My question then relates to if it's an increase now and we've bought, let's say we have a total inventory, for purposes of illustration, 600 radios and we just bought 22 of them that have cost us 22 percent more because they have some nuances, some little gimmicks, what does that mean for the future, because now they would be incompatible with the balance of the inventory? What does that mean in terms of where we're going? Page 78 November 29, 2006 What I'm saying, I guess my basic question is, are we really sure 28 percent is real? I find that challenging. And I think that I would love to have you be more sure than you appear to be. CHIEF PAGE: You're requesting I go back and take a look at that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would ask you to really find out why it's 28 percent more. Because what it tells us for the future is, if there's something that has been bought that is worth 28 percent more, that means it's going to follow for the rest of the inventory as you buy new units. So that's just an interesting question, I think. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, while we're on that page, what's an ALS ambulance, is that your -- CHIEF PAGE: Advanced life support. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It says 32. CHIEF PAGE: The reserve and fleet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We're only talking about less than that, based on 11.5, and at the owned and collocated another, say, 11. That's 22. Did we miss not counting 10 more ambulances into the inventory? MS . BAY: Artie Bay, for the record. This was all taken from the impact fee study. There's actually 32 ambulances with all the medical and communication equipment considered in here, but it's divided out. We don't use all of those ambulances at the same time. There's a reserve fleet. And so if you're using 20 ambulances, you have 12 other ambulances in reserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't doubt what you're saying a bit, but that's an inventory that is part of the available inventory. So it becomes an asset to the taxpayers that we should include at the rate Page 79 November 29,2006 that you utilized it, or at least I would think so. Unless there is a reason not to. MS. BAY: It is included as part of the average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What? MS. BAY: If you look at the equipment replacement cost form, the sheet, Page 149. There are 32 ambulances included in the inventory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's -- yeah, that's -- MS. BAY: Maybe I'm not understanding your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have 32 ambulances in your inventory, each have a value of 477,000. I'm not talking about replacement costs; I'm talking about the value that's on your available inventory value. You've only allocated 22.5 to the available inventory . By the other sheet you're saying you have 32. So there's ten approximately units times a half million dollars a unit that should be apparently in the inventory unless you can tell me why they shouldn't be. MS. BAY: It's included as a proportion of the total. And so-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Total? MR. BA YTOS: The total of the replacement cost, which is the 477,000. The ambulance actually is only something less than 256 -- 257,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But these are equipped vehicles. So your equipped vehicle I thought was 477 -- MS. BAY: Well, not -- no, not necessarily. The ambulance is not necessarily equipped with medical equipment. That's moved. If you take an ambulance out of the reserve, the equipment moves into those ambulances. Those aren't fully equipped ambulances. What you're seeing here is the inventory of all the equipment, and then we use the cost per station basis, because we had to take into consideration 32 ambulances, but they're not all in use at one time. Page 80 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure that I see the reasoning behind the way you used it in the inventory required of the AUIR. Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Just wondering why there's 20 units used as the denominator in here rather the 22.5. Because it looks like we're really just spreading this over 20 units, not the 22.5. And the 477 is overstated. Maybe I don't understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. I'm -- this 32 on that Page 149 has really put a confusion note into -- a confusing issue into the whole thing. Does anybody here -- Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are these units not rotated in and out of use? MS. BAY: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so why would they not be considered as being part of your standard inventory? What he's suggesting, if I understand it correctly, and I believe I do, he's talking about this is an asset in real terms whether you're using it or not, okay, and needs to be counted for value. And if you have to go to the -- if you're rotating them, that means for all intents and purposes, depending on the level of rotation, for all intents and purposes they are -- should be considered then to be, prepared to go to respond to a call. If you're telling me they're out for two and three months at a time, then you need still to establish the asset value, minus the medical equipment on board, if that's appropriate, okay. I don't mean to make your life more complicated, but you're understating your assets, and that's not a good thing there, the way I understand it. MS. BAY: I'm not really certain that we are, because we have to include them in the inventory, but we're dividing them out by the 20 Page 81 .^ ..."...~ . ..~ . __"",,,_.h".'''. November 29, 2006 stations. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't really know a way to do that. And we kind of follow the format from the impact fee study. And initially this was all divided by 11 stations, and we felt that that was inflating our -- because it's our replacement cost. If we were going to go and replace, it was inflating that by a serious dollar amount. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see your problem, I believe. In terms of usage in the AUIR, you're trying to connect it to the station it serves. And so perhaps it needs to be fractioned as an incremented cost. In other words, those extra units that are non-functional need to be fractioned into the rest of those usable units as a value to get to where you want to go. MS . BAY: So are you suggesting that rather than the 20, we would state it as 22 and a half? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whatever fraction works. I didn't work it out. I don't have the calculator with me. But whatever it is, it seems to me you need to treat it as part of your -- it's available, it's functional and it needs to be usable, so I think it needs to be stated. MS. BAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on the ambulance or EMS section of the AUIR? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Just one quick question. What percentage of your calls result in the transport? CHIEF PAGE: Last time I took a look, I think we were right about 56 percent. I can get you a firmer number if you like. Generally it averages around that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chief, I think there are some outstanding issues that through this meeting you need to address. CHIEF PAGE: Could you help me with that list so I make sure I Page 82 November 29, 2006 have it. We talked about the unfunded information from OMB. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, that's one of the most important items. Addressing these reserve units, I certainly would think that if you're going to have some criteria for reserve units, you may want to -- if you have included it in your other pricing, that's understandable, but you've got to have some kind of standard as to how many reserve units you need for how many full units you have. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Strain, I'm just barely hearing you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Well, that kind of information coming back to us -- CHIEF PAGE: So you want the unit ratio? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understood. CHIEF PAGE: 4.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever it is per unit. A lot of the other questions I think were answered. I'm not sure. Does anybody else -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The radio. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The radio issue? CHIEF PAGE: Yeah, 28 percent more and why. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else recall anything else that we may have missed. I think that's it. CHIEF PAGE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. The next item on the AUIR is going to be a lengthy discussion. I think it's -- I believe it's government buildings. Yes. You may want to take a lunch break now until twenty minutes till 1 :00 and that way attack the government buildings all in one lump sum. So with that we will take a one-hour break or one hour and two minutes, be back here at 12:40. 12:40 for the members of the Page 83 November 29, 2006 commISSIon. So please. Thank you. (A lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The time. We were supposed to have started, so if everybody can please get to their seats, we'll start with the meeting. And I think the first line of business ought to be the discussion of where we intend to go today and take it from here. We're moving a little bit slower than we may have anticipated; the issues will be coming a little more in detail. I don't expect us to get everywhere completed today with -- we'll finish the first reading but not the second reading that we have originally thought. I don't think we'll get through all of those. So that brings us to a point where we need to know where to go next. We have the room available to us tomorrow. And I understand we have it available on the 12th and 15th of December. Is that right, Mike? MR. BOSI: The 12th and 15th of December we have a room available, but it's the 609 and 610 CDES. The chambers are occupied for those dates. Our spillover dates for December were all confined within 609 and 610 at CDES. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Conference room over at Development servIces. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One thing that was asked was if we could possibly rehear the EMS and library corrections that we discussed earlier later this afternoon. My thought on that is that not only does staff need time to digest what we need to discuss with them, maybe they can get it back to us after a few hours, but we also would need time to see how their answers the already gave us affect the tables that we've already got. So I would rather see us go into a second reading on those at a point in the future, not tomorrow. Page 84 November 29, 2006 But I need to poll the board and see what you think about meeting tomorrow or reconvening where we end up today back on the 12th or the 15th to finish up. Any thoughts? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with tomorrow. I'd rather do it and go through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have to look at the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: December works better for me, as well as I think it will give us a chance to read through everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, does December not work for you, or are you just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I mean, I'm sorry, Bob Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What date was that in December? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelfth and 15th. MR. BOSI: Friday and a Tuesday. The 12th is Tuesday-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, I'm good. I have it in here for the Productivity Committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the Productivity Committee have any suggestions or ideas on what you'd like? MR. HARRISON: Tomorrow or the 12th but the not the 15th. MR. BA YTOS: I prefer the 12th. MS. VASEY: I'd like to finish up tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tomorrow. Well, we're scheduled for tomorrow, so I guess if we -- do we have a quorum with the Planning Commission, though. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll be there tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron will not-- COMMISSIONER CARON: I cannot be here tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know. What we'll have Page 85 November 29, 2006 to do on break, we're going to call a few of the others and see if we can get a quorum here for tomorrow. Otherwise, it wouldn't do us much good, we couldn't take a position on it. Because coming here tomorrow would be to try to finish up and come to the conclusion of some of the ones we've already discussed. Mike, is -- oh, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, just for the record, Joe Schmitt. Please recognize also that the 12th and 13th of December are board dates, so there will be a board meeting going on at the same time. We expect that to be a two-day meeting, so there will be a lot of staff supporting, basically involved in what's going on between what's going on with the board plus what will be going on with the respective committees. So, in fact I know there's a lot on the agenda with a two-day board meeting. That was strictly scheduled in belief that it would be and if needed for carry-over only. But it appears we're going to need them. And we'll do what we can to certainly support both the board meeting. I'll have to have principal staff members here, because there are many of my agenda items on that board meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, you may be jumping ahead a little bit. Because if we do -- it looks like we could meet tomorrow, assuming we have a quorum for the Planning Commission, because we would have to take a vote on our recommendations tomorrow then. So if we meet tomorrow, we might be able to finish it up then. MR. BOSI: And there was one other date that we had originally allocated in December, and that was December 7th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our regular meeting date. We have a pretty long day that day. Mr. Harrison, did you have something you want to say. MR. HARRISON: I'm just finishing up on what we were talking to EMS about, Pages 151 to 152. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's finish this discussion of when Page 86 November 29, 2006 we're going to meet again. Everybody then is for tomorrow? Yes. MS. VASEY: Just a question. When are you supposed to go to the commissioners with the A UIR? MR. BOSI: The 24th of January. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay, so it's not in December. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, during the break, is someone going to be able to contact the other missing CCPC members to see if one of them could make it? Paul Midney is usually not available, so I wouldn't even try that. But you might try Commissioner Adelstein. MR. BOSI: We'll make sure someone is available to be able to accomplish that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Because that way if we know before the day is over, we can make a decision on whether we should continue tomorrow or not. Okay, with that, Mr. Harrison, do you want to follow up on a question? Is EMS even here? MR. BOSI: No, I thought we were -- MR. HARRISON: I never got through Pages 151, 152, but it's a fleet of vehicles even larger than what they had under replacement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, they're going to have to come back to us, which more than likely will be tomorrow. We'll have to bring up that, raise a new issue tomorrow. With that, we'll move into the government buildings section of the AUIR. And I don't know who was responsible for finally getting the computer to understand this was not a meat locker, but thank you, because the temperature is much better here today. Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. HOVELL: For the record, I'm Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager in the Facilities Management Department, and I'm sure my boss will take full credit for that, for the facilities, because he Page 87 November 29,2006 called the shots last time you made that comment. And I saw him in here working on the thermostat. Anyway, if I could start backwards with our input, kind of building up. Pages 162 and 163 provide the inventory of buildings. You'll note that there's been some changes from last year's, and those are specially highlighted there at the end with asterisks and whatnot. Page 161 is the summary of the capital improvement plan, and there was one change that I don't think you got the page on. It came out of one of the questions relatively recently. Under the section projects approved for construction, we had been carrying the Sheriffs CID building, the 35,000 and some odd square feet, as being a transfer into government buildings in 2008. Based on input from the Sheriffs Office and discussions during their AUIR process earlier, that is apparently not going to happen in the foreseeable future. So when you back out those figures, it makes the proposed five-year CIE 264,567 square feet, which actually had already been captured in the summary form, just not on that particular page. And then building up from there, there's the charts and graphs and whatnot that ultimately are summarized on Page 155 that, this summary form. I think the heart of our issue is with the capital improvement plan. I want to specifically point out that most of the -- most if not all the projects we're talking about have already been approved, are either well under construction or are about to start construction. So there's not a lot of opportunity to change the five-year plan. The only ones that are proposed as future items are the CAT operations facility, which the board recently approved the purchase of the Morande Automobile dealership. It's being paid for with non-government building impact fees anyway, but it winds up going on this inventory. The Ave Maria government building/communications tower. Page 88 November 29, 2006 You heard earlier, I think it was EMS, explain that we are going to get some land in that development to build EMS, fire. There's also some land to build this government center. And one of the reasons we had to put it within the five-year window is in order to both document and sort of fulfill our end of the bargain with the developer to make sure that they do transfer the property to us. And the last one is the north transportation facility, which is part of a convoluted land swap deal between what used to be GAC land trust land, about 47 acres, some school board land adjacent to Palmetto Ridge High School, and some other county owned lands that are up there in the Orangetree area, that involve the future northeast plant for the public utilities division. And again, that's been kicking around as a -- at least in a land swap sense, it's been kicking around for about a year and a half. It only became apparent during this AUIR process that some other funding mayor may not pay for it. That's yet to be determined whether it will actually be paid for with government impact fees or some other source of funding. So you'll see that one says TBD for a funding source. I think those are the highlights I wanted to point out. And I'll open it up for your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have questions from the panel? MR. BA YTOS: So just make sure I'm clear on what you've said. Baytos, for the record. All of the proj ects in the next five years are pretty much committed already and they're designed and it's a done deal. Is that-- MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. If you'd like, I can go down the list and -- you know, for instance, one of the ones, projects under construction, and realize this was a snapshot in time. On September 30th, 2006 it was listed as under construction. We just opened the courthouse annex parking deck on Page 89 November 29, 2006 November 20th. So next year that will show up just in the inventory. It will not appear as part of the capital improvement plan because it's done now. The courthouse annex that the foundation work is getting ready to get underway here in the next couple of weeks. The fleet facility, we just had our contract approved in front of the board here recently. That will probably get under construction in December. The emergency services complex, at the next board meeting I'll be bringing forward the guaranteed maximum price with Kraft. And that site work will probably start in December. By the way, that's the same site as the South Regional library . This will be the site work for both. Both those projects will be getting underway probably in December. So yes, they're all pretty far along. And I guess I would point out, too, that because of the advanced stage of all these projects, when I did a summary form, I showed that the cost I showed as the actual projected cost for each one of those projects, added them all together, divided by the square footage it provided, and it came out in this particular case to almost $500 a square foot. I'm sure next year when the parking garage drops out, which isn't really providing any square feet, it's almost like part of the site development costs for the courthouse annex, that will excuse the numbers this year, but next year the unit cost will probably go down significantly because that one will drop off the five-year capital improvement plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your list of inventory list of buildings, where is the City of Naples meeting room and their council chambers and all that stuff? MR. HOVELL: They don't belong to Collier County, so they're not listed. Page 90 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't think so. Why then under the population countywide are you using populations from the cities of Marco Island, Everglades City and Naples, yet you're not including MR. HOVELL: Collier County provides services to people in the City of Naples. We have board meetings regarding EMS as an example. EMS provides services within the city. General government services are provided. I know out -- I know there's a government service center out in Immokalee. I believe -- I don't know if there's any kind of interlocal agreements where the city collects some fees or anything related to county things, but I know there's crossovers there. So, no, right now we don't change the population figures based on anything less than the full county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, then you're looking at the population from the city as using -- having the same impact on county facilities as county population does. Yet the city people have all their own facilities in which to deal with. Very few of them, in fact I don't know any of them that have ever shown up at a Planning Commission meeting. They go to their own city council meeting. MR. HOVELL: Each and every function that we support -- and we're unlike a lot of other ones you've heard, where maybe a department director like Jeff Page for EMS or Marilyn Matthes for the libraries can get up and they can talk about their function, because they both operate and therefore plan what they need. We're sort of the cats and dogs of the organization. We provide support to the clerk the courts, the property appraiser, the tax collector, the court functions, the public defender, the state attorney, much less our own internal departments. And each one of those have their own growth metric who they support, don't support, et cetera. And from a very vague planning sense, each one of those mayor may not provide services to people in the cities. This particular methodology was adopted by the board when the Page 91 November 29, 2006 government building impact fee was first adopted, and we've just repeated it. We've not so far attempted to change that methodology. Sure, we could spend lots of time talking about the details of all those individual functions, but -- actually, I probably shouldn't say we, I'm probably not qualified to talk about that. You'd have to get those from the other departments and entities to get up here and attempt to defend their particular areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, I guess you've got your position. Others can have theirs. Anybody want to ask any questions of the government building? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: First I'd like to start with Page 155. I guess I'm the one that asked the questions about why the unit cost was so high, because it is higher than the unit cost that's included in the impact fee. I think that was only $279, instead of nearly 500. And I do understand that there are some differences. I'm not sure that I understand why we should include this higher figure of nearly 500, because as you said, when the parking garage becomes part of the inventory and is no longer separately identified, the projects that are remaining will drop down to $425 per square-- yeah, per square foot. And so you're kind of artificially inflating it this year, and then it will drop back down to a more reasonable level next year. And I'm not sure -- you know, that just kind of raises concerns and perceptions that I don't know if it's useful to go in that direction. MR. HOVELL: The format of this forum, I must say, causes a lot of discussion. When I first started doing this, when I switched over to the facilities department, it about drove me to distraction. We can fill out this form in a lot of different ways. This top section where we're doing the available inventory, the required inventory, the proposed CIE and therefore our deficit, certainly from a square footage point of view, that's a pretty straightforward Page 92 November 29, 2006 calculation. The problem always comes into well, how do you value that? Well, I can certainly document that our proposed CIE is $131 million. So it would not seem appropriate to artificially say well, we're building 264,000-plus square feet, but let's only multiply that number times 425, because that's not the cost of those projects. But if we wanted to for that section do it a different way, that would be fine. But when we get down here to the expenditures and revenues, I absolutely have to show that we're going to spend 131 -- or at least plan to spend $131 million over the next five years for those specific projects. Most of those are already approved and underway, and therefore I have to show how I'm going to come up with the revenues for those items. So if we want to talk about changing the way the form works or what it's meant to display, I think maybe that top portion, you know, we could do that, if that's the desire of the folks in charge of these things. But certainly from an expenditure and revenue point of view, I think we need to use the projects as we actually understand them to exist. MS. VASEY: Well, it's just that next year you will still have the revenue line, you'll still have the debt service that you're paying for, for the 2003 and 2005 bonds that include the parking deck. So it's going to be with you for many years. And I assume those are like 30 year bonds? MR. HOVELL: I think 20, as far as I know. But there could be different ones with different lengths. MS. VASEY: So you're going to have that with you for a long time. It's just that is seems strange. You know, we were always looking at unit cost, and that's a pretty major distortion, 70-some dollars a square foot. And I certainly understand what you're saying. It's just, you Page 93 November 29, 2006 know, then it's going to cause all kinds of questions next year. Well, how did it go down, were we more efficient? Well, no, it's the parking garage. MR. HOVELL: As I say, I'm not sure, at least from my point of view, I'm not sure what the unit cost really tells us or does for us, except in a very long-range planning sense. Because, yes, for other functions where maybe you're trying to plan something ten years out, well, what cost did you use? Well, okay, for lack for any other good reason, then maybe you use the unit cost that was developed in the impact fee study. But once those start to become -- once those start to transition from long-range planning to project-specific execution, at some point you have to transition from planning figures to real figures. And in this particular category, government buildings, almost all our proj ects are under some phase of design or study and we have more detailed estimates than the more vague, well, let's just throw 425 square foot as an example. So I'm not sure what to do about that transition. I'm not even a planner by profession. And I understand your point, but I'm not sure what to do about it. MS. VASEY: And I'm not sure either. I just raised it because, you know, people look at that. They look at that number and it causes questions. So I'm willing to say that that just needs to be asterisks or something. Maybe put it in the -- once the parking deck is -- if the parking deck is excluded because there's no square footage associated with the 19 million dollars or whatever it is, that would be an average cost of 425. So we don't lose the reason why it's distorted, at least. MR. HOVELL: We could certainly add that to the notes down there at the bottom. MS. VASEY: And one other thing while we're on this page. Almost everything we've looked at on the other facilities, there may Page 94 November 29, 2006 sometimes be a surplus according to the level of service standard, those first few numbers. But there's usually not a revenue required associated with it. And here we have sort of a unique situation where you're programming in a surplus and then you're asking for money, too. And I'd like to look a little more closely at the Ave Maria and the transportation ones, because if you were to eliminate those two, you could get pretty much into the required level of service over the five years and not very much additional funding required. So if you follow that logic, I'm trying to understand why we need to have those facilities in this five-year AUIR, because you could be in balance if you didn't put them in. MR. HOVELL: Well, again, the Ave Maria is put in there specifically to set aside the land in next year's AUIR. You know maybe it will be in year five again and maybe the year after that it will be in year five again. So if we don't show some evidence of planning to construct on the land, we won't get the land. So beyond that, I'm not sure what to tell you. I mean, yes, mathematically it would show without a deficit if we were to delete it, but then we probably wouldn't get the land. So I'm not sure how to resolve that. The north transportation facility, again that's under consideration for who's going to pay for it and how it's going to be paid for. From an inventory point of view it's going to get captured in this category. If some other source of funding pays for it, it will show up as revenue of whatever that other funding source might be to offset the expense. It's in motion. We're in discussion with the school board on an interlocal agreement to do that land swap, and if that land swap goes through, then I believe transportation will continue to pursue, whether it's grant funding, that some source of funding that they have at their disposal and/or asking the board to approve impact fees. So we're just trying to capture that someplace, that it is an ongoing effort. Page 95 November 29,2006 MS. VASEY: Well, is it for a growth-related thing, or is it just moving things around and you're just replacing something that you should have. MR. HOVELL: I was looking -- I'm sorry. Yes, I was looking to see if anybody from transportation was still out. As far as I know it's growth-related, because right now I think they run all the road and bridge operations out of the facility there on Davis Boulevard. This facility is planned, or at least conceptualized to be up there by Orangetree, and it would provide them their second place to operate from to provide the road and bridge services, one of which is to go out and work on some of those non-paved roads. They spend a fair amount of time doing that. So yes, I think it is growth-related, at least from what I've heard from the transportation division. MS. VASEY : You're really using a lot of your -- well, you're getting to have quite a bit of debt service. When you look at what you have from the bonds and then all the debt service payments using the commercial paper loans. And you're obligating it for, I imagine, 10 years on the commercial paper and 20-year on the bond. Is that financially going to cause you any problems? MR. HOVELL: It's a good question. I believe -- I've talked to Susan Usher a lot in the budget office about this. And one of the things about the format of this, the AUIR presentation the way it's currently structured, is it gives you that five-year window, but what it doesn't really show you is that yeah, but we've spent this amount of money and we continue to have a debt service payment for another ten, 15 years, depending on which bond series we're on and whatnot. So it doesn't take that long term view to see, for instance, I think one of these lines says something like -- at least if not in our category, in some of the other categories, talk about a loan from the general fund. But it doesn't really tell you when and if they'll ever be Page 96 November 29, 2006 able to afford to pay that back. Because we only look at a five-year window, we don't project out 15,20 years and say okay, in year 12 we're going to pay that back. So I don't know the rest of those details. I know it certainly concerns me. But again, most of these projects, the budgets and the loans and whatnot are already in place. So there's not -- it's not like these are proposed things where we don't have a plan. I'm pretty sure between the budget office and the things in place, that these items are already contemplated in their plans to pay for it. MS. VASEY: Because that was exactly the problem we had with the EMS. Because when you've got a lot of loans out there and no foreseeable way to pay them back, then it comes into question whether it's really financially feasible or not -- MR. HOVELL: I don't -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. MS. VASEY: No, go ahead. MR. HOVELL: I don't know to what degree EMS worked with the budget office. I know ours is, at least in my opinion, a pretty complicated set of financing schemes going on here. So I have a specific spreadsheet that shows all the details about the revenues, and which bond, and when they're coming on line and how much is being paid. I think it goes out maybe ten years, but it doesn't out to the life of the loans and whatnot. So I know the budget office spent a fair amount of time specifically for this AUIR looking at it and providing these figures. So I feel fairly confident that they do have a plan for all these. MR. COHEN: Ms. Vasey, can I add something as well with respect to the Category B facilities, as we differentiate those from the Category A's. The Category A's are going to be incorporated into the CIE, and they have to be financially feasible. The category B's, the board has a lot more flexibility in being able to revisit them with respect to financial feasibility. F or example, if the revenue stream isn't there for a certain project, which is -- had Page 97 November 29, 2006 been the case, I know, when they looked at government buildings this last year and they said move certain proj ects back, you have the ability to revisit the Category B's and move them around a little bit more. Where with the Category A's, because we're subject to state scrutiny, we have to tell DCA, okay, we're moving a project out of, say, public utilities. The rationale cannot be financial. The rationale would have to be, for example, our population growth has slowed down and we're not going to need that water plant in 2015, we going to need it in 2017 instead as a result of that. Whereas with the Category B's we have some more flexibility. And you'll be able to revisit it and the Board of County Commissioners will be able to revisit it as well. And that's the advantage with the Category B facilities. MS. VASEY: I just thought we would be trying to look to help them see if there is a financial problem when we go through it. MR. COHEN: If you do see something that's glaring, that really kind of stands out like that with the Category A's or the Category B's, definitely point it on out. And if you see something that you think should be put on off into year six or seven or whatever the case may be, then I would recommend that accordingly. MS. VASEY: I have one last. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. MS. VASEY: Could you address the CAT facility? Last year it was in the AUIR for 2.6 million and you were going to do it on County Barn. And now it's planned for that car dealership and it's 8.7. And I was just sort of wondering why that's a better deal. MR. HOVELL: I'm sorry, I couldn't tell you on that aspect. Once it became -- once it switched from being at County Barn -- and I can tell you why it didn't work out at County Barn -- but the transportation division is managing the rest of that. I really don't know much about it other than capturing it on the report. Page 98 November 29, 2006 I do know that almost the whole two years I've been with the facilities management department, this project -- or the concept of trying to find CAT a more permanent home has been kicking around. I know I've been involved in looking at numerous properties all around the county trying to the figure out where we can buy them some land and build them a building. In the end, the one that was captured on last year's A UIR was the concept that we would somehow acquire the parcels adjacent to County Barn and expand that overall facility to include CAT. Well, the property owners were contacted, one being a church, and they declined to sell to the county. And in the end the board did not seem to support the idea of doing eminent domain, and so that was not going to work. And then the transportation division went back to one of the many alternatives that had been looked at, which was to buy the old Morande dealership, and when they took that to the board that did get approved. So I'm sorry I can't answer much more than that, but at least that provides you some history of how that happened. MS. VASEY: Just one clarification. On the Ave Maria, when you say that we'll lose the land if we don't put it in the program, is that if we don't have it in the five-year program we'll lose it, or is there -- what is the risk of slipping it into the fiscal year 12 program instead of the 11 ? MR. HOVELL: It was my understanding, and of course Category B, maybe this doesn't really work out anyway, but it was my understanding, just second, third-hand type of thing from the developer through somebody I think in the CDES world, that the best way to commit to needing the land was to show it. And I think the word they used was in our capital improvement plan, which I don't know if we have a term that's exactly like that. Whether it's AUIR or capital improvement element or if they meant this particular piece of Page 99 November 29,2006 paper. So I don't know if there would be a difference between the five-year window or pushing it out into that second five-year window. And I'm not sure quite who I would have to ask to figure that out. MS. VASEY: It seems like if it's in there for year 12, it's still in there. MR. HOVELL: That could be a possibility. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: One more question. The -- the large number of projects in the second five years of the ten-year plan have design fees and so forth been incurred already on those proj ects? At what point, you know, is there an opportunity to evaluate the plan and the need and so forth? MR. HOVELL: All of the ones listed at the bottom under that category called Planned Projects beyond FY 2011, none of those to my knowledge have any current activity towards planning or design or anything like that. Most of them -- not all of them but most of them are based on the last master plan that had been done. One or two, for instance, that first one, the tax collector north office was a specific request from the tax collector. But understanding the reluctance to continue to add new proj ects in the first five years, we just put it in the second five years for now just as one of those things that's out there -- MR. BA YTOS: So it's a wish list. MR. HOVELL: At this point I guess I'd have to call it that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I just want to confirm, so are you going to move Ave Maria down to the planned projects beyond 2011 ? MR. HOVELL: I couldn't tell you one way or the other today. I Page 100 November 29, 2006 would need to check with somebody to determine what we need to do to make sure we don't lose the land. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you would get us that information, because it would seem to me that Ms. Vasey has a very good point. MR. HOVELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your available inventory, you dropped from last year, which I looked at your tables, I understand why you dropped -- I will have questions on each individual item there. But last year you had approved capital proj ects for fiscal year '06 and prior years, 218,784 square feet on top of the 604,181 that was in the available inventory, for a total of 822,965. What happened to that 218,784? MR. HOVELL: This year it's captured as part of the proposed CIE. Last year I tried to split it out to kind of show that it's not on line, but it's already under construction or pretty far along. There was a lot of discussion about the format. And to be consistent with the others, we did break it out that way. So that 218 less anything that opened, for instance, the North Collier government services center opened in 2006, so that 16 or so thousand square feet dropped out because it went onto the inventory, it's no longer proposed. But the rest of that rolled into what's called proposed CIE FY '07 to 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the 218,784 was approved as a capital project in the prior fiscal year and years prior to that, why wouldn't that money be re-needed to be calculated into this year's additional revenues required? Or did this AUIR's additional revenues require that's already been in there and done and funded. MR. HOVELL: Well, again, this is that problem between transitioning from planning to execution. A lot of these projects, especially, for instance, the courthouse annex parking garage, it was Page 101 November 29,2006 probably 98 percent complete on September 30th, and yet we're showing a facility coming on line. Where do we -- where, how, if do we capture those costs that have been spent for a facility that's not yet on line? The guidance, to my understanding, is that the total cost of the proj ect, if it hasn't been opened, goes as a proposed capital improvement element. And so this is the way this is reflected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is that because of that, because of the way that you had to reflect it, the additional revenues required may not be required because they're already funded as part of the capital proj ects in the prior year that just didn't show up in time in this document. No? MR. HOVELL: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you explain why. MR. HOVELL: The costs for all those facilities are -- in the expenditure category, they show up as an expense, and on the revenue ends of things, they show up as bonds to pay for those expenses. So they're captured on both sides of the equation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the square footage that they produce, is that -- how is that captured? If you had a requirement for a square footage that was in a prior budget and that square footage was already allocated in a prior AUIR, by repeating it in the proposed -- this proposed CIE, then aren't you saying we need to refund -- MR. HOVELL: Every year we do a five-year window, so any project that was perhaps in that first year might drop out. But all those other four years are always relevant to next year's proposed five-year window, just one year earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't we normally see that as a carry- forward? MR. HOVELL: No, I was the only one that did it that way last year. They're all shown as proposed until they come on line. Page 102 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because last year's expenditures for the proposed CIE included this year and up to 2010 was only 2.3 million. It jumped from 2.3 to 131, that's a substantial jump in proposed for a one-year addition to an AUIR. MR. HOVELL: Last year also showed the expenses needed for those FY '06 and prior year projects. And that, again, that rolled forward as captured in that single line item called proposed CIE for the five-year window, 2007 to 2011. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as your impact fees goes go, did you have an impact fee increase since the last A UIR? MR. HOVELL: Yes. I believe it was adopted May, June, June of this year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it looks like it's almost doubled. Is that correct, Amy? MS. PATTERSON: The new impact fee was adopted on June 25th and didn't go into effect until November 1st. So it was a sizable increase, but we haven't -- none of that revenue is reflected in -- it would be reflected in the forecast money in your AUIR, but we're not receiving that money as of yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The Ave Maria issue, by the way, I know that they've not come on -- they got an FlAM produced when they got approved for their DR!. And they had certain thresholds they were expected to meet based on production, the number of units sold and everything built out there. I would assume that you wouldn't want to build a government facility out there until the residential area and the residential quantity in the area justified its use. MR. HOVELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I was wondering how that would go into Ms. Vasey's comment about the delay of the Ave Maria, because they've been delayed in the production of what they were going to have on line by now. So I'm assuming that would belay Page 103 November 29, 2006 the need for a government building out there. That's just a statement more than anything else. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Does the county recognize the term substantial completion in contracts? MR. HOVELL: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you're a 98 percent, wouldn't that constitute substantial completion? MR. HOVELL: No, sir. At least in my world, substantial completion means when we can occupy the building for beneficial use. So the substantial completion for the parking garage was November 20th, first day we parked in it. It won't be finally completed until sometime in December, they're still over there working on it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do know, having watched yesterday, or been here yesterday, I'm aware of the problem that's associated with the sprinkler system. But that's the glitch on that one, wasn't it? MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. It probably would have been opened over the summer had it not been for that particular issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now it terms of budget numbers, when you quote, when a Commissioner would ask you how much are your construction costs, are you going to use the high number when you answer them or are you going to use the number that you know is most current that is estimated? MR. HOVELL: Construction number for what, a specific proj ect? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Any project. I'm trying to get a general -- I'm trying to give you an appreciation of my thinking here. If the issue before on the AUIR is you have a construction cost number, right, 497 a square foot or whatever it is, that's not necessarily Page 104 November 29,2006 a real cost, that's inflated by some other factor. So if you were asked by a Commissioner, you know, what are current construction numbers for building such and such kind of building, you would pretty much have a general idea or could get that? And you wouldn't quote the AUIR number to them at that time. MR. HOVELL: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you budget, will you be budgeting on the high number knowing full well that that -- okay, that answered my question. MR. HOVELL: No, we try and use metrics for various facilities types. As an example, though, you were talking about libraries a little earlier, we received bids for the Marco Island library addition of 4,000 square feet. The total proj ect costs, if we accepted that bid, which is going to the board next meeting to rej ect those bids, but had we accepted that bid, the project costs would have been 2.5 million, over $500 a square foot for a single meeting room addition. Each category of facility we tend to try and estimate based on its particular issues. Some require a lot more site development than others, depending -- when we do something here on this site, there's a lot of infrastructure already built in. When we develop something on raw land, then we have to plan on bringing in utilities, so to me they're all different. I don't use one planning figure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I agree with you. And the reason I raised that question is because I didn't think that in going forward you would use inflated numbers. And I understand you have to figure somewhere. And I appreciate what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your government buildings, I notice there's been some changes. The agricultural building of 13,361 square feet, there's a note that it was removed from inventory per consultant's recommendation. Where did it go? MR. HOVELL: I don't think it's captured on any other inventory, as far as I know. Page 105 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it was at one time considered a government building. So does it not have a value any longer, or how does it get taken off the books, not accounted for? MR. HOVELL: I know on the current inventory that's printed there there's those last number that have the note that says the square footage is not included in the total, but the value of the facility is included in the impact fee study calculations. At the recommendation of the consultant, I believe the recommendation was to remove it from the inventory entirely. Unless I misunderstood that recommendation -- yes, to be removed entirely. So as far as where it goes, I don't know the answer to that question. I just know it doesn't belong on this one anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, couldn't we -- since the whole thing that drives the need for government buildings is square foot per capita, that's a lot of square footage, sir. Can we expect an answer on that? Someone find out who is utilizing the building. And maybe that other department could credit itself for the use of that building. MR. HOVELL: There's no change in use. It was just for whatever criteria -- well, maybe Amy can explain it better. But whatever criteria used for government buildings, it was felt perhaps not to meet that. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. I guess what we have to understand here is for what can be utilized in the impact fee study and then what the overall inventory is. And this is a decision clearly that is not mine of how you want to address the inventory. But speaking specifically to the inventory related to the impact fees, we had outside legal counsel and our consultant working on the update to this study this past year. The fee was originally adopted in 2004 and the inventory was established. We were then -- we were in litigation for -- or challenged in the following year by the CBIA. And because of that, we employed outside counsel, which we do Page 106 November 29, 2006 normally anyway when we're undertaking an impact fee study, but in this case he looked at all the components of the study to decide -- and to make sure that all things were appropriate and that he had another look from all perspectives on the elements of the study. And looking through the inventory, there were certain buildings that he felt would be most appropriate to be removed from that inventory. Those things were some of the ancillary facilities, the fair -- some of the fairgrounds facilities, the museums, because he felt that those square footages were not things that should be utilized under a general government buildings. You don't need those to ensure your level of service. A museum is a good thing to have, but it's not something that's required. And so he tried to draw that line between office space that's required and office space that's good to have but doesn't necessarily factor into your level of service. So that's how those came off of the impact fee inventory. That was on the advice of our outside legal counsel. As far as how that plays into the overall inventory, if it should be added on a separate line to develop an overall inventory and then an impact fee inventory, I don't know. But that's where it stands as far as the impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- trying to understand better what you said, does that mean that there are buildings out there owned by this government that are not on any inventory anywhere? Calculated into capital projects or -- MS. PATTERSON: They're not on the impact fee inventory. As far as other inventories that are kept by the county, they're captured someplace, we know that we own them. But I can only speak to the impact fee inventory, which is those buildings that we own, that are factored to the level of service for the impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I guess from what I can see, I don't care if the building I'm sitting in here today was paid by an impact fee or my ad valorem taxes, it's still a government building Page 107 November 29,2006 that's used by the public. So I guess my phrasing of my question is where can we find a list of every government building owned by the public? Is that what should be appearing in front of us or does that not exist or why are we not taking that inventory into consideration? MR. HOVELL: If you don't split hairs over your definition of government, certainly we have a full inventory of every building that the county owns. Whether they're libraries or EMS stations or what we classify for impact fee purposes in government buildings, sure, we have that list. Does every single building show up on one of the many AUIR categories? Well, based on what we just talked about, apparently not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess that goes to the crux of my question, is if it's a government building paid for with some kind of dollars supplied by taxpayers, whether it be impact fees or ad valorem, it would seem to me that that square footage calculation we're using ought to factor in using that square footage of whatever building is there. It's a necessary building -- if it's not necessary, then why are the taxpayers paying for it? I guess that would be my next conclusion. Do we have a list of those buildings that may not be allocated to anybody anywhere? MR. HOVELL: Someone would have to go through the full inventory and compare them against all the inventories of all the various categories and see if there's anything missing. I don't know offhand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have similar questions with other issues on here. You have the stormwater aquatic plant, 1375 square feet, that's on County Barn Road but it's down to zero. Again, it's got another one of those removal things. And I thought okay, maybe that's some specialty plant that somebody didn't figure belonged there. But when you go over to the Page 108 November 29, 2006 next page you've got an 800 megahertz generator building for 238 feet that certainly is specialized. And I can't see the public going in and out of that, but yet it's on your list. MR. HOVELL: Well, but that, you notice the footnote for that one, though, says that the square footage is not included in the total. The value of the building is included in the valuation, but not the square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what all those little crosses mean on that page. What about the airport place tax collector? How come that is down to, say zero. Again, it was removed by the -- you don't have an answer for that? MR. HOVELL: Other than the consultant. And it may have something to do with how that one was paid for, specifically. But beyond that, no. I mean, in general, tax collector facilities I think do show up on here. And for instance, if we were ever -- right now they're in a fair amount of leased space. If we were ever to build them a new building, and get them out of some leased space, then I probably think that would go on the inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one question on that page. Building W, general services, we lost 11,000 square feet over that second floor. What happened? Did we rent it to somebody, did we -- MR. HOVELL: No, ma'am, it never existed -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is it a wedding cake building or MR. HOVELL: -- for some reason the inventory showed both the first and second floor had over 20,000 square feet each. The second floor in fact never was that amount, so it's been corrected to the actual amount that exists. Page 109 November 29, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: So the first floor is -- MR. HOVELL: 21,782. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- was 22. And the second floor of the building is only II. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, Facilities Management Director. It's a two-story building, but on the second floor there's a concrete portion, and then there's some metal mezzanines. Those were not supposed to be counted. They were considered temporary, and in fact they're being tom down. MR. HOVELL: I think it's more than that, though. This is a warehouse building that doesn't have a full second floor. There are parts that are floor to ceiling, two stories all, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other -- Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just following up on that, it's really a teaser, isn't it. So for the purposes of this report, the only valuation that we're applying, are those that are subject to impact fees? Although you did say you value the buildings that are not on the inventory, but you don't include the square footage. I'm trying to understand. I recognize, for instance, a building may have a useful life of 30 years. After that theoretically it has no value in terms of depreciation. But on the other hand it certainly has a value in the marketplace. And, you know, I'm just wondering, are we short -- what are we doing? MR. HOVELL: I wish I knew, sir. Let me answer from what little bit I know. The inventory and a lot of those footnotes relate to the impact fee study. In the impact fee study, although I don't remember seeing it, I imagine it has notes that exist, even if it's not documented in the report. They somehow calculated a value for all the buildings that are on the inventory. Page 110 November 29, 2006 That particular value, as far as I know, in no way relates to the value that we've represented on our summary page, in part because we didn't use the same cost per square foot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what confuses me is if we're taking the overall value and we're using it as a basis to relate against impact fees, yet some of that value is no longer subject to our inventory as we're using it, there seems to be a disconnect for me. And I'm not trying to belabor the point, I just wonder whether we discovered something that is curious, meaningful, I don't know, I'm just trying to find out. MR. HOVELL: Well, for instance, two examples, one is this very first one that has the cross plat that, the megahertz generator building. And the second one would be the courthouse annex parking garage that we just opened up. The value of those improvements will be captured by the impact fee consultant as money spent to provide the services. But from a useful square footage point of view, neither one of them provides useful square feet from which to conduct business. Much like if we built a new building on raw land, we would have to pay to pave the parking area. That value is certainly captured. Does it provide useful square feet, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's a narrow view of it because it's an ancillary item to an overall function that serves. And for my understanding of it, we would in capturing it across the county, you'd put the totality together. So I'm not sure I agree with that piece. MR. HOVELL: That's what all these are is ancillary buildings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the government buildings portion of the AUIR? Okay, Mr. Harrison, then Ms. Vasey. MR. HARRISON: When it comes to office space where a business is conducted, do we have a standard per employee that we're Page 111 November 29, 2006 using to compute how much space we need for office activities? MR. CAMP: The answer is absolutely. We have standard office space for every major level from the CEO down to a clerical person. MR. HARRISON: Those are unchanged as we look out over the ten-year period? MR. CAMP: We've had them for 15 years and we have no reason to change them. MR. HARRISON: Have we ever looked at a concept called hoteling? Most of your major law firms and accounting firms have high priced downtown real estate. They do not dedicate any space to a specific individual because they're rotated in and out. MR. CAMP: We call it the Australian plan. But, yeah, we have looked at a number of things. We have -- what we have been doing in the last, I would say strongly the last nine or ten years is going from closed offices to open offices. And that has served us well. That has kept the cost from going up. The exceptions are when we build buildings -- because we're very silent. Our buildings can vary greatly. But when we build things like courthouses, they become very compartmentalized, versus a general office building like the annex will be much open office, probably 60 or 70 percent open office, and very few supervisors will have offices. We're even trying to get to the point where many supervisors, and more than supervisors that usually have been assigned in the past closed offices, we will go more to their function. Because a lot of supervisors can have the open office, just like in the Milliken Corporation that builds carpets, their CEO, the director of national sales has an open office just like everybody else. So we're going more to function versus position as it relates to the type of office. MR. HARRISON: One more, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Page 112 November 29, 2006 MR. HARRISON: On Page 161 down on the planned future projects where it talks about BDC building with three stars, Building S and Building R. Have the prior recommendations of productivity that these office functions be located outside the government center found their way to you guys? MR. HOVELL: I don't remember hearing it specifically from the Productivity Committee. I do know that there's a current jail master plan study underway, which one of the sort of leading concepts is that this courthouse complex would become predominantly a jail and courthouse complex, and then perhaps the government center might need to be relocated someplace else. MR. HARRISON: In January of this year, the productivity recommended to the commissioners to put office function space out where the affordable housing is expected to be located, rather than down here in the most expensive part of the county. MR. CAMP: Let me just elaborate a little bit. Most recently we know we're going to need more jail beds. And the Not in My Neighborhood is a very important aspect. If it's important for churches, if you don't want a church in your neighborhood, jail cells, pretty much guaranteed we're going to have an issue here. So what we're looking at right now as we speak, in fact, the correctional committee is going to see it in early December, one of the concepts that we're entering very seriously is to make this complex, since it's been here for 40 years, the correctional and judicial. Judicial and correctional are very much connected; the courts and the prisoners. So since the prisoners have been here for a long time, and we're going to need more jails, why don't we continue to develop this area as a courts and correctional facility and put administrative spaces like you're in now into the community more and more. N ow we've done that to a limited degree with like North Collier Government Service Center, where we were able to get all the Page 113 November 29,2006 constitutional officers in the county, which is pretty unique, on one sheet of music in one building. And it served the citizens really well. We can take the general offices -- and we also found out that there's a legal term called the county seat that we had to deal with. The County seat is actually spelled out in our case by referendum. Where you're seated right now is the county seat that the voters actually voted on to put it here from Everglades. We got that situation taken care of to the point where now we can move some of these services out to the community, not just at what we'll call an annex facility off campus, but actually maybe move, potentially, the commission or some of the constitutional officers into the community. And we also know that the population is changing, and maybe this isn't the appropriate place for general office space or general administrative services. MR. HARRISON: The three projects I noted are 332,000 square feet. That's a lot of space. MR. CAMP: To give you an idea, just this building alone is 80,000 square feet. This is one of the buildings; the occupants in this building could be moved, for instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I'd like to pursue just one more thing on yours, Mark, talking about the square footage that was left out. Was that in last year's -- I guess the change that came at the impact fee that we did just in June, so those -- that square footage was in last year's AUIR? MR. HOVELL: Yes. MS. VASEY: So if you were to adjust -- if you were to go back and be consistent with how it was counted in the past upon which your service standard was based, 1.7 square feet per capita was based, you know, with that whole thing included in the past, that would increase your five-year surplus from 17,000 square feet to Page 114 November 29, 2006 31,000. And I think that the reasons why it was taken out for the impact fee study are not necessarily relative to having it out in this study. I think those are two separate things. That was for legal defensibility in case we were ever challenged. But it is part of our square footage, and I think it should be in here, or else maybe you should be looking at changing your level of service standard because it was in there where that was developed. Do you follow? MR. HOVELL: Yes, I do. MS. VASEY: What do you think about that? MR. HOVELL: I'm not sure what to say. It should be the right answer to which things should change. I did note, as you may have too, that the latest impact fee study came up with a calculation of 1.52 square foot per capita. So either adjust this level of service in the AUIR, which it takes board approval to adopt that new level of service, or recapture the square footage on the inventory for this AUIR report. And as you point out, then it raises the surplus. MS. VASEY: I did note it was 1.52, but I like you guys so much that I wasn't going to mention it. No, not really. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We don't like them. MS. VASEY: No. I mean, no. I thought that that -- I thought it was sort of balancing out but you didn't go with the 1.52, you stayed with the 1.7. And personally, I think it should be included in the inventory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob? Amy, did you have something you wanted to add. MS. PATTERSON: I was hoping, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go right ahead. MS. PATTERSON: On this inventory issue, I think, like Ms. Vasey was saying, if you think about the way EMS is structured, there are things in EMS that can't be included in the impact fee inventory Page 115 November 29, 2006 because they're leased or for whatever reason. But they're included for their overall level of service because they clearly add to things that are benefiting the taxpayer. Government buildings can be thought about in a similar way. For various reasons, there are buildings that aren't included in the impact fee inventory, but it's not that they don't serve a public purpose or that they're not to the benefit of the taxpayers, it's just the legal opinion that those buildings should not be included for the purpose of establishing the impact fee setting the level of service for the impact fee. Not that they shouldn't be part of perhaps a greater inventory, but just that delineation could be made just like it is in EMS that this is the overall inventory and then these are the buildings that make up the impact fee inventory . You still are in the position that you are with EMS where you have a level of service, an overall level of service __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow down a little bit. Cherie is working real hard trying to take every word you say. MS. PATTERSON: You have an impact -- you have a level of service for government building space that's established by your overall inventory, and you have an impact fee level of service established by the study that's lower. All you're doing is funding that difference for those other buildings that are being provided to the public. So it's not -- it doesn't create any kind of problem for your impact fee, it's just a policy decision on what you want included, if you want to capture everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's a statement on Page 163 that I may have thought this should have been going by, and I'm __ based on some of the comments you all made, I'm wondering now if it is. It says the general government buildings inventory includes those facilities not otherwise covered by an impact fee or user fee. And I'm just wondering, based on what you said earlier, not Page 116 November 29,2006 everything may be included in here after all. Is that correct? MS. PATTERSON: Not everything may be included on these two pages. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Although that statement seems to indicate that it would be. MS. PATTERSON: I don't necessary-- MR. HOVELL: That was my understanding at the time. And I probably should have taken that out when we were advised to remove those items by the legal consultant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did -- by the way, someone went to a point to add that this year, because that statement was not in last year's. MR. CAMP: We'll fix it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You'll fix it by removing it or by telling us what building that are out there that nobody has? MR. CAMP: One of the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope it's the latter. Cherie', before we go too far, when do you and Ms. Ford need to switch out? THE COURT REPORTER: Is she here already? Whenever you would like. If you want to do it now, just let me know. Are you at a good point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see where we're at -- yeah, we'll get a break point here in a minute or two. Are there any other questions at this point of the government facilities? Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Just the comment about leasing not affecting the impact fees. MS. PATTERSON: Leasing --lease buildings cannot be included as part of the impact fees. MR. HARRISON: So if we make a policy decision to lease Page 11 7 November 29, 2006 more facilities, we don't have to raise the impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: You have to fund those leases some other way. MR. HARRISON: Operations. MS. PATTERSON: Right, it doesn't-- MS. VASEY: We don't recommend that. MR. HARRISON: I don't think AICP would go for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take a five minute break and let the court reporters -- ten minute break and let the court reporters switch out and we'll finish up our discussion. We're just going -- you're going to have let us come to a conclusion once -- these girls need to switch their hands out. Thank you. We'll take a 10-minute break until 1:53. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will resume. We have a new court reporter, Ms. Ford. Cherie said that when she comes on board we can all talk fast. We can talk over one another and nothing changes. And with that we had left off at final comments and discussions involving the government buildings. And I -- now, I guess there's no other questions of staff. Does anybody have any suggestions on where to go from here with this issue? I can suggest there were some points raised. We talked about finding where the missing buildings were, what could possibly be done with the Ave Maria land timing. The consideration of the LOS going to 1.52 instead of 1.57. And, of course, I've got a standing concern over the population that probably won't get resolved. Does anybody have anything else that they were __ now, Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I -- I agree with the, I guess, the things that I really would like to see is the footnote explaining the unit cost. And I feel very strongly that you should include the 13,335 square feet of Page 118 November 29, 2006 property that was left out. And I guess I'm still leaning towards thinking that you've got a surplus of inventory. If you -- if you do what's in your program, there's a surplus of inventory and a -- and a $13 million un-financed need and they're pretty close to each other. If you dropped out Ave Maria and the transportation -- not dropped out. Moved to FYI2, you would have a very nicely balanced program. And the financial analyst in me thinks that's a really neat thing. If -- if there's any reason that that is the end of world, I'd like to hear that. MR. HOVELL: As I say, I'll have to check with -- and, I'm sorry, Ron Hovell. I'm in the facilities management department. The -- we'll -- we'll have to check on the Ave Maria thing. That will only reduce the five-year plan, though, by the $4.35 million. So we'll still be roughly $9 million. MS. VASEY: Well, I -- I had mentioned transportation facility too slipping to 12. That -- that -- that pretty much is your shortfall and it's also about the same amount as your level of service as -- as you're over your level-of-service standard. Because that turns out to be about 31,000 that you're over. And then that's about the same square footage relating to the transportation at Ave Maria. MR. HOVELL: Right. MS. VASEY: And it matches up very nicely with the cost that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron then Mr. Harrison. COMMISSIONER CARON: I was just going to say in -- in reviewing the square footage that you wanted back in, Ms. Vasey, if you look back at last year, we were sitting at 604,181 versus this year of 586,410. So there's a -- it's closer to 18,000 square feet that's missing between -- from one year to the next. And, again, you'll have to look at it and tell us what the -- MR. HOVELL: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- not 13. MS. VASEY: No. I did -- I did add up those particular items. Page 119 November 29,2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. You added up what's here, but not comparing it to last year. MS. VASEY: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where -- so there's even more square footage missing somewhere floating around there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can take a look at that and get back with us on it tomorrow. Tomorrow work for you? I didn't see a -- I didn't see a no, so I guess a yes is part of it. MR. HOVELL: No. I was going to -- with the exception of the fall countywide inventory, I don't know who's going to have time for that piece of that. All the rest of these are relatively easy things that I could do. I'm a pretty quick typist. I could probably do them while I stood here, but I'll do it on my laptop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison, did you have any comments? MR. HARRISON: I wonder if you could be kind enough to share what those standards are per employee with us sometime because -- MR. CAMP: I'm prepared to do that now. It's relatively simple for a judge or county commissioner, the CEO, it's 350 square feet. For administrator it's 168. For a director it's 144. For a manager it's 120. For a -- a position like an analyst, it's between 80 and 100. Clerical is around 60. And I'm not sure I can recite all the sizes of conference spaces, but they -- they run between 250 and 600 square feet for conference space. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the harder you work the less space you get? MR. CAMP: And my -- my clerical staff will tell you that is normally true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Satisfied, Mr. Harrison? Page 120 November 29, 2006 MR. HARRISON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we hit all the points. Thank you. MR. HOVELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next section of the AUIR, I saw the chiefs been patiently waiting. Isles of Capri Fire Control and Rescue District. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Good afternoon. Emilio Rodriguez, Chief Isles of Capri Fire and Rescue. This is our first year participating in the AUIR, but I'm here basically to answer any of your questions that you have as our AUIR has been submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was short. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the panel? Your impact fees -- you are regulated on the same impact fee rate that the rest of the fire departments in Collier County are utilizing or different? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We -- we are regulated with the impact fees that were just conducted in '05, so we fall under the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does -- I know that the regular fire departments are a square foot basis. It's $0.30 or $0.15 or something like that. I'm just wondering how you compared to them. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: I'm -- I'm not sure exactly how we compare to them, but we're pretty much on that same avenue. Which I don't know if Amy can help with that. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Impact -- Amy Patterson Impact Fee Manager for the record. We just went through an update of all of the fire impact fees which is a cooperative effort between the county and the independent fire districts. The two dependent fire districts do have their own independent or separate rates, Ochopee and Isles of Capri. They are different than the independent fire districts. They are charged per square foot split between residential and commercial. And since now Page 121 November 29,2006 we have different rates for all of the different fire districts, as a comparison they're probably somewhere in the middle. They're-- Isles of Capri residential is $0.41 per square foot under roof. And for -- that's residential. And for commercial is a $I.08 per square foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much are the -- the independent fire districts? MS. PATTERSON: They're -- they're all different. Immokalee, for example, is $1.11 per square foot for residential and $0.32 for their commercial. Another example Big Corkscrew is $0.82 per square foot residential and $0.87 per square foot nonresidential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's enough. Where I was going with this is the fire departments that are independent have the ability to draw funds from an additional ad valorem revenue that the dependent fire departments do not have. I mean, basically they come under the county's ad valorem taxes. Whereas, the independent fire districts have their own millage rate added -- tacked on and they vary from three -- one-half to one, I believe. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, I'd like to answer that. We are not a general fund department. Weare an MSTU special taxing district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: So we strictly operate from our 1.5 millage rate. So that is the only funds that we receive. We do not receive any general funds to subsidize our budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that MSTU extend throughout the entire fire district or just the Isles of Capri? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Isles of Capri and Ochopee department also. We are both dependent, but we're an MSTU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, I mean, what I meant was that MSTU, does it fall under every piece of land that's within your __ the territory of your fire department? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 122 November 29, 2006 CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my last question was that I notice under unit cost per own station the $3 million, you've got a very nice location for your station right now. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. I can't complain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's dandy. I can't imagine that that is a price based on the station's location now or is that on a -- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: I believe it's because of the location of the land. Because if we were to build in a similar location there, I don't think we could be able to replace that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your proposed building is on land that's going to be donated to you or has been? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: It has not been. We are in the works right now with WCI in just the communication aspects of it where as soon as they have completed their development off of Mainsail Drive that they would look at donating the land where the sale center is at right now which is at the entrance to Mainsail Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that have to be for impact fee credits or is it going to be donated? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No. No. That would be a donation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I sure wish you had come forward at the time that they were looking for their PUD approval and requested something like this. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I totally agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad to see that's -- I hope they're kind enough to realize the importance of your station there and let __ CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. They are because it will be a savings also for all of the residents there with their ISO rating. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other questions? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Yes. When we did the impact fee studies with Page 123 November 29,2006 you last, I guess, December, we worked off of your master plan. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MS. VASEY: Your master plan did not call for an additional station. You just had a -- a ladder truck and the equipment that goes on it. Have you changed your master plan? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, ma'am. The reason why the station was not added because we knew that with the amount of impact fees that we were not going to be able to collect enough impact fees to purchase and build a station. So we removed the station from the impact- fee study knowing that we do not have enough funds out of impact fees to purchase the new station, but it is in our five-year plan. MS. VASEY: But if -- if you don't have it in your impact fee, you won't be collecting any revenue from the new people moving in to help underwrite the costs of the building for the new station. So that means it would fall on your ad valorem MSTU payers which then puts it's the burden of growth on current residents. Is that -- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We are just about at the build-out in the district with the exception of a few open lots with -- within the Isles of Capri. And once we sat down with the impact-fee study, we sat there and we went back and forth with our initial impact-fee study back in 1989 and '99. I believe we did have it in there, but we knew that we were not going to be able to collect enough funds if we were to leave it in there. And it was a decision made from myself as well as the impact- fee coordinator that we would remove it. Because we were going to try to look at avenues like the land donation where -- where we're in the practice where we're actually moving forward with that as well as a shared station with EMS that would help us cut the cost in half. MS. VASEY: Well, if your station costs about $1 million and that's sort of what we're seeing on shared stations for EMS. So yours could be more. I -- I don't know. But you only have residents of right now in 2006 of2,881 people going up to 3,700. If they all have to pay Page 124 November 29, 2006 for it out of the MSTU, that -- that's going to be somewhat of a burden, wouldn't you think? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, it would come directly from what they pay for now which is a 1.5 millage rate. So it would come out of our ad valorem taxes. We would have to finance the fire station just like we've done in the past. Because we don't have any other avenue to receive any general fund monies or anything else other than financing. In 1992 we financed the expansion of our current station. And that's how we were able to build the station that we currently have. So we would be doing the exact same thing with the second station. MS. VASEY: It just looks like, you know, you are increasing almost 1,000 people or maybe 900 people over the next five years which is about 33 percent of your current population. To not include these costs in impact fees, you're missing out on a pretty good revenue source for some of the money anyway. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, we just don't have the buildings there to collect those impact fees in that area. MS. VASEY: Oh, I see. But the population is going up, but the buildings are already -- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. MS. VASEY: Okay. They've already paid their impact, but-- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. MS. VASEY: Okay. I get it. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We have three high rises that are in place now out of a possible five high rises. MS. VASEY: Okay. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: So the buildings are basically there. And we've already collected those impact fees so there's very minimal impact fees that we're going to be collecting within the next five years. MS. VASEY: Okay. And one last question. Your -- you talk about maintaining a four-minute response time and that's why you Page 125 November 29,2006 need to have a station over near Mainsail Drive. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: I happened to be in your area. And it only __ driving at the speed limit, it only takes five minutes to get there. So you're only one minute off of your time from right now, plus the East Naples Fire District has a station that's only three -- three or four minutes away from Mainsail. How -- how can you justify a new station when you have service that's that good? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, it's -- it's not really that good yet, ma'am. Our average response time to Mainsail Drive is six minutes. I have pulled all of the information for the last year for all of the calls that we have responded to the Mainsail Drive area as well as the Fiddler's Creek area where we cover a portion of Fiddler's Creek. And our average response time to Fiddler's Creek right now is eight minutes response time. According to NFPA, we need to be at a four-minute response time. Where we have that proposed station that will cut that response time and will allow us to serve the residents of our district. We can't look at East Naples to serve that area when it falls under our jurisdiction. And the station on 951 from East Naples, nine times out of ten they're out on calls of their own or into East Naples for training. So that cuts a lot of the response time from their area to come into our area also. MS. VASEY: How many -- how much of your -- how many of -- well, what percentage of your calls are to Marco Island? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Percentage of our calls? We run mutual aid calls to Marco Island, I'd say, about 20 percent. MS. VASEY: Okay. I thought there -- I thought I saw something at 40 percent one time, but maybe that was an aberration. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Right. It -- we're -- we are averaging about 20 to 25 percent at the most to the City of Marco Island right now. Page 126 November 29, 2006 MS. VASEY: Because it seems like, you know, the response time to Marco is in the five- to six-minute range. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it is. MS. VASEY: And I guess the bottom line for me is it would be so much more efficient if all you guys were -- were -- were one. You know, because the -- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That's why we're looking at it. MS. VASEY: -- East Naples station is so close to Fiddler's and it's close to Mainsail. And, you know, and you're already supporting each other. It just begs the question of why you can't all be consolidated. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: But even though we're all looking at that possibility now, we -- we still have to maintain that level of service that those residents within our district deserve and that's what they're paying for. So we have to try to maintain that level of service within the district. MS. VASEY: And you think you can do it without increasing your millage? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is correct, yes. Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You also have the city -- the community of Goodland, don't you? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. No. We respond out to Keywayden Island, but that falls under the Collier County District 1. And we provide fire and rescue out there. But the only way you could get out to Keywayden Island is by boat and we do have a fire boat. And in conjunction with EMS we share a boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your service area that's shown on the map that was provided to us goes not only south of Marco, but about -- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Those are the islands -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Page 127 November 29, 2006 CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: -- that are south of Marco. We provide-- there is nothing there just other than islands, but that's where we provide -- that falls under the Collier County District 1. And we provide fire and rescue services for that area even though there's no structures out there. There's no houses, but we respond out there for a boating accidents, for search and rescue and those are the areas that we provide service to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions for the Isles of Capri Fire Department? Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: As far as the EMS component on the Mainsail Drive proposal, I mean, I live on Gulfshore Boulevard where the population is so transient. It's between, like, 10 percent occupancy in the summer and 50 percent at the height of the season. It seems like you're going to have a pretty small human population out there given the price level of the units. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. But we are looking at it as also from the direction of the Board of Collier County Commissioners that every time we build a station to try to build a joint station to try to cut the cost down. And that is a direction that I would like to take to try to cut the cost down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any -- any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any recommendations how to proceed that the board would like? I don't know if this one needs to be brought back to us. It seems unless there's some comments or further thought any of us want -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a recommendation to go forward to recommend this to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As presented? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Under the -- under page 167 the recommended action by staff had put it down. I'll read it if Page 128 November 29, 2006 you like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think it's right there. Before we go into discussion, is there a second on the motion from a member of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat seconded. Okay. Now, discussion for the entire board. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I -- I think maybe you need a little bit more time to get your master plan changed and to, you know, make sure everything is going to work to stay in your millage rate. And, you know, that you're going to get the donated land. That's a real big piece of it. You have a lot of uncertainties at this time. I'm not sure that it's ready to be in the five-year plan. You know, it seems like a lot of pieces still need to come together. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is correct, ma'am. And that's the beauty of us being an MSTU is that if we don't have the money, we can't do it. You know, but I have to look at five years. Where are we going to be at in five years? And -- and I need to show that this is where we'd like to be in five years. And if we're going -- and if we do have the money within our MSTU, within our ad valorem, then that is the avenue that the department would like to -- to take. If we're not there within five years with the money, then we would have to revisit it and look at another aspect or -- or another avenue. And -- and, again, it's all contingent on the donation of the land. If we do not receive the donation of the land, there's no other place on Mainsail Drive that we could put a fire station at. So that would definitely scratch this whole issue here. And we would have to look at the response time a different way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically you're saying that your request is contingent upon the funding through the MSTU process and the land donation from WCI? Page 129 November 29,2006 CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to understand. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And any recommendation from this board would have to include the -- what I think it would include those stipulations as far as -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree with that. And -- and just further on that, do you have a good indicator that the land will be donated or are you entirely in speculation at this point? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No. We -- we have a letter of intent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Now, as far as how far is it going to go, then it's going to depend on WCI. And then, of course, it has to get approved through the Board of Collier County Commissioners and so forth, but we are in the process of continuing the talks. We're looking at the -- what I've heard now is that WCI is not going to build the last two high rises. I -- I have not seen anything in writing yet, but that's what I was advised. So if they do not build the last two high rises, then that's going to push them out of there a lot sooner. Does that mean they're going to donate the land a lot sooner for us? We don't know at this point. Now, until we receive something in writing from them showing that they're not going to build the last two high rises on Mainsail Drive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And just in furtherance of that, what -- what level of criticality will you reach if you're unable to secure that land? What would be your alternative if you are obliged to make service to that community? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We would have to expand our current station where we're at to at least house a ladder truck. So we will be able to purchase a ladder truck that will help us with the NFP A and also our ISO rating to have that type of level of service. As far as Page 130 November 29,2006 response time, then that would be something that we would have to go back and take a look at how we're going to tackle that area once we get there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would be -- you would be -- well, I'm trying to get a sense from you of the criticality as you see it as the chief and responsibility for the safety and welfare of the communities' residents. Right now you don't have a truck, a ladder truck? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We don't, no. No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you'd like to have one, I'm sure. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're dependent on East Naples, I would assume for the moment, although they don't have a ladder truck. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No. We -- we have a mutual aid agreement with the City of Marco Island. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. So and from your point of view providing for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of those communities, if the land were not acquired by donation, you would look strongly, I assume, toward acquisition in some form? Wouldn't that be a reasonable statement? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. We would look at other avenues to acquire some land within that area to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The density of population would require it, would it? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Well, see, we don't strictly go by population alone. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. You go by length times. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We go by response time. With NFPA Page 131 November 29, 2006 our -- our -- our first arriving unit must arrive there within four minutes. So the way we have it laid out, which I believe you have on page 169 and 170, our existing station there, a radius of 1.5 miles around there, does not cover Mainsail Drive nor the Fiddler's Creek area -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: -- there. With the proposed station, we kind of overlap it a little bit, but it only shows in the black 1,116 units outside of that radius there which is not bad at all. We have 90 percent of our area within the four-minute response time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, finally, the issue of the residents' ability to secure insurance is impacted, is it not, by the fact that you would not -- that your response time is in question? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, right now -- we recently this year we had our rating, our ISO rating done. And we were able to reduce the ISO from a six to a four within the entire Isles of Capri Fire District. That's Mainsail Drive, a portion of Fiddler's Creek. What the second station is going to allow me to do is also be able to reduce the ISO rating once again to a possible two which would give the residents more savings. So that's also -- my goal is not only for the response time, but also to save the taxpayers some money because it's going to allow me to lower the ISO rating once again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for your responses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. This MSTU has the flexibility to determine the direction they would like to go for any solution. It also has the authority for funding that direction. So I think that we ought to support the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments? MS. VASEY: I guess just one other thing. You -- your millage rate is 1.5. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. Page 132 November 29, 2006 MS. VASEY: And out of that now you want to have a new station on donated land. You wouldn't need a ladder truck? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: Which is, what, another 600,000? You're going to need people that will all be paid out of that 1.5 mill rate. I -- I really think you need an analysis of whether your millage rate can -- can handle all that. Because, frankly, I don't think it can. But I -- you know, I've not worked the numbers on it. I think you really need to come and not show us, but -- but you need a plan that demonstrates that that, in fact, will work financially as well as, you know, recognition that your ISO should go up when you get a ladder truck -_ I mean, should go down, to be able to support that community and __ and we're only talking a minute or two right now. And then I know that -- that that's -- your rating is -- your goal is four. But, you know, you put all that together, it just seems like you need a little more work before you come in and put this in a program that -- you know, that's ready to -- to be approved by the County Commission. And that's __ you know, that's -- that's all I -- that's all I'm saying. I -- I don't -- I don't think it -- I'm not against your doing it. I just can't see that you're ready for us to recommend that -- that the commissioners should vote to approve that. And that's the only thing I have concern about. MR. SUMMERS: Ma'am, may I comment. Dan Summers, director of emergency services. You bring up a very good point. One of the things that is not illustrated here that's kind of standard SOP in our office if you will, any time you make a ladder truck apparatus type purchase, you always do a feasibility study on that. It's not illustrated in this report. It's our intent to do that. So that -- that feasibility in terms of master planning, the financing, the type of apparatus and the cost benefit for the ISO rating is -- is an effort that was already discussed with the county manager's office earlier this year. And we probably should include that as a footnote. I did that many times in Page 133 November 29, 2006 Carolina and would not make that type of capital purchase without some additional external consulting and cost-benefit review. And if I could, I'd like to clarify for the record this comment about ISO rating. I want to make sure that everybody knows that in this particular district and most all of our dependent districts, no longer is it the case where there is a -- as there is in some parts of Collier County that they can't get insurance, they're all having no problem writing insurance. And in this case with Isles of Capri where they have brought their rate down to a six, their ISO rating to a six __ I'm sorry -- to a four, but the other advantage here is that there is real cost benefit to WCI in supporting this donation because of the further decrease. And that doesn't really illustrate well in the narrative. So I wanted to clarify that that the two incentives, the cost -- the cost benefit on the apparatus as well as further incentives probably driven by the community to donate this land put things in our favor. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody know if the MSTU that's in place has to be approved by the -- I mean, I know an MSTU has to be approved by the voters when it originally goes into existence. And its rating is set to whatever it is. If you're going to increase the needs from the MSTU, does that have to go back to the voters? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: You mean increase the millage? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- and I know the Isles of Capri community pretty well. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that that group of people wouldn't be willing -- if they were willing to go forward with this, then I don't think there's a problem. And if it has to go back to them, then they'd be the ones to make the decision. Because what I'm understanding is you're not here in front of the -- going in front of the Page 134 November 29, 2006 Board of County Commissioners requesting ad valorem funding. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're looking purely at MSTU funding which is up to the local community to desire if they want that additional protection. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because under that basis I'm inclined to recommend approval as well because it does not -- this is not a population valued statistic, so I'm not -- I don't have my population concern on it. It's contingent on an MSTU approval and it's contingent on donated land. So it doesn't affect the ad valorem tax base and tax payers of this county. That's my understanding. If I'm wrong, I need someone to tell me so... MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, Dan Summers, one additional comment. This is not a guarantee, but to probably make you feel a little bit better. One -- one of the things that we've been very successful, and, again, I want to stress no guarantee, is the ability that these smaller districts have had with grant funding for apparatus. And that's one of the reasons that Isles of Capri is in -- in as good a condition and as modernized as it's been is that it does fit a lot of the rural grant criteria where we've been fortunate with some grants with FEMA or even some -- some commercial paper that's sort of couched, if you will, in the rural financial areas. So please understand that I look at those as options as well. And grant opportunities still continue to fit the Capri district as well as the Ochopee district pretty well. And that -- that is probably -- the grant opportunities are not reflected in here as well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron and Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And since you brought it up, that would be my question. In most of the others grants are included to some degree. Why would you not include them at all? MR. SUMMERS: They are extremely competitive grants. Page 135 November 29, 2006 Where some of the other community's -- or some of the other programs have reoccurring grants, these grants remain highly competitive. And I will tell you that there is -- there's several funding strategies. Some are FEMA post disaster. Some are FEMA special legislation such as the Fire Act. We never know from one year to the next. And typically when we apply, we're up against about 55,000 jurisdictions that apply. So we are just gun shy because of the competitive nature, but I pride ourselves on our team's effort to work towards those grants and utilize those funding strategies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think this organization has done an excellent job. And I don't think we ought to micromanage them. Let them solve their problems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions or comments from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From the Planning Commission's perspective, the Productivity Committee is going to take their subcommittee recommendation back to the full committee; is that correct? MS. VASEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we will take a position on this one. There's been a motion made and seconded. I got a request from the motion maker and the second. Would you consider adding language to make sure that the additional revenues are contingent on an MSTU source of funding and the -- it also was contingent on donated land from the -- from the land in question -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that was described? Is that okay with the second? (Indicating. ) Page 136 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion for recommendation carries as stated in the request from the Chief of the stipulations that we have made. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item for today's new discussion is the Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District. CHIEF WILSON: Chief Paul Wilson, for the record, of the Ochopee Fire Control District. As you know we -- or you may not know, though, we carry about 53 percent of Collier County in the rural area. We do have some small localized communities that we provide service for. Our goal in this A UIR process is to identify and try to develop strategies to provide service to some of these areas that we do not have at this time. With that being said, any questions on what we have to go forward? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you heard the stipulations of the last motion? CHIEF WILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell us your sources of -- I mean, you have a need of almost double what the last gentleman came in front of us for. Are you expecting that out of county-wide ad Page 137 November 29, 2006 valorem taxes or do you have a similar funding mechanism in your area like the chief did? CHIEF WILSON: We're the same, same MSTU funded source. Under our recommendations it's the same. If we're able to provide -- you know, if we're able to move forward under our ad valorem MSTU. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much land do you have donated or potentially donated? CHIEF WILSON : We have 1.9 acres that's possibly going to be available at Port of the Isles for that station. The 1-75 corridor which is the second station identified is a state federal land issue. And we are just currently working with these folks trying to secure the land that -- again, this is just a goal and strategy planning for us. We don't know that we're going to be able to get there or not any time soon. But -- but we do need to identify it and try to figure out how we're going to get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does your MSTU require voter approval in that area for any increases that you would need to put these stations in? CHIEF WILSON: We're maxed at 4 mills. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got to go back to the voters to get that increase? CHIEF WILSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The voters would be right in the immediate area of that station? CHIEF WILSON : We're under the same guide. We're under the Board of County Commissioners. The MSTU is through them. And the voters initiated -- they -- they developed it, but the board runs it. The board can raise or lower the ad valorem. But, again, we're maxed. So they would have to -- we would have to go before the board and ask them to, you know, raise the cap and that's not going to happen. We will -- we will operate within our formulas. Page 138 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Yes. Here again you didn't have that in your master plan. Are you revising that? CHIEF WILSON: For? MS . VASEY: For -- to add stations. You just had equipment in the master plan for the next five years. CHIEF WILSON: It was the same reasons. We weren't sure if we were going to get the land or how we were going to -- our negotiations for the land were going to work out with the state. But the need for the equipment is identified because the building continues to go on in Port of the Isles. We're getting ready to experience our actual first high rises. So we will be looking at ladder truck purchases over the next couple of years too as well. As far as 1-75 goes I already have that truck in place currently. That's why you only saw one truck in the impact fee structure identified. That would be for Port of the Isles. The other truck is already identified and in service. MS . VASEY : Your Port of the Isles, they're still building there now, aren't they? CHIEF WILSON : Yes. But our build-out in the entire district is only about 438 units left. So we're getting close. MS. VASEY: You're -- the same reason why you didn't include it in the impact fees because it's not going to be that much? CHIEF WILSON: That's correct. MS. VASEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from any other of the board? Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: The 1-75 station, that's out on federal land? CHIEF WILSON: The 75 corridor what we -- the 63 mile marker is what we initially proposed. And that is state land. FDOT runs it. The -- we were looking at them to help us with the land and so Page 139 November 29, 2006 forth. The -- we received direction to try to get funding through alternative sources other than the ad valorem area. That's not working out at this particular point in time. As recently as last week we were -- we did receive a phone call from federal landowner people there that have now are ready to step up and go forward with us if -- if we wanted to pursue it to the Bureau of Land Management and possibly go onto their property. MR. HARRISON: So who would we be serving out there? Is this basically for motor vehicle accidents? CHIEF WILSON: It's basically for motor vehicle accidents which is almost 50 percent of our call volume. In that area that's currently averaging between 20- and 45-minute response times. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is the Fed asking for any particular benefits for themselves concerning areas that they don't generally cover and fire and the rest of it? CHIEF WILSON: The only question they've asked me at this point would be, would we be willing to maintain the grounds-keeping of the property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll be silent in that matter. That's not an issue -- an issue for me as far as I can tell. So there are no contingencies by the F eds for the use of that property. Will that be a lease or will that be a dedication or will you own the property in fee or what? CHIEF WILSON: I would imagine it would be under a lease-type arrangement with them. It's their property. And it will always be their property. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But are you at the level where you know whether it's a 99-year lease or whatever? I mean, is it long-term? CHIEF WILSON: Our discussion -- our discussion was for a Page 140 November 29, 2006 20-year-plus lease. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty year. Okay. That's your judgment on that one. I won't criticize that certainly. Building -- use of the life of a building sometimes is considered 30 years in commercial and that might be something to talk about. CHIEF WILSON: The land's vacant currently so we would have to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. What I'm referring to is when you build a structure, if for some reason they decide in the nineteenth year that they don't want to keep you there, you know, you understand my point. CHIEF WILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I think it may not be significant. If there are no objections, Mr. Chairman, I -- I would make a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we still have some questions. Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Did we hear you say you already have the vehicle for that unit? CHIEF WILSON: We're running the vehicle for 1-75, yes. It's the vehicle that was in the impact-fee structure was for Port of the Islands. MR. HARRISON: So you're basically just looking for a structure to house it and whatever? CHIEF WILSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: What's your response time to Port of the Islands. CHIEF WILSON: Currently 14 to 16 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet your ISO rating isn't as good? CHIEF WILSON: We have a split ISO rating in the area that the Page 141 November 29, 2006 stations are occupied. They are enjoying a six. Port of the Islands is enjoying a ten if you can call it enjoyment. They are having a hard time getting insurance in some of the areas there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments, questions? By the way, chief, you've got some areas that are new and, who knows, they may be coming up for changes to their zoning and other criteria. If they do and there's issues that need to addressed, it would be good timing to watch those -- CHIEF WILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and make some suggestions to the board as they come through the process. Mr. Murray, did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. I thought I might make a motion based on the recommendation as made on page 175, the recommended action by the staff. And with -- I think, I'm not sure we can put the stipulations on here because I didn't get the sense that you were that close -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- but we can if it's the will of the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me suggest that we stipulate so long as the funding falls within the existing maximum millage rate of the -- of the MSTU. And that keeps it off the county-wide-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's correct, yes. And that would be the only logical way to approach it, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. Okay. There's been a motion made. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron second on the motion. Now, is there any discussion? Any concerns from the Productivity Committee? Page 142 November 29, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll call for a vote. All those in favor or the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries with recommendation of approval subject to the maximum millage rate of the MSTU. CHIEF WILSON: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Now, with that we need to -- we'll probably take a break at three o'clock. We'll probably discontinue our regular review at 4:30 to try to come to some synopsis that we can draft for tomorrow's meeting. So we'll continue to tomorrow to whatever we don't get to this afternoon. And, Gene, you are the next one up, drainage and canals and structures. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman and members of the Productivity Committee, for the record I'm Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator and also the storm-water. I appreciate the discussion we had the other day and the opportunity to be back here with you. What I will tell you as Gene hands out some changed pages, essentially I thought that I nor any of my staff would ever use what I thought was a bureaucratic cop out. We did it because that's the way it was always done. But I find myself having to stand in front of you and admit that, in fact, I have just done that, along with my staff. And that is as you look at the AUIR we presented to you last time, is the format that we inherited, that we basically didn't tell we understand, but it seemed to be whatever everybody utilized. And we just tried to Page 143 November 29, 2006 update it as best we could. And I'm here to tell you it needs to change. We started some of that change. What I want to do is cover very broadly some of the questions you raised and what we see as implications from that and then ask Gene to go through what he's provided to you today. First of all, what you asked is very logically why does it appear that reconstruction costs the same thing as construction -- new construction. Well, I asked staff. We went through the details. And what became painfully obvious was that I was talking about projects like, for instance, LASIP Phase 1 where I was taking number miles, but a mile of canal that is ten foot across the top and two feet deep and going forty feet across the top and six feet deep. So when you go from one to the other, in effect it's new construction. However, because the AUIR and the presentation by Milo -- and I'll get to that in a second -- it's still that same canal mile. So it's shown as reconstruction because it's not new construction of a new canal mile, but the costs are essentially the same. And so I'm going to tell you that the nature of the costs are very site specific and the nature of scope of project specific. But having said that, that somewhat answers the question, but what it does is raise the big question. What's the use of reporting canal miles? Because, obviously, my ability to convey, store and treat within a forty by six is far greater than it is in a ten by two. With that in mind we're going to try to move this whole AUIR to something in the nature of acre feet to talk about truly what the issue is. And that is what we have in the ability to convey, to store or to treat. And so we're not there yet as you're going to see in the presentation; but it's obvious that while we're still trying to report, one of the difficulties we had in trying to use that format and respond last cycle and we felt it wasn't a good fit, but the shoe somehow got on. And as we reviewed it, you made a good point about our work program which was you couldn't see what phases we had with the Page 144 November 29, 2006 dollars. So we have made that change. We felt that that was a good change, but we still felt it was kind of a tight shoe, if you will. Well, the reason for that tightness is that we tried to explain to you on the one side -- and I'll go over structures in a second -- a two by -- ten by two versus a forty by six are not the same thing even though it's a one-mile canal. The other thing is on structures. Well, there's all kinds of different structures. We had a good discussion about how could our structures numbers change. That was a question you raised very reasonably so. And, essentially, both on canal miles which now we do by GIS -- and I feel very comfortable that we've got a very good indication as opposed to a good estimation -- because the GIS is much more specific about mileage. On structures what we realized is we had a number of different types of structures. And so what we've come to, and I'll share this with -- with this group here and I'll share with the board after this, obviously, is we need to identify a structure as something that manages both the level and the flow. So if I have a culvert or a canal, that in a way is not a structure. That is a conveyance as a storage. And I may have a culvert that impedes flow, but it's not designed to do so. When I'm putting in culverts, they are meant to be sized not to impede flow of that canal. So we're not considering those structures. What we are considering structures is weirs. And we have different types of weirs. At first it was, well, don't put any of the weirs in that aren't movable, that are fixed because you can't then regulate flow with them. Well, they definitely regulate flow. They're a fixed weir. So those are in here and you'll see those reported. You have movable weirs. We also have pump stations that regulate, again, volume and flow and levels. And then lastly you have one that sounds a little strange when we came to that too was you have lakes and spreader lakes. Where in the system you'll go into an area of retention and come out, flow one to another in the spreader lakes on out. And they have a level of capacity and they regulate the flow and height of Page 145 November 29, 2006 the water and the like. So what you should see here is going to be a change in numbers, but we feel pretty comfortable with the inventory based on GIS. We feel comfortable that we've come to a definitional item. And you may challenge that and hopefully we'll be able to show you that we thought it through, but we have an idea of what we're calling a structure. Now, obviously, the cost of those structures are very different. A non-movable weir is different than the cost of a fully automated but along the more mechanical weir that is adjustable. Okay? At the same time no two adjustable weirs -- there are no two fixed weirs are the same cost. It depends upon the size and issues that are associated with it. So one thing we've done here which you mayor may not recommend that you concur with is I haven't tried to put a unit cost on this. What I have done, though, is gone back and looked at our work program and our basis for estimates and where we have permits and have an idea we're identifying for you how many of each type of structure, how many miles of either reconstruction. And mostly they're miles of reconstruction. And how many miles of new or new construction canal there will be. And that is provided to you in some details and attachments. And I think that'll give you the basis from one time to another to look at it and feel comfortable with that as we change. Now, I'll also tell you that in the next five years, I've got some projects identified for which I don't know yet how many weirs or how many miles of canal because I haven't gotten it permitted yet. And so those will be ones that you'll see as we do the next update of the AUIR. W e'lllist them out and show those. We tried to show them now with no indication on them. And as we do one, you should see that go into the inventory. And as we show you the other, you should see what we add on as to the future inventory. So I'm going to ask Gene to go through in detail on this, but I did Page 146 November 29, 2006 want to make sure that you realize that one of the difficulties we're having was the format. We knew it wasn't a very good fit. We probably never should have used the old adage of that's how we always did it, but we tried to squeeze into how it was always done. And I can tell you it doesn't serve the purpose. And I think this group did a good job of asking the questions to show that very clearly to us as we went back and looked at it. As I mentioned, the cost of reconstruction versus new cost, I think we've addressed that some. The inventory I'll ask that be addressed in more detail for you. The specific miles of structures divided out between secondary, tertiary and title, I hope we've done that for you as you'll see. And the issue of what we've collected previously in grants and the like, we've got three years historical that's in the package. I'm going to let Gene make the presentation to you. And Gene and I are available for any questions or comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CALVERT: I appreciate it. For the record, Gene Calvert, Storm-water Management Department Director. I'd like to just take a few minutes and walk you through some of the handouts that I provided and do a little bit of storm-water drainage 101 if you will and what we have in this county as far as storm-water drainage. While some of this probably will seem repetitious or redundant to most of you, I think it will lay a ground-work for what we're proposing in this AUIR. Of course, as you're aware we in this county or particularly in any county, we operate our -- our storm-water drainage system in three different tiers, three different categories. We have our primary drainage system which is typically your rivers, major canals. And those typically outflow into your tidal basins. From there upwards you go into your secondary drainage system which is typically maintained by a municipality or county. In this Page 147 November 29, 2006 case it's Collier County maintains most of the secondary systems, not all. And then from there you get into tertiary drainage systems or your neighborhood drainage systems. Collier County also operates a number of tertiary systems. Those are our roadside swales, our ponds that we have alongside of our road -- roadways. We have also some neighborhood ponds that we've taken over operation of ponds, et cetera. So we do operate a number of tertiary systems as well as our secondary systems. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I stop you a second? MR. CALVERT: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of the secondary drainage system, I'm looking at this document the -- in that middle panel, there mayor may not be words there in the pink area. If there are words there, perhaps you could tell us what they are. MR. CALVERT: Okay. Right below the main title it says secondary drainage system. And then right below that it says, local drainage districts, county or city. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. I have that. I'm talking about within this pink section here. MR. HARRISON: Further down. MR. CALVERT: Further down the area, it does appear to -- to have some type of written -- written items on there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. CALVERT: I don't know exactly what that says. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: At the moment I just realized you didn't. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. MR. CALVERT: As we look at the next map, this is the -- the bigger map that we have out here. We tried to, in this particular diagram, is illustrate the secondary drainage system that the county maintains. As I mentioned the primary system is not maintained by the county. That's maintained by Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Page 148 November 29,2006 Management District, under an agreement with the county. So the county has an agreement with Big Cypress that they maintain the system. They also control it. So as we look into the AUIR and look at our inventories, we thought it was more prudent to look at our secondary system rather than the primary system which we have little or no control over. So as we look at the secondary drainage systems, on this map you'll see a number of things. The little -- the blue lines that are indicated kind of a grid pattern, those are our canal systems. These are all of our canal systems, the secondary as well as the primary. The secondary systems are indicated by little blue arrows that are on those little blue lines. Those little blue arrows are indicating our secondary system as maintained by the county. Many of those secondary systems then empty into the primary system. Then -- then we also see in through there some blue triangles. Those blue triangles are -- are adjustable control structures within our system. These are our weirs that have gates on them, those that we can operate, raise and lower the level of the canals. The red triangles are our fixed stage weirs. So we have a number of those on -- in the system. Those are the nonadjustable weirs. Those weirs elevations have been set by permit to help restore the ground water replenishment as well as water quality. Then below that we've also have indicated a pump station. You'll see three of these little -- it looks like little hydrants on through there. These are pump stations that we maintain and operate typically out of a -- a lake that empties into either the secondary system or the primary system. As I said, we have actually three pump systems that we maintain currently. You'll also notice on the lower section what you see in the main section is the urban areas around Naples. We also have a number of secondary systems up around the Immokalee area which is indicated in the lower left-hand comer. So that's the secondary system. I did not provide a map of our tertiary system because, as I said, the tertiary Page 149 November 29, 2006 system is our roadside swales. You can look at any of our road maps. That's -- we have a tertiary system through there. It also includes some of the neighborhood systems we have control over, but we did not include the tertiary systems into our AUIR inventory. As you look at the next page, this is the little page with photographs. This little page here indicates or shows some of what our adjustable weirs look like and our pump systems. So you can see in through there that they have gates, automatic gates, pump stations. We've actually got 17 systems around the county as far as our major facilities. So you can see that some of the structures like this will cost considerably more than our fixed weirs. That's where we're getting into the difficulty of -- of what the unit costs are on our -- on our inventory. The last time we met last week we talked about this $530,000 per structure. Is that a good number? And the answer is maybe on the average it's not too bad, but you really can't look at each one of these structures and say they're only 530,000. We can build some fixed weir structures for twenty, thirty thousand. We get up to some of these adjustable weirs, we may be looking at $2 million. Big Cypress basin is now putting out for contract and recently put out a contract for the Golden Gate Main No.2 which is -- was-- came in at a cost of 4.2 million. So you've got a range from thirty, forty thousand up to four point two depending on your complexity. I'll go over some of those costs in -- in a little bit as well. As we looked at these last two sheets, the map illustrating all of our -- our control structures we have in there and all of our -- our mileage, as Mr. Feder indicated, we track the mileage of our canal system by use of the GIS system. We began using the GIS system in -- in 2005 to really get a better handle of what we've got out there as far as the inventory miles. From time to time we take on new systems. And time to time we knock off systems. Just recently, in fact, as late as last Tuesday here, the Board of County Commissioners vacated a portion of the drainage Page 150 November 29, 2006 canal because it was no longer needed. There was a previous agreement with the planned unit development that our secondary system now goes through their lake system. So there's an agreement there that they maintain their lake system. Our secondary system goes through it. It's no longer -- that section is no longer maintained by the county and that will come and go as time goes along. Our inventory right now as -- as we look at our GIS system looking at secondary miles, we're looking at 187 miles on our -- on our system. Those adjustable weirs, the little blue triangles in through there. If you count up all those little triangles -- little triangles, you'll count 14 of those. The fixed weirs are the little red triangles. We count those up and some of them are fairly close. Sometimes it gets difficult to see if there's one or two triangles in there, but we have 25 of those. Pump stations we have three. And currently we have zero treatment lakes on our secondary system. As you're looking at cost, I said that varies quite a bit from structure to structure even from canal to canal. If you're looking at a canal system that we've recently put out for contract is Avalon School drainage. It's a canal that has got a 28- foot top, about a 10- foot bottom. It's about three-foot deep. It's going -- it's costing us about $1.2 million per mile to build that -- that particular canal. It is on our secondary system. It's 28 feet wide at the top. And it's costing us 1.2 million. That includes all the appurtenances as well, you know, rip rap and some types of gates in some cases, et cetera. On the up -- upper end of it which we are putting out a contract here and re-bidding it here yet in December and then it'll probably be going to the board for consideration is the Lely main canal which is -- has a 60-foot top width, 6-feet deep. It has a cost of $2.8 million per mile. That's quite a bit wider, quite a bit bigger. It also has steeper walls. We've had to do some additional riprap. It's got a lot more bells and whistles, if you will, because it was confined within an existing development. Couldn't go out too much further because we'd Page 151 November 29, 2006 be taking homes. So we have a range even on just our canal system from I.2 million to 2.8 million. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do these -- in your costs are adjacent roadways or abutting roadways, are they included in that? MR. CALVERT: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are service roadways, are they included in that cost? MR. CALVERT: They are. Particularly the -- the 2.8 actually has a 10- foot wide service road on top of the one bank. The 1.2 million is actually down to a pathway. It's only an 8-foot service road on top of the edge bank, but they do include service roads. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we own the rights-of-way. MR. CALVERT: We do own the rights-of-way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. MR. CALVERT: As you look at structures, the adjustable weirs, since it's mentioned you get on the high end the Golden Gate No.1 which is fairly recently been established by $2.1 million. Golden Gate No.2 is at 4.2 and then it goes down. We've got an adjustable weir that we're -- smaller in scale that we're going to be building on the LASIP project near the Lely Lakes. It's got a value of almost 400,000 -- 393,000's our estimate. So it ranges from 393,000 for an adjustable weir up to 2 million what we'll be looking at. Some of our fixed weirs would be depending on -- on the width of the canals. That certainly can make a difference as well. Looking at the LASIP project, we have one that we're looking at 197,000. And then we have another one on Davis Boulevard estimated at 295,000. So we have a 30 percent difference or 50 percent difference in cost in just fixed weirs. Again, depending on the width of the canals and other constraints. Pump stations, those are fairly consistent. We do have a Gateway pump station. We estimate that to be at $453,000 for a pump station. Our treatment lakes and spreader lakes, we have a treatment Page 152 November 29, 2006 lake in Gateway triangle. We have several. Two in LASIP. We have three in Gordon River Water Quality Park. It ranges from 586,000. Just the one we're building in Gateway, 586,000 to 1.6 million in Sable Bay. And the difference is its size. We've got certainly a bigger size, bigger spreader dyke, more mitigation issues with the one in Sable Bay. So even spreader lakes we've got a variation cost. It just gives you an indication it gets very difficult, then, to decide what a structure is worth or what a mile of canal is worth. As Mr. Feder suggested, we want to maybe look at this issue and try to come up with a better way to report our inventory in the AUIR. I don't believe we have that luxury to do that this year, but I do believe that is something that we really need to -- to pursue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Has this in any way -- with this new set of glasses that you're wearing, has this changed your view of how you will plan which structures will be implemented first, which canals or are you going to stick with the same basic plan that you've initiated? MR. CALVERT: Well, what we have in our -- our capital improvement program includes a number of priorities. Priorities are set through some basin studies or drainage studies. We try to determine what the needs are, the level of needs. Certainly as input from the public comes into play, cost sharing comes into play with some of these proj ects, some of these may have a high priority to us, but because of the funding mechanism, we need to wait until we get the local share attached, the MSTUs, if you will. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I understand you what -- what you're saying is your glasses made it clearer, but you haven't changed the scene? MR. CALVERT: It really -- that's a good way to put it. It's made it clearer. We're still using the same approach. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, just to make it even clearer. Most Page 153 November 29, 2006 of the items that you're looking at right now that we have the specificity for, that's why I mentioned we're starting some starts in the five-year are the ones we have permits for. In the case of LASIP it only took us 20 years to get those permits. So the specificity is there and probably the program is not changing. Those needs are identified through extensive corridor studies and the like. And we're updating and doing basin studies. In some cases like the Gordon River, we're pulling out certain projects. In the case of LASIP we have a full set of proj ects that we're moving forward on. So in that sense I don't believe it's changing, but it is helping us in -- and this process is helping us as we define what new stops we're doing and how we're going about them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. Thank you. MR. CALVERT: If you look at the next handout that I have and that's the handout that's the revised 2006 AUIR Facility Summary Form. This is a new form that we revised based on our discussion that we had last week and based on our discussion we are having today as far as how we put the inventory together and how we structure the cost. As you look through the AUIR form, as I mentioned earlier, what we wanted to concentrate in is the secondary system. And so when you look at the inventory, we're looking at the secondary system for our inventory. Not any changes the -- of the inventory of the tertiary system, that's not indicated in the A UIR. What we tried to do, as Mr. Feder indicated, is to eliminate the unit cost values for our structures and our canals. As I said, we do want to do that in future AUIRs. I do not believe we have the luxury to fully evaluate this program within the next few weeks. So what we listed through there is the inventory and then about halfway down through there we said the drainage canal cost and looking at what type of value and cost do we have in our five-year program. We've also indicated how many use facilities we're going to be building or how Page 154 November 29, 2006 many reconstructed secondary facilities we're building. And so that reflects what our future inventory will be in five years out. MR. FEDER: Gene, if I could. You said a couple of times that we probably can't show you now the inventories. I think that's the case. But we are showing you miles. What we want to go is to something that's much more indicative of the carrying capacity or the system capacity by acre feet or something to show, which we don't have right now. But we are showing you the miles and the number of structures. MR. CALVERT: One factor that's also not indicated on there and is certainly a cost consideration in these times is the right-of-way cost. We look at the inventory cost and a lot of cases for our LASIP project, we do have inventory or right-of-way cost involved with that project. However, it's not included in the cost for what our existing inventory is right now. How many -- how much right-of-way do we have in our 187 -- 187 miles of pipe? So that's another factor that probably should be included in the next AUIR. It certainly is a value that should be considered. As you look at the next page, it's the legal-sized page that's got the Excel spreadsheet. It says Attachment "A" up in the comer. This is a revised Attachment A from the previous meeting we had last week. What we did in this particular Attachment "A" is separate out our secondary projects from our tertiary projects from our title proj ects. So as you look at this page compared to what previously handed to you, the far left-hand comer that says number, those are the same numbers and proj ects as just for clarification. But we separated out which ones are our capital projects, which ones are our tertiary projects and then, finally, which ones are the title projects. And then at the bottom of Attachment "A" is -- goes on out to the revenues, what we anticipate for revenues over the next five years. MR. FEDER: The other thing, Gene, you might note under Attachment A under the secondary or capital projects, technically the Page 155 November 29, 2006 only ones that are in the comp plan that are placed in your capital improvement element or CIE are those that are shown here with what their CIE number is. But, obviously, we wanted to show you the full program here. MR. CALVERT: Thank you for that. That's a very good point. Because we do have four projects in our CIE program. That's the Gordon River Water Quality Park, the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Proj ect, the Belle Mead Stormwater Proj ect and the Gateway Triangle. The Belle Mead Project I need to point out. It doesn't have a CIE number identified yet because we don't know for sure what those particular projects are. This is a study that's being completed right now by the Big Cypress Basin identifying some of these capital projects. They have a good indication of what they might be looking at, the preliminary drawings and preliminary report. But until we get the final report, we don't know for sure what they'll be out there. But we do anticipate that report being finalized within -- within the next year so we can proceed with some of the design and construction. And that's as you look at the design and construction, it comes in the out years of the five-year program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have more to -- MR. CALVERT: Got one more thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CAL VERT: If you look at Attachment B which is the next one attached to this one. It's all a little spreadsheet. What I tried to do in here, this particular diagram, is looking at just our secondary program and what type of facilities are we going to be building. This is the inventory of -- of additional miles, additional structures, additional ponds and what projects are tied to. So you utilize these numbers tied back to that summary form in trying to determine where those miles are going to be built or where are these structures going to be built. Page 156 November 29, 2006 And, finally, as a request from last time, the last -- very last handout. There's another spreadsheet. And it says Summary of Stormwater Revenues. These were revenues we received from 2004 to 2005 -- '6, excuse me, of this three-year period of non-county funds. So these would be grant funds that we received, contributions from developers, bid documents, any type of revenue that we receive that went back into our program that was non-county ad valorem tax. The reason this was brought up previously was the question as far as how much MSTU money was being brought into the program. As you can see on this one, there's zero at this point. But there is other local contributions. And also looking at this years, we look at all these Issues. MR. FEDER: Those of those that might not know, bid documents when somebody comes in and goes to a bid, they pay for a set of documents. So it's a revenue source. What I'll call your attention to is the placement property in '04. That's basically commercial paper that came into buy. That was a revenue stream in. And then a million a year although that's now going back after that payment that we're getting from the Big Cypress Basin. And then in '06 we're very fortunate to get an FTC grant at 5.8. Those are the major items that come into the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yes, Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Am I reading this correctly if I go down 2005, everything is a grant there except the $1,681.05 for Graves Brothers culvert replacement? Is that a contribution from a homeowner or what is that? MR. CAL VERT: You're correct in the -- in the fact that it's -- they're all grants except for $1,681 as well as the $49 at the bottom as far as bid documents. The rest of them are all grants. The Graves Brothers culvert replacement miscellaneous revenue, I do not know what that proj ect or revenue source was from, whether it was a developer or other contribution. Page 157 ,.~_._", _, B' - - '.~.'.'~",- November 29, 2006 MS. VASEY: Okay. And then looking at 2006, you just got grant money and bid documents. So there aren't really any contributions from homeowner associations or developer agreements or anything like that? MR. CALVERT: That's correct in 2006. Now, there were some right-of-way donations, but we just looked at the revenues here. We didn't provide any other kind of contributions in kind or soft matches. MS. VASEY: And most of the money in 2006 is that -- what's the FTC Grant? MR. CALVERT: That's -- that's correct, 5.8 million was the-- MR. FEDER: Florida Communities Trust -- Florida Community Trust. MS. VASEY: Okay. And that's something that's free and clear? We don't pay that back or anything? MR. FEDER: No, we do not pay that back. It's from Department of Community Affairs. It's a grant program for certain projects around the state. And we're very successful here and we expect that we'll also be getting one on the other section of Fleishmann by the Caribbean Gardens. MR. CALVERT: Yeah. We anticipate getting close to $9 million on that same program, FCT, for the Gordon River Greenway Park that is on this current year's program. MS. VASEY: So would it be accurate to say that the one-third contributions from MSTUs and MSBUs and all that it just isn't happening? MR. CALVERT: It would be fair to say that. MS. VASEY: Okay. And -- and how does it look for the future? MR. FEDER: Ms. Vasey-- MR. CALVERT: It is difficult. Go ahead. MR. FEDER: What I -- what I will tell you is what we're looking at right now, we're trying to pursue that issue also looking at right-of-way. What we have looked at is under the policy, let's say, on Page 158 November 29, 2006 a capital project on a secondary system. Let's say LASIP. We've got a total cost of that project. Based on that total cost, we are not going to expend more than one-third of that cost in county funds. We will stop the proj ect utilizing those county funds as we try to pursue from Big Cypress Basin which they have committed some to that project, but their one-third. And as we try to pursue basically the MSTU funding for the other third. Some of what we're looking at, though, is that we're having to buy right-of-way in that area, is may we look at the full cost with right-of-way included and establish that one-third policy. And if the right-of-way is provided to us, then that reduce what that MSTU demand might be. But under the policy if, for instance, I got nothing from BCB, which isn't the case, if I got nothing from MSTU, we would only build the one-third solution. And that's as far as we could go as a county. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, then if you go to your summary page, then, I'm a little curious as to why when you go down under the category of existing and projected revenue sources, MSTUs still you're putting in more dollars there than you are for South Florida Water Management District and BCB grants. MR. CALVERT: That -- that's correct. That's a good observation. What we're looking at is $25 million over a five-year program from MSTUs and other identified revenue. And then compared to 14 million on Big South Florida Water Management District and Big Cypress Basin. I might say that the funding that we've indicated here, the 14,750 -- $14,750,000 is funds that we're reasonably sure that we're going to get. Why I say that is because a good portion of that funds has already been identified on Big Cypress Basin's five-year program. It's also additional revenues that we're reasonably sure that we're going to be getting through EP A grants. So those are -- might say for-sure dollars, Page 159 November 29,2006 the 14.7 million. There may be additional monies that we'd looking at down the road. But that's the reason we wanted to indicate the 25 million is unidentified revenue to meet our -- our -- our plan. MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner Caron, I'll also point out to you, the funding policy goes over, let's say, for the tertiary system where it's one-half county, one-halfMSTU. So if you look at it, this is also assuming the funding as well of the tertiary program and also on the title with mandatory MSTU s formed after. So that's why you're seeing that figure in that sense. It's not just for the secondary or the capital projects. It's also for the tertiary system as well. MR. CALVERT: We also tried to clarify that in the asterisk on the second page of that one, the double asterisk that's right beside that MSTU indicators. On the second page it states and the fact it's based on the -- the anticipated revenues, but individual projects will be expanded based on receipt of additional revenues or conversely reductions will be made should the proj ected funding not materialize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are past the three o'clock time for Ms. Ford and for Katie to have a break. So we'll take a 15-minute break. And when we get back, we'll resume, finish up storm drainage. I think we'll be getting into the utilities issue today. At 4:30 we will probably stop our issues, discuss the conceptual review for tomorrow. And then at five we'll end for the day. So I don't think we'll get anything past the utilities today. So for those in the audience who were interested in what's happening. So we'll take a 15-minute break and be back here at 3:30. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Turn us back on, Mike. MR. BOSI: You have a hot mic, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mic's back on. Mike turned the mic on. Okay . We had left off with questions for the stormwater section of this element and drainage. I -- I just want to make an over -- overall statement. Norm, you gave us a lot of information, new sheets Page 160 November 29, 2006 that are completely different than the old sheets. I've got to sit down myself and correlate those before I can comment so... MR. FEDER: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll go through any comments right now, but from my perspective -- and I'll see where the board wants to go as we finish -- this is going to have to be finished another day. Ms. Caron then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. First of all, I would agree. There's an awful lot of information to go over and make comparisons to. However, I had one that's sort of a carryover here and that would be on your tertiary systems, No.1, which is your GPS system. And it was projected last year to be $50,000. And it's now increased to $140,000 for fiscal year '06/'07. Can you tell me why? MR. CALVERT: Absolutely. We've actually got a little bit of carryover from finishing up the proj ect. In fact, the contractor just finished his last phase of the project up here the last two weeks ago and we will be making a payment to the tune of 97,000. It's under the contract we have with him. And so that the carryover, we did have some carryover from last year into this year's budget so that we could make that payment. We also anticipated around $40,000 worth of first-year maintenance and then thereafter 20 -- $20,000 worth of maintenance per year. Currently we have about 30 users on the system representing nine different firms. We are charging them a -- a fee. And that fee will go to offset the annual maintenance cost. But we -- $20,000 in annual maintenance cost. It may be a little high-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll need to pull the mic a little closer to you, Gene. We having a hard time hearing you. MR. CALVERT: I'm sorry. I'll do that. So what I'm saying is that -- those costs will be offset by the user fees in future years. And it may be less than $20,000, but we want to allow that -- provide that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Again, in the 2005 AUIR, it Page 161 November 29, 2006 was projected out across the board at $50,000 a year. So you're saying that the 50 is going to come down because of your user fees and -- MR. CALVERT: On -- on the annual basis? I believe we have this year the annual basis should be $20,000 annual after this current fiscal year. COMMISSIONER CARON: After this current -- right. MR. CALVERT: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: But where did the 140 come from? MR. CALVERT: The 140 is, as I mentioned, we had around $97,000 worth of contract to finish up getting the system on board. And then we allowed for around $40,000 for first-year operations working the bugs out if we need to. COMMISSIONER CARON: So what was it initially in the '05/'06 or the 2005 AUIR, just all of that did not get spent? This is essentially a carry-over situation? MR. CALVERT: A lot of that is. I didn't bring my spreadsheet from what was carried over. But, yes, a good chore because -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I don't have mine because I gave you mine last time. That's where I couldn't remember -- couldn't figure out why mine was gone. MR. FEDER: Commissioner Caron, my understanding is that that was rolled. It was encumbered, but it was not spent, so it rolled and that's why you see the dollars here. Also the concept was changed some in this GPS. We've now set it up and we're now letting other people come on and utilize the system and go into a fee basis. That was reviewed with the board. And this is primarily used by us as we look at permitting driveways to make sure we've got proper elevation for positive flow as we permit driveway culverts and other issues of the sort particularly out in the estates. We didn't have good monuments in the past to do that from. You had to go shoot the whole line. Now we do have good monuments. That's a big part of what we utilize this for and we also have as a service out to others. Page 162 November 29, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought it was just so you could get home in the fastest manner possible. MR. FEDER: That's the pre-emption signal. I don't have one of those either. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gene, I notice in the footnote or a note on the bottom talks about the 1.5 mill ( sic) ad valorem securing funding beginning in '05 for the next 20 years. Now, does that mean that the board has already acknowledged that you are going to be able to spend 0.15 millions of ad valorem taxation on this element of AUIR? Now it's a matter of just figuring what you're spending it on? MR. CALVERT: Each year the board does have to approve the budget and does have to approve the ad valorem revenues into them. This was a resolution that the board passed in 2004, really it set the funding policy. I don't believe legally it obligated the board to put in this -- this 0.15 mills for the next 20 years, but rather was a -- an acknowledgment that this is what that board wanted to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the comment securing funding is what drove my question. I'm just wondering how secure it is if it doesn't -- based on what you just said then, it really isn't any more secure than any other budget item. MR. CALVERT: That is -- that is my understanding. That is correct. Because it does have to be approved on an annual basis by the Board of County Commissioners. MR. FEDER: Commissioner Strain, it does need to be approved every year. The board made a strong commitment after years of not having a specific funding source for stormwater to establish 0.15 mills. Now, that's for operating as well as the capital program. So it generates some dollars that are also the operating costs. While the board can obviously reduce that or for that matter provide more, their provision is a commitment of 0.15 mills. That committed, if you will, funding source was also seen as something necessary for us to go after Page 163 November 29,2006 grants and to support grants to bring more into the program. Because it was understood based on the overall costs and needs the 0.15 mills would basically address the funding proportions that you have here in an overall program of 20 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I'm going with my questioning was to make sure I understand this. There is a summary in the front of the AUIR that talks about additional ad valorem impacts. This is not in that summary. Based on the statement and what you just said it appears, then, that this is an allocation that is supposed to occur on a reoccurring basis for 20 years. And that you are not seeking any additional allocation out of any ad valorem other than what's -- MR. FEDER: That is correct. That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then it does become a matter now of, okay, this is what the board's policy is. This is what they are maxed out or allowing you to spend. Your priorities are the next line of item of where you're going to spend it and how you're going to do it. MR. FEDER: And we're seeking grants and the MSTUs and other issues to be able to fully develop the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If -- even if we came up with some suggestions on how to defer any of the work, it really wouldn't matter because you're still going to spend the same amount of money either way it goes. MR. FEDER: Hopefully we're going to use that money on good improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a given I would hope. MR. FEDER: Yeah. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, okay, that does take a whole different level of perspective for this particular element of the AUIR at least from my viewpoint. And does that millage equal about 9 million a year? Is that what -- because you've got $9 million under ad valorem for FY'06, '07. And then under FY'07 to '08 and '10 to '11 Page 164 November 29,2006 you another 45. Was the 45 supposed to be over five years or was it supposed to be over four years? The reason I'm asking this is because if it's over four years, it's a little over 11 million a year you should be allocating. If it's over five years, then nine million of the forty-five is in the number above. MR. FEDER: It is over the next four years. And it is going up a little bit as overall assessed values go up. If you take a standard of 0.15 mills, it generated about 9 million. I think this year it was about 11. Yeah. Each year was showing about an 8 percent increase based on the fact that we assume the assessed values will go up. And if we maintain a specific portion of the millage, obviously, that brings a little more revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's no impact fees allocated at this time for drainage? MR. FEDER: There is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are making a recommendation at some point to -- especially when the water shed management plan's coming to -- MR. FEDER: Not when I'm going out to transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? I don't think we're going to resolve anything with this issue today other than make sure we understand it for review again tomorrow. MR. FEDER: The last thing I will try to point out to the board as you look at this, obviously, what we've done is we are no longer identifying what the value -- and I want to make sure that you don't -- don't have anything as not presented to you. Weare no longer showing a cost for canal costs for an average structure. We went over why. We're not showing a value of the inventory and what the value will be afterwards. Because very honestly we found that that was not a very useful item. What was our cost when we put it in versus what would be our cost if we put it in today, what's the depreciated value on the weir that's so many years old. Going through that, it didn't seem to Page 165 November 29, 2006 make much sense. What we have done for you hopefully and that's what is for you to look at and evaluate is we've identified what our revenue streams are, what our needs are, divided it out by the systems so you get a better look at that. Showing you from what we have coming in the next five, what we have permits for, therefore, we have a good indication of what we're going to be adding in new miles -- upgraded miles as well as the number of structures by structure type. As I said, there are some proj ects in this five year we've seen dollars attributed, but we don't show any structures of miles because we don't know it yet. As we do that in subsequent A UIRs, we will put that on. You shouldn't see anything that first year going over into inventory. We feel comfortable with the inventory at this point. Anything added new fifth, obviously, in there, but then as others come forward, we'd be able to identify and you'd see the dollars respective to that. The last thing is that we are going to probably not this cycle, but try to move away from just canal miles because it doesn't speak to basically the capacity or the capability of the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any final questions? Gene. MR. CAL VERT: One final answer to a question that came up last time that I forgot to address. And that was a question about the Australian pines project number. Previously AUIRs had a project number of515012. This year it's 51501I. And the reason being is that -- is that in prior to 2005, the capital improvements were funded through a cost accounting fund known as 301 fund. So they -- the board put monies into this 301 fund to fund these projects. Today it's funded through the 325 funds. So as the projects were closed out in 301, maybe the projects weren't done but the money was spent. And we had to come up with new project numbers. And Australian pine is a typical one. We have several of the other projects that have actually two different project numbers. One project Page 166 November 29, 2006 underneath the 301 fund and another project underneath 325. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of anybody before we move onto the next subj ect? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. Appreciate your time. Thank you. And I -- we're going to have to finish yours up tomorrow as best as -- we expect to get through everything by tomorrow what we don't finish today so... MR. CALVERT: Okay. For the board's purposes do -- would you like me to come back, then, tomorrow for any other future questions towards the end? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think any questions that we have of your new information won't really be available until tomorrow. At least I'll need that much time to review it and I'm sure others do. So, unfortunately, you're going to have to come back again. MR. CALVERT: I will be available. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. The next item up is are-review of the county potable water system. We had some questions last time to which we had some new handouts. And I guess we need to move into the potable water section. MR. GRAMATGES: Good afternoon. Phil Gramatges, principal project manager, public utilities engineering. The last time we met, this board had three requests. First, that we add some financials at the end of the -- of the potable water and wastewater sections in order to show the sources and uses of cash. And we have done that. You can see those on page 36.1 and page 52.1. We also at your request added a couple of graphs on 52.2 and 52.3 that show the service areas for the specific water reclamation facilities. The first one is for the year 2011 which show the way that it will look at that time, of course. And the next one is for 2025 which will show the service areas once -- at the end of the master planning Page 167 November 29, 2006 period. The third request was that we change the peak calculation for solid waste from a six-month basis to four-month basis and we have done that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with the potable water and any questions that we have from the panel to get through that portion of it. Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll start out with some questions on the population statistics. Again, not as to how they were devised but where you got some of the your information from. And I know it was from the projections and comprehensive planning. But under your potable water system, from what I can tell, you used the total of the north and south water plants. Yet on the proj ections that we had in our package, we had other plants called the Southeast Water and Sewer, the Northeast 2 and 3 Water and Sewer and the Orangetree Water and Sewer. Do any of those produce water? MR. GRAMATGES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're all sewer? MR. GRAMATGES: The Northeast plant will produce water and sewer, but that, of course, is 2011. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but there's -- there's two Northeast plants or Northeast 2 and Northeast 3 that population statistics were provided for from, you know, years back. But those -- that is all one plant, the three Northeast plants that are referred to in the population statistics are all one? MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. I have to confess that I'm not familiar with those designations. But at this point in time, the Northeast Plant is just one plant. And that plant will produce both water and -- and processed wastewater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that plant isn't going to go on-line until -- Page 168 November 29, 2006 MR. GRAMATGES: 2011. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all the other references to that-- MR. GRAMA TGES: Mr. Wides just explained that that could be related to the fact that that is phased, the Northeast Plant. So the Northeast Plant, in fact, as a result of discussions we had with the Planning Commission last year, we decided to take it in stages and that's probably what you're referring to there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the first phase in 2011? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, again, that's why it was confusing because the way this population stats are written, there appears to be two of the phases for which population statistics were provided for. And I'm wondering, then, how you could have -- how those statistics could have been provided for if the service area doesn't exist because you don't have a plant? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, the service area doesn't exist, but we know what areas will be covered by it. And, therefore, we can calculate what population will be there at the time the plant will be -- will be functioning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know why in Northeast 1 Water and Sewer wouldn't have had anything allocated to it although it wasn't a line item on the population statistics added to our AUIR? MR. GRAMATGES: Can you detail on what page you find that, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you turn to -- have you got the AUIR? MR. GRAMATGES: Okay. Oh, I see. Well, the reason why Northeast 1 Water and Sewer does not have anything is, as I understand it, because, indeed, we're not serving that area. I will need to turn that to CDS for answers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if Northeast 2 and 3 aren't existing and they're incorporated in some other way, I just want Page 169 November 29, 2006 to make sure that the population is addressed either in the statistic as it should -- as it may need to be or out. I mean, it's out. It's not in your -- it's not in your table. That I confirmed. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah. Northeast 1 is not going to be serviced and that's the reason why there's all zeros there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about Orangetree, are you guys pulling water out of Orangetree? MR. GRAMATGES: Orangetree, we -- we are planning to take over Orangetree in 2012. There -- there is -- the Northeast Plant there is not necessarily -- not to service Orangetree. Orangetree is operating right now. We're going to take over operations. There maybe some overlapping, but that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions about some of the new sheets or any of the sheets that were supplied to us by potable water? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I'd just like to comment that those -- those were exactly the things I was looking for. And in -- it's very well done. I'm quite satisfied with my questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your summary sheet that was provided, Phil, on line 16, water impact fees, 2006 you use 7.70 and 2007 you dropped severely down to 3.6. 2008 you were back up to 11.30. And in 2009 40.40. That's quite a jump in 2009. MR. GRAMATGES: Let me ask Mr. Wides to address that question. MR. WIDES: Good afternoon. For the record, Tom Wides, operations director for public utilities. First off what we look at is we don't expect to spend the funds on a ratable basis throughout a time period. We'll rate them. We'll spend the funds as -- as components of capital projects basically start to come on-line so we get through -- as we get through various construction periods. And as you've seen in our master planning in Page 170 November 29, 2006 particular, we do -- we do go through peaks and valleys as we go over the years. We don't have just a flat line. So the monies will go out as we need to fund the projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is under the funding sources. So it's monies coming in. MR. WIDES: Well, it's -- it's actually use of the monies coming in. You have to look at it from the point of view the monies are coming in, yes, ratably depending on the building cycle. But the actual use of the monies may not be on the exact same cycle as the . .. monIes comIng In. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm used to seeing use of money under expenditures and then the sources of where that expenditure is able to be spent from under funding sources. So under your funding sources and under expenditures you're both saying they're attributed to the use of the money? MR. WIDES: Yes, sir. Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do you control when you're going to get impact fees? Don't you get them at the time of building permit? MR. WIDES: Well, we do, but we don't have control such that we can't say that we're going to get $2 million this year. We know that. We know we'll follow the building permit cycle. Okay. But any over funding in a given year does not mean that we've over funded the program. It just means it'll be utilized in the next year or the following year. Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't going there. MR. WIDES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no problem with that. I'm just wondering how you perceive the flow of impact fees based on the revenue streams in the years you predicted it. Because it's quite different than the other departments have predicted impact fee revenue flows. And it's quite different than what your sewer impact revenue Page 171 November 29,2006 fee flows showed on the following -- a similar page under sewer. MR. WIDES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to correlate all that. I mean, why would one year you look at a difference of almost ten times what it is going to be next year in impact-fee revenues when your revenue stream comes in at the same time that everybody else does from impact fees, doesn't it? MR. WIDES: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WIDES: I can't argue that part whatsoever. However, we've tracked this literally in our master plan efforts, in our -- in our actual funding efforts. And as we see the populations coming in from doing these studies, we've actually tried to estimate the revenues that will come in. I can't account for how others have done it. However, we refined this process over five or six years. And it's -- it's worked very well for us. And if I may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WIDES: -- tracking our cash-flow process over the last five years, we've been able to defer this large revenue buying program for two years by literally following the cash and the cash needs. And as you may be aware, we just literally have prepared to float a $100 million revenue bond. We originally projected to do that back in 2003, but we followed the cash flows over the years and were able to defer that revenue bond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not -- Tom, I'm certainly not saying that you're wrong. I'm trying to understand your basis because you may have a better basis in the way you're doing it than the other departments are. If that's the case, because right now statistically I'm concerned about the way the other departments use our population statistics. You guys for this document looks like you used when building permits would be hitting the plate for your revenues. MR. WIDES: Right. And follow the flow of the building Page 172 November 29, 2006 permits coming in. And, again, I can only speak for the way we do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only question I had on that sheet. Anybody else have any other questions? MR. HARRISON: One down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: I'm still looking at the details. In prior reports you had the transmission facility out to 951 And Immokalee Road? MR. WIDES: Yes. MR. HARRISON: Is that still in the five-year horizon here? MR. WID ES: I'd have to defer back to our engineering department on that one, but I believe the -- the five-year plan does not -- well, I'll let Phil speak to that. MR. GRAMATGES: Can you tell me what part you say you're looking at again, please? MR. HARRISON: Well, I thought I'd seen this last year where there was, like, a new 36-inch line going out to connect with the existing service to the comer of 951 And Immokalee Road. MR. GRAMA TGES: That -- that line is definitely in the master plan. Whether it's in the five years or not, I would need to look for it. Because I do remember that project from the master plan. MR. HARRISON : Yeah. On page 205 near the bottom you've got the new 36 inch line from 951 down to Golden Gate Boulevard. That's all part -- MR. GRAMATGES: If you look at page 29, you will see that the line 4 shows that proj ect coming in on fiscal year -- beginning on fiscal year 2006 and ending on fiscal year 2008. So that's definitely within next five years. MR. HARRISON: So the transmission is in before the new treatment plant? MR. GRAMATGES: And that's quite likely, yes, because we tried to take advantage of any -- MR. HARRISON: Construction, yeah. Page 173 November 29, 2006 MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, that is going on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the potable water? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we in a position to take a position on it? Any -- I don't think we need this issue to come back to us. Any comments from anybody? MS. VASEY: The only comment I would have is I -- I think we're going to be recommending approval without any issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I cannot hear you, Jan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She said she-- MS. VASEY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'll let you speak for yourself. MS. VASEY: We're going to probably -- as a subcommittee we'll probably recommend to the full committee for approval as -- as this AUIR is presented without any issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from the Planning Commission perspective then is there a motion from the Planning Commission how to address this issue? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion in accordance with the recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to the recommendation where? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to find it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Early they made a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if-- Page 174 November 29, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I'll make -- I'll make a recommendation in accordance with the presentation and the supporting documentation and the qualification as shown on the record here today and prior days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Commissioner Caron. Any discussion? From my part of it, I believe that the document provided by the U department -- utilities department is good. I don't have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with the work that they're doing nor the work that they're proposing, but I have a problem with the basis for which it was proposed. I am dead set against the way we not explained population criteria. And because it isn't explained, I can't see the valid -- I can -- I cannot validate any of the elements of this document that are based on population as expressed to us without the explanations to clarify it. And at this point I have gone on as much research as I have done, I can't find a valid explanation yet. So having that blank in front of me, I will be voting no on this particular recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for specifically the questionability of our population statistics. Now, is there any other discussion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, if you like on that negative note included into the -- into the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the motion maker feels that's worthy of inclusion, I certainly would like it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My suspicion is if the commissioners were to read that, they might be made aware of something that they have an opportunity to qualify further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we've made it perfectly Page 175 November 29,2006 clear and I think it should be in any motion that gets made that we're not happy with the population statistics that are being used. And we have gotten no answers. We've asked over and over and over again and haven't gotten any answers to any satisfaction whatsoever. And I think that it's very clear that we should include it in anything that we forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, the only -- this is the first item that we've had that is population contingent. The rest of them have been more count contingent or other elements of radius or miles for the fire department. So that's why up until now this is the only element that I felt had the impact that was concerning to me. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Chairman, I also agree with you. I can't -- I can't vote for this. It's based on population figures which I just don't have faith in. I don't think they're correct. And until they're adjusted, I just can't go forward on any issue related to the population. MR. COHEN: For the record, you know, I'm somewhat perplexed by that statement. You asked us to contact the Bureau of Economic and Business Research which we did, myself, Mr. -- Mr. Bosi and Mr. Weeks. We had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Stanley -- Dr. Stanley Smith who's the head of BEBR with respect to documenting the validity of the population statistics used in this methodology and he validated it. In fact, the methodology that we used based off the 2000 census was extremely accurate. It was right on point with respect to starting with the 71.2 percent vacant housing units. It was scheduled as the first item on your agenda today. And I was not asked to speak with respect to that and I was here to do just that. If you would like me to speak with respect to that, I would be more than happy to. Mr. Bosi also confirmed that as well too. Furthermore, we offered the chairman the opportunity to come in and Page 176 November 29, 2006 meet with myself and Mr. Weeks via e-mail, I believe, last Friday. And that request for a meeting was turned down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it was. MR. COHEN: And -- and I don't know why it was turned down, but an explanation would have been provided to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, first of all, I don't need an explanation from a phone call. I'd like to see the documentation and put the number together. I've done my own research trying to figure out how you got to this number. And I looked back and there are two things that are used in population: estimates and proj ections. When you do estimates, you fall back on the census bureau estimates as the final ones or close to the final ones. The year 2000 is one example of that. When you do that, what happens is you're using vacancy rates that are applied to the whole county. And if you look at the vacancy rates of the City of Marco, I think they were 51 percent. The City of Naples was over 30 percent if I'm not mistaken. Those are going to have a huge impact on the vacancy rate you left and used for the balance of the unincorporated area of Collier County. I have not seen how that's utilized in our population statistics. And even if it was satisfactory explained, I do not see how the population statistic relates to the impacts of water, sewer and many of the other elements. As I said in the first meeting, those elements are driven by the physical structures that are put up. Impact fees are paid. The vacancy rate has nothing to do with when those structures come on-line. Because they come on-line when the facility's created whether it's 100 percent occupied or not occupied. MR. COHEN: And we had very lengthy discussion with Dr. Smith with respect to that. And that was one of the things that we wanted to brief this board and the Productivity Committee with respect to as well to with regard to geographic units, especially like a water/sewer district, a county, smaller geographic units as well because we have fire districts and the applicability not only of Page 1 77 November 29,2006 permanent population, but seasonal population as well too and how that relates to 9J5 with respect to also having one population methodology countywide. And I think it does warrant an extreme amount of conversation with both the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee. And I -- and I think it warrants a lengthy discussion with respect to that because it gets at the valid point, which you've raised, of, you know, how do we deal with population when we talk about certain geographic units? And when I say that, I don't disagree with you. Dr. Smith pointed out that one of the biggest problems that they have at the Bureau of Economic and Business Research is when they start dealing with geographic units statewide, every county is different to start with. And then within the counties themselves, they deal with different cities that have different types of -- types of populations. And beyond that within -- within those general rounds themselves, even the track and block data is so specific when you start dealing with certain geographic entities. So how do you deal with them and how do you actually get to the route of the population issues that may be at hand. When we talk about a water/sewer district, for example, okay, and, you know, we compare that, say, to a fire district. We know that the populations within those districts, because they're different geographic boundaries, are not going to be the same. We wouldn't anticipate that they would be the same. The question was posed to Dr. Smith, well, how would you go about doing that if we were talking about specific geographic regions? His response back to us was, I would recommend that you do an intensive survey of that geographic -- that geographic area. And if it was a specific one that warranted it and go that route and do a comparison of that compared to your general population within the county. And that would get at the route of your -- of your issue. Granted that's very costly to do that because we're talking about different geographic units. The question then Page 178 November 29, 2006 becomes which geographic units do you want that specific information for? And from a sampling statistic -- from a statistical sampling standpoint, how do you want to go about doing that and how do fund that? Do I disagree with you in terms of that we have different populations, different seasonal rates, different vacancy rates within different geographic areas, not at all. I would expect that you would have that throughout the county in different areas whether it's Immokalee, whether it's Naples, whether it's Marco Island, whether it's the water/sewer district. Do we have that level of detail available to us? No, we don't. Are we going to get it from the census data? No, we're not going to. Is there a mechanism to do that? Yes, there is. Is it costly? Yes, it is. Now, from this body's perspective, you know, we've -- we've utilized population data in the past for this county time and time again from AUIR to AUIR to AUIR as well as CIE. We also know we have a recommendation from the Department of Community Affairs to change that methodology. I would deem it extremely appropriate from this body and from the Productivity Committee to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners with respect to certain geographic units that you feel very uncomfortable with that maybe there needs to be some more intense data collection done in the future with respect to those units. Because obviously at this -- at this point in time, it's a very lengthy undertaking and, you know, it can't be done at this point in time. But in the future I think it -- it would be warranted to do that and budgeted accordingly. So I don't -- I don't disagree with that. But for us to come back and say we studied this and come up with a number, there's no way that's going to happen. I can look at census data. I can look at block data. I can look at track data. There's no way it's going to transpire without going out and doing a sound statistically solid sample of a -- of a geographic area and doing a survey within that area. And if you Page 1 79 November 29, 2006 wanted it done for, say, the water/sewer district and that was that -- that the Board of County Commissioners gave our staff and budgeted accordingly, we'd be more than happy to do just that. It's a very lengthy undertaking. And I think in some instances, it's definitely warranted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know that population is a need for this county. Number one, it produces our HUD grants and qualifies us for certain grant levels. It qualifies us for certain revenue sharing at both federal and state levels. And it also -- Tallahassee likes this part -- it qualifies this state for a higher population count for the federal house of representatives that we elect. So for that reason the population has to be driven to the most optimistic viewpoint and I understand that. But what my problem is, and it's not -- it's not that we have to drive this population or we have a statistic to do it. That's fine. But that is not the statistic we should be using for many of our AUIR elements. We should be more like transportation that uses a physical count that says, okay, we have gone out and counted. This is what we want. And we do have the capacity to do that. We know through each planning area how many vertical buildings we put up. We know what the ERCs in those buildings are because we tabulate them. Every time we issue a building permit and a C.O. And we also know the PPH. The U.S. Census provides a different PPH for different types of housing. We have 15 CDPs in this county for different census tracks. We could take the -- if we wanted to, to get down to that we could take the PPH from those. There are numbers of ways this could be done off the statistics available that might render a more accurate decision on what's needed for the future. It may come out worse or it may come out better, but I don't think the population number is the right way to go. And I -- especially with the fact that we take a number that is permanent. We add a vacancy rate to it and then we've got buildings and structures out there that are already created that those people are staying in. I don't -- to me that's Page 180 November 29, 2006 double counting. I just don't see it as viable. MR. CO HEN: Well, one thing that I -- that I did feel comfortable with and I'm sure Mr. Basi and Mr. Weeks also concurred with that was in determining the -- the housing unit count which they use statewide, they account for 100 percent of our housing units and I'm talking residential units to begin with. The 2000 census identified that we have 71.2 percent of those housing units that are -- that are occupied on a permanent basis. And 28.8 percent of those they're-- they're considered not to be occupied housing units. They fall in the vacant category which I believe 23.4 percent of them are completely seasonal units. That's based off of a countywide ballot 2000 census data. Is it broken down to the level that you probably like it, no. But in terms of double counting the seasonal with the -- with the occupied, specifically Dr. Smith said we start with 100 percent of your units. I've got the chart here with me. It's straight from the population statistics. We -- we -- we take out and, you know, what's occupied which is 71.2 percent and -- and we break that out. And I could pop it on the visualizer if you'd like to see it. I'd be more than happy to. I would think it would be the appropriate thing to do right now because you raised the issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Randy, I have all that information as well just so you know. Ms. Caron, you had a question? MR. COHEN: So I'm just kind of curious, you know, if the standard methodology used by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research with respect to total housing used statewide, how they calculate what's occupied, how they calculate what's vacant and seasonal. So I'm somewhat perplexed. Are you questioning the state's methodology in terms of how they -- how they count housing units because that seems to be the gist of where you're going. Because that's what's done countywide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questioning the basis of using it for the elements of the AUIR unilaterally like we are. The elements of the Page 181 November 29, 2006 AUIR are more focused on vertical construction through the COA process and everything like that. And that is a much more accurate way of determining where we're going in the future than tourist and how much -- how many units they occupy in a hotel. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: How can we not question -- at the very minimum how can we not question population statistics that include areas we do not serve, for example, the City of Marco Island or the City of Naples? MR. COHEN: Well, that's not questioning a statistic. That's questioning whether or not to use that population in -- in applying it to a level of service that you're -- that you're going to be utilizing. For example, if you were to say -- if you were to say we don't want to include the population in the incorporated areas for, say, regional parks. We just want to supply regional parks for the unincorporated area as a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Then -- then -- then that would be your recommendation. Obviously, regional parks do serve countywide population. And in the past that's been the board direction to apply it countywide. Whereas, with community parks, we're all well aware that they serve a certain geographic unit. And the determination was to use only the unincorporated population for community parks. So there has been some definitive guidelines there. When we start talking about different geographic units like the water/sewer districts which have a totally different type of boundary that's set up by -- by special district and special act, I believe, it gets a little different. MR. WIDES: Ms. Caron, if I may, speaking directly to the water and sewer district. As we speak to the City of Naples or Marco Island or Everglades City, they are specifically excluded from our population counts by the community development division. So they are specifically -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that. Page 182 November 29, 2006 MR. WIDES: Okay. I just wanted to clarify. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that. We're talking-- MR. WIDES: I know. I know. I can't help but feel somewhat dragged -- dragged into it. MR. COHEN: But what we do see as being problematic is that we do know that there's different seasonal rates within different geographic units. And that becomes problematic in ascertaining, you know, how do we apply those particular levels of service, you know, and populations within them. And that's where Dr. Smith in talking with him, he said the best avenue about going and doing something like that is to do really some ground grouping and a survey of those particular geographic units. And the water/sewer district would be one of those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as the motion maker, I would like to offer an amendment to my own motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Due to the apparent variation and the number as expressed as population over the several departments and divisions that use population counts and the difficulty in ascertaining the most correct usage, it is especially requested that the Board of Collier County Commissioners take under advisement this motion and to have them have the final policy decision made that will express the final conclusion of what should be used. I hope that's clear. If it's not, I'll try again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess it's up to the second to know if it's understandable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Giving it to the Board of Collier County Commissioners we're -- we're -- we have -- this horse is hurting badly. And I'm suggesting that we go to the Board of Collier County Commissioners and have them make a decision as to what the Page 183 November 29,'2006 policy should be as to what numbers to use. I recognize fully that we could turn it down or we could go without question, but I do think it needs attention by them. And I would hope that they would want to deal with it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, perhaps the better solution-- I'm sorry. I'm usually the one loud enough and I don't need it. Perhaps the better solution is to make that recommendation and not go forward and vote on anything that includes population figures that we're not comfortable with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, the commission -- we're-- we're charged with moving this forward. I think we should take a position on every one of the elements. My position on the elements pertaining to population and -- and the statistic used to generate some of the impacts I am not comfortable that population is the answer to that. I -- I strongly believe that it isn't. And that's just where I'm coming from on this. I think we could do better. I think we could have more accurate results if we were using another statistic in which to base some of these level of service generated elements from. And housing is a good example because the housing starts that were supplied to the state Office of Economic and Demographic Research -- that wasn't starts, it was C.O.s -- showed that out of the past five years, we had declines with the exception of one year. Overall it's a rather large decline. Now, if you've got declines in housing and that's what you're really servicing with your facilities, are we really aiming at the right thing by using a population statistic that's based on tourists when 95 or 98 percent of those tourists are staying in vertical components such as hotels, motels or even vacant houses that Mr. Wides has built into his system as being a serviceable unit? That's my concern. That's where I lie. I don't want to belabor this point. We've got two gentlemen here more waiting to get past and go on to another subject. I mean, we can Page 184 November 29, 2006 talk about this all day long, but it's all talk right now. I would rather have seen a breakdown of how the -- each year is calculated with the percentages attributed to vacancies, where the vacancy number came from to -- I think at one point it was called Florida Power & Light connections. Where that came from, where the tax revenue sources came from and how they are different or needed to be calculated in as an add-on because I don't see why that's necessary, but that explanation is lacking. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would further amend the motion to include the statement that you just made as a recommendation of this board that the BCC consider the use of CDs and whatever phrasing you used to describe that. Because I do agree with you that's probably going to give us a better number to work from. But I do think we need to move it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, to summarize what you're trying to say is you're recommending approval of the potable water element of the AUIR with the stipulation that the BCC consider using a different statistic to calculate the element instead of population, something other than like housing starts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're a wonderful man. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where you're going? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, as the second, I'm -- I'm going to withdraw -- withdraw my second because I think we need to determine what that's going to be before we pass anything along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With what's going to be? COMMISSIONER CARON: What that statistic is going to be. Page 185 November 29, 2006 Are we going to use the housing starts or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we can do that in this. I mean, someone needs to analyze that and that can't be done in this AUIR. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the problem. We're up against the wire like we were last year. I think we need to move this forward in some manner, give it the best policy or suggestions we can to the BCC and go onto the rest. It's on record. Population is a question. Statistics used for calculating is a question. I think it's now seen to be a rather big concern. Next year or throughout the forthcoming months, someone needs to address it and respond. And I -- I would think that would happen just by the mere fact it came up on such a discussion here today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Especially if we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the Productivity Committee has had questions about population. Do you have any collective thoughts? MR. HARRISON: Our sense is much more from a macro view that given the economics of housing that we all see going wrong going on around here; that using the past history is a poor basis for projecting what's about to come at us; that based on what is happening in faraway places like California where their housing costs went through the roof. They went from immigration to static to up-migration very quickly. So the thought of using 4 to 5 percent compound growth rates in population in the foreseeable future or what -- I know it's -- there's two steps, two levels being assumed. It doesn't seem to be very valid to us. In the short-term, I think our sense is it's going to be half the historical average. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HARRISON: And even if you go talk to the private sector, people like Healthy Homes have told us privately that, you know, they think it's going to take until 2008 just to work off the inventory and to Page 186 November 29, 2006 wash the speculators out with permanent residents. So, you know, in the meantime that has a direct impact on the construction sector and its population here, negative. So it's hard to visualize, you know, if the past is a good indicator of the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think the motion maker has now made a motion that's amended to the effect that its recommendation is approval with the stipulation that the BCC should consider the policy regarding how the statistics are used to calculate the A UIR on this other than population. Is that a fair statement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? Okay. I'll-- Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Unfortunately, I had to miss part of this discussion, but I just want the Planning Commission to know that under Rule 9J5 it seems that the state law prescribes population. They talk about audited methodologies, but the way the language is written, and it's a three-paragraph thing, it seems to all relate back to population. That's all I wanted to put on record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The AUIR document is not part of the processing through DCA, is it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, it's not. But our CIE is based on it and that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we want to convert something for DCA's benefit, but for a practical application in Collier County, I think we can do better. That's where I'm coming from. Mr. Murray's motion would move this forward. I would second that motion in the sense it clarifies the position on (inaudible) and request for concern of the population statistics. So with that, is there any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none we'll call for the vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye.p Page 187 November 29, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 to O. Thank you. We'll go on to the wastewater. Are there any questions on the wastewater element? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, you -- was your statement for all of them? So you guys are pretty comfortable with all of the wastewater and solid waste and potable? MS. VASEY: Actually, I -- I do believe we don't have any issues on that. We may have -- we may have a comment in general on population, but based on the population that was used in the document, we're going to recommend -- I'm going to recommend approval to the full committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as wastewater goes, is there any comments from the Planning Commission? There was some new material provided. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only question I had was the one I asked about impact fees. You already answered that. Hearing none other is there amotion? COMMISSIONER CARON: They provided the information they were supposed to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Everything looks fine. Again, this is well done. My position on this is going to be the same as the last one regards to the suggestion about a different statistic utilizing maybe vertical or something else for you-all to generate your statistics Page 188 November 29, 2006 from or your needs from. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would make the same motion that I had made and you summarized in the last item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's my recommendation of approval with a caveat that requesting the BCC to consider a possible different statistic for calculation -- calculating the need. Is there a second to the motion for Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought you seconded it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I seconded the first one. I'll second the next one as well. Motion's made and seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5 to O. All right. Now we're on to wastewater. I mean, I'm sorry, solid waste. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Solid waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything's waste. Any-- MR. WIDES: Not our potable water, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any questions on the waste -- on the solid waste? (No response.) Page 189 November 29, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, this is the one where we talked about how the -- you were six -- I think that six-month review and it was supposed to be four and -- MR. GRAMATGES: Then it was changed accordingly, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I notice in your change and it's-- this is a carryover from last year too, whatever the population is, you can make the annual tons disposed come out to whatever you want it to be based on change in column 3, tons per capita disposal, which is what you actually did in three -- for Friday you did it again in this one. MR. GRAMATGES: What we do with the -- with column 3, tons per capital disposal rate, is we calculated once we go past 2006, which is a known quantity because we do know exactly how much has been sent to a landfill, we then calculate what is the average of the previous three years and we carry it on forward. We have no way to estimate what the per capita disposal rate will be. And for that reason we use that estimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 73 which is what you use this year -- last year at the end of the AUIR your calculation was 0.82. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last time you came before us it was 0.73. Now it's 0.77. MR. GRAMATGES: And that -- the reason for that, sir, is that the population in column 2 has been reduced based on the fact that it's a weighted average calculation now based on four month rather than SIX. MR. WIDES: And, Commissioner, if I may reiterate -- Tom Wides, again, for the record -- your driving column is column 4 from a historical point of view. As you change your populations, column 3 is derived. It is not -- it is not the basis for the calculation. And then as Phil said, as you get into the out years, you keep looking back three years. And then finally you get to the point where it just doesn't change. But as your populations went slightly downward from the last Page 190 November 29, 2006 discussion from the four to the six months -- excuse me, from the six to the four, in fact, your generation rate went up slightly in the historical years. So your -- your ending numbers, that 0.77 is going to be based on a little bit higher generation rate in the historical period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, where do you derive column 4 from then, the annual tons disposed? I know you do in the -- you can estimate or you know what was prior years, but how do you derive the future years? MR. WIDES: We derive the future years based on the average of the previous three years. So when you get to year 2007, it's based on the three prior years, '4, '5 and '6, that generation rate, that column 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how do you generate column 4? MR. WIDES: Okay. Column 4 on the historical basis -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I see that. MR. WIDES: -- is reported -- you know, is -- is -- is recorded and reported to FDEP. It's -- it's a known number. And then as you start to move from history, you look back to column 3, okay, to see what your generation rate was. And gradually it flattens out as you move to outer years. It -- it takes a few minutes just to kind of absorb that. MR. GRAMATGES: If I may, sir, on No.4 on that page 54 explains how -- how four is derived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I went through and actually tried. I recreated this table. I didn't -- I got hung up on column 4. I think now I understand why I did. So, okay. Where is the Immokalee Landfill in here? MR. GRAMATGES: It's not in here at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do you account for that? MR. WIDES: Well, the Immokalee Landfill itself is a closed facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is it? Okay. Page 191 November 29, 2006 MR. WIDES: And we are using it as a transfer -- no. We are using part of that area as a transfer station, but it is not a storage facility as of, I think, approximately a year ago or less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other -- any questions on solid waste? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one about the end. I think we already asked this question and last year and maybe just to recollect it. You folks have done a fine job of opening up old cells, removing a lot of stuff that really shouldn't have been put in there in the first place thereby giving a lot longer life to the landfill. In your calculations here since you're using a historical basis, is that -- is that something that an aberration should have somehow shown up somewhere along the lines? MR. WIDES: We've tried to readjust the tonnage to be exactly what we've shown as going into the landfill. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there's no time numbers as it were? MR. WIDES: Yes. What's remained in the landfill. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. Thank you. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this is one that the Productivity Committee is satisfied with as well? MS. VASEY: Yes, we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission in regards to the solid waste management department? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will make that motion again now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same one as before? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. The question is whether Page 192 November 29, 2006 or not to include. And I guess we are obliged to do that to be consistent. So it should be the same motion as the one prior although what's driving this is not the same thing. Population here, as I understand it, is almost a second thought. MR. WIDES: Well, I wouldn't want to say that -- MR. HARRISON: It's primary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, good. Then I'll make the motion as I had earlier. Thank you. MR. WIDES: Mr. Chairman, if I may-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. MR. WIDES: -- to address that for a moment. The -- the difference in the population here it may get into the issue of whether of occupancy, et cetera; however, you don't have another mechanism that's readily available to drive solid waste. You know what you're -- you're putting into the landfill. You know that, you know, you have X number of tons per capita so to speak. So to -- to just move to some other method would be a -- would be difficult here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I -- as I said, I make the motion that I had previously -- previous too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll second that previous motion as well. Any discussion from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Page 193 November 29, 2006 MR. WIDES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for your patience and your time. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. MR. WIDES: Thank you. MS. VASEY: Very nice job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We were going at 4:30 to discuss some conceptual outlay of how we could possibly do a -- Ms. Vasey had volunteered to write up some ideas from a joint committee recommendation to the BCC, but we're actually going to do that tomorrow morning; is that right? MS. VASEY: I would like to do it tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we previously had told the audience, actually parks and rec, that we would continue to tomorrow morning, but I notice Marla's here. I do not know if you want -- no? You don't? Okay. Then I think that we're at the end of our -- our rope here today more or less. But we're not -- we're not ending the meeting. We'll just continue it until tomorrow morning at 8:30 in the morning in this chamber. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission for that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carried. We'll continue tomorrow morning at 8:30. Thank you, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. Page 194 November 29, 2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM AND CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR. Page 195