Loading...
CCPC Minutes 11/30/2006 AUIR November 30, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, November 30,2006 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 Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron (Absent) Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Janet Vasey, Productivity Committee Stephen Harrison, Productivity Committee Lawrence Baytos, Productivity Committee Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. It's 8:30. We will get this continued meeting on the A UIR underway. If you'll all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we'll make an attempt at a roll call. Mr. Midney will need to get a chair from that -- see the young lady in the yellow top? If you could grab one of those chairs and bring it up here that will allow you to -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here is a chair, right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a spot already here. Okay, thank you, Paul, if that works for you. Unless you wanted one of the padded chairs that we're in. With that I -- trying to think, the secretary is not here today so we will go forward with the roll call just by calling names. We'll start over at my right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Paul Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad Schiffer here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bob Murray. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Tor Kolflat. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob Vigliotti. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark Strain. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Lindy Adelstein. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey. MR. HARRISON: Steve Harrison. MR. BA YTOS: Larry Baytos. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Russell Tuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Now we have a larger crowd today than we had yesterday, which is a little bit unexpected but kind of nice. But we all have a shortage of microphones. So as we each talk, there are the same rules we have to remember for the court reporter, especially, to be recognized, and when you do talk try to get a mike moved in front of you so that your voice can be Page 2 November 30, 2006 picked up by the audience and by the court reporter appropriately. Yesterday we had left off going through the final review of the Category "A" issues. And we finished yesterday with the utilities, and we're going to go into parks and recreation. But there has been a request by government buildings to accommodate them early because they have to leave around midmorning. So we'll start and we'll try to finish up with government buildings right now, and we'll go right into that. It's all yours. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, some of you who were not here yesterday, there were some handouts given, stuff like that. Could somehow the departments that brought handouts to the meeting send it at least in E-mail to those of us who were not here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Mike? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. Jim and I can make sure that happens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Brad, for pointing that out. MR. HOVELL: Good morning. For the record, Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager in the Facilities Management Department. And I'll try and remember to talk slower today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HOVELL: What I just handed out to you was that top sheet that you probably need a spyglass to read is the inventory list, the full inventory list that facilities management holds. You had requested that yesterday. I think my boss had passed along that if you were looking for some further sorting and sifting of that we could perhaps deal with that later. But at least the initial request of just having a list is there. The second stack, which has a paper clip on it, is the updated pages based on our discussions yesterday. Again, starting from the back at the more detailed end, I updated Page 3 November 30, 2006 the inventory and broke it down into a subtotal of owned facilities that include both space and value captured in the impact fee study, a subtotal for owned facilities that are not included in the impact fee study, a subtotal of owned ancillary facilities where the value is included in the impact fee study but not the square footage, and a subtotal of the leased facilities, and then a total for all of that. So whichever way you want to slice and dice it, it's there now. And the next, again, working from the back, the next sheet coming forward is the capital improvement plan. I moved the north transportation facility and the Ave Maria projects to beyond 2011 as requested. I did find the two pages out of the DRI for Ave Maria. Basically just says that we need to provide notice and that notice would be considered given if we provided the project in the capital improvement plan. And since there was no further words than that and that this one sheet of paper seems to be called a capital improvement plan, that would seem to meet the intent. So we'll simply try that for now, send it to the developer and make sure they don't for some reason object. And then everything in front of that is just the updated charts and details that reflect those changes. The summary sheet on the very top, then, reflects the additional revenues required dropping down to about 2.2 million, mainly to cover the debt service. The five-year, as it turns to be, surplus is 5,802 square feet. And I think with that I've covered the highlights of what we had talked about yesterday. And I'm not sure if you want to wade into any of the details of these new ones or, since there are new people here, or if you want to go back on some of the issues we talked about yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we will certainly open it up for questions and just see where it goes. I know from yesterday there Page 4 November 30, 2006 were a couple of things that we had asked to check into, and I thought one of them was the reduction of the level of service from 1.7 to 1.52, because that's a footnote on the summary page. You still calculate this at 1. 7? MR. HOVELL: Well, what we had talked about was one of two options, either recapturing the square footage that the legal counsel had advised pulling out, which is the way we went, or reducing the level of service and leaving those things out of the inventory? So we went with the first choice of staying with the board-approved level of service at 1.7 showing in the inventory all the different ways those inventories are captured in different areas. And so when you look at the, that third page, the chart with the lines on it, the blue line for the square feet required at 1.7 square feet per capita is still there, but then the red line that that's being compared to is the inventory based on the way we did it last year, which did not remove those items that legal counsel had recommended taking out of the impact fee study. So it's at least a consistent approach, both with prior board approvals for level of services as well as the way we're capturing the inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The footnote says the level of service standard for 2005 is at 1.7. Revised level of service derived from BCC-approved impact fee study shows 1.52. So does that mean that we have an impact fee study that says 1.52 that's approved by the BCC, and that this document is suggesting to raise it to 1.7? I know that's above the impact fee study. Can you explain how that fits together? MR. HOVELL: Well, we seem to -- it seems like there is never a right answer to this question. Last year we had proposed capturing the more realistic level of service that was being provided and we were told to be consistent with the impact fee study. This year we suggested sticking with what the board had approved at a level of service and we've now done that, and we're being asked, you know, Page 5 November 30, 2006 which one should we do? We can do any of them. I think this is consistent. The impact fee study specifically dropped out some things that, per our discussions yesterday, I got the impression that you all felt, and I certainly feel, that they exist, they provide services to the public, and so if we were to capture them, then, to be consistent with including those in the inventory we should stick with the 1.7 because these two things are a consistent approach to reviewing it. Either way the math kind of works out that the delta, whether it went over or under, the delta tends to run the same. It's just, you know, is it all scaled down because we dropped those things out of the inventory or is it all the way it's displayed here, where we do capture those things in the inventory. So, yes, the way this is done shows the latter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing I wanted -- a housekeeping matter was to correct the -- let the record show that Mr. Midney is in attendance and Mr. Harrison is now in attendance. And by the way, you guys, because we have so many of us up here, when you do speak, grab the nearest mike and bring it closer to you. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Yes. I would like to say that I think that the 1.7 is the right number to use. By taking those properties out during the impact fee study they were just trying to meet the legal aspects of the impact fee to make sure that it's defensible legally. But there is no reason to exclude those from our review, because it is a facility that we own. And I think rather than use the 1.52 and exclude those items, I think we should include them and use the 1.7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, any other comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just to say I fully agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. Page 6 November 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Jim. Yesterday, since I wasn't there to ask it, it appears that we're going to add 50 percent more square footage in the next five years, correct? And it seems in an age of technology, it seems odd that we're growing that much when there might be alternate ways to cover these servIces. MR. HOVELL: If you want to turn to the capital improvement plan we can talk about where -- you are talking about the proposed CIE being 233,000 and some change square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just looking at the, you know, looking at the available inventory, look at the proposed inventory for the next five years. That's essentially 50 percent of it. MR. HOVELL: Right. And if you would care to turn to the capital improvement plan, the projects that we're talking about, and I appreciate you were not here yesterday so we'll go back and talk about it specifically, what drives that amount of square footage is predominantly projects that are under construction or nearing to be under construction. They have already been approved, they are already bonded, they are already underway. So it would not -- I'm trying to think how to say -- it's not going to work out very well to suggest that any of those specifically be scaled back. Beyond that, how to provide services in the future, that might be an area that could be looked at. But specifically, the courthouse annex parking deck just opened on November 20th. The courthouse annex, they are working on the site work and getting ready to start on the foundation work. The fleet facility construction contract was approved by the board at one of their recent meetings. We're planning on having our preconstruction meeting here shortly, and they'll probably get under construction in the month of December. The emergency services complex, at the next board meeting we'll be bringing forward the guaranteed maximum price proposal from Page 7 November 30, 2006 Kraft Construction to begin the site work for that project. And the CAT operation facility, the board recently approved the purchase of the old Morande automobile dealership. As a matter of fact, last night there was a public hearing related to, I don't know if it's rezoning or conditional use or what exactly, but something to do with the use of the property. So those are all approved and underway projects, so they are really not much opportunity to talk about doing things differently for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice you upped the unit cost. And I know we had a question of the 497.55 being maybe higher than it needed in regards to some of the facilities that are being constructed. This is even higher now, we're at 514.96. I assume that's per square foot? MR. HOVELL: Yes, sir. It's per square foot. And it's just a function of the projects that are on the list. When we took out the Ave Maria government center, which had a project square foot cost of 483.33, and the north transportation facility, which had a square foot cost of314.81, then the projects that were left had a higher average square foot cost than those did. So it drifted up. And this gets back to our discussion yesterday about are we going to set the square footage cost and say that all the proj ects cost that specific square footage cost or are we going to base it on the reality of each project? And the way we've approached it is to base it on each individual project and work out the math. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those are predicted costs, obviously, for the structures that are not yet constructed. MR. HOVELL: Well, the courthouse annex parking garage, we know exactly what it's going to cost because we're done. The courthouse annex we have a GMP proposal from Kraft, so we're reasonably sure we know what that's going to cost. The fleet facility, we have a GMP approved by the board for that Page 8 November 30,2006 phase, so we're pretty sure what that's going to cost. And the emergency services complex, we're due to come in here in the next couple months with the full GMP for that one. So that one would still be an estimate. And the CAT operations facility was recently approved by the board for purchase, so we know specifically what that one's going to cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the future -- we're in a soft market right now, based on some of the announcements, the economic announcements I've seen over the weekend. If it gets softer you may find better pricing. Would the AUIR next year be revised to reflect any better pricing that would come out as the market dictates over the next 12 months? MR. HOVELL: I would assume that this time next year the CAT operations facility would fall off a proposed list because it will probably be done by then as far as purchasing the property. The fleet facility and emergency services complex will still be on here because they'll be under construction. The courthouse annex parking deck will fall off because that one is done. And the courthouse annex will still be on there because it will be under construction. So we'll take those three projects, and whatever that math works out to be, that will be the unit cost next year. My guess is it will go down, if for no other reason than one of those projects we just named really had no square footage, it was the courthouse annex parking garage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that -- oh, Mr. Harrison, go ahead. MR. HARRISON: Just for the benefit of the Planning Commission, one of the major initiatives of the Productivity Committee is a value engineering program on all major projects, and the purpose of which is in the final design stages to review the design Page 9 November 30, 2006 for simplification, streamlining, better economies, purchasing strategy, so the cost you are looking at as the projects get to a final design stage are scheduled for that kind of an engineering review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've done a lot of value engineering as well, and usually we do it to drive the price down. Prices keep going higher. MR. HARRISON: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope that maybe by the end -- by the next -- this year, by the next AUIR, maybe we can see a reflection of that value engineering. The last question I would have is, I realized last night that there are a lot of buildings in this county that are, I think they call them enterprise buildings, where they basically are fee-balanced, fees get paid. They are buildings that offer tremendous services to the public, and actually to this board, because this board meets in some of those buildings as needs arise. Yet none of those are on this list. And I'm speaking specifically of one of the largest, which is most commonly used by the public is the Horseshoe Drive annex for Community Development Services. And I understand it's a fee-driven enterprise building, which means it doesn't need ad valorem taxes for its operations or for its expansion because it's based on the fees it takes In. But the square footage of that building is critical to use by the public. And I got -- I'm trying to understand why, then, the square footage isn't calculated in as already existing so that we're not creating more square footage as though it didn't even exist at all, regardless of how the building is paid for. MR. HOVELL: This is where we kind of get stuck in, what is the point of an AUIR? And I think the way your question is asked implies that everything the county owns should be captured in some AUIR. Page 10 November 30, 2006 But on the other hand, if you recall especially last year, the conversations were about all of these categories specifically and that they should be consistent with the impact fee studies. Not everything in the county is covered by an impact fee. So therein lies the difference. This particular category, government buildings, the A UIR is predominantly based on the history of developing the impact fee. So the inventory, all the dollars you see, are all related to buildings that, even if we happened to buy them initially through something other than government impact fees, are eligible to be in this category. The one you just mentioned, the community development building on Horseshoe, is not eligible to be in here because it's covered by user fees. So you're right, it's not captured. As far as I understand it, that's by design. Where it should go, if anywhere, within the AUIR I really have no idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I remember the discussions, some of them, last year on impact fees, and what was discovered was that the impact fee studies had used various population statistics that did not match the impact fee studies used by each department in the A UIR. And when those statistics are played out, they were not consistent from one department to the other. That was one of the concerns. And the other concern was that if an impact fee study had a certain value attributed to it, the departments had to be at least that value or greater. To be otherwise you are in jeopardy of having an invalid impact fee study. Those were the issues, I think, that drove the changes to what you presented here today, because you are now higher instead of possibly lower. The population standards have just -- have been standardized, basically, through every department now. And all of those are good things. But I think that's the part about the impact fee that I recall. I am concerned that major buildings in the county are not Page 11 November 30, 2006 accounted for as public space under the premise that if its not counted for then we need more public space, especially when that space at developmental services is used for meetings like this. We have met there many times. So it is a use like you are seeing here today. I see it no differently, and I was just surprised it wasn't on the list. MR. HOVELL: Well, then, and to go back in time though, the snapshot in time when the government building impact fee was created and the 1.7 square foot per capita was created, there was a specific inventory list in hand at the time. And there was a specific square footage that existed at the time. If we now wanted to say, well, for AUIR purposes let's capture the CD ES building and anything else that might not be captured someplace, then we need to go back to that same point in time, add it to that inventory, come up with a level of service with that additional square footage, and it's going to change all of the math. But the end result is the delta as we go forward still works out to be the same. It still drives -- and all the population figures really do in my mind, maybe I'm too much of the engineering, math kind of driven kind of guy, but if you really look at it, population only tells you what rate of growth to plan for, for your buildings. So if -- you can name any category you want, whether it's government buildings where we use square footage or the amount of water that they need in the utilities department, they have a specific capacity at a specific point in time and they are just looking for how fast should I grow on a year per year basis. And the population projections that I've seen, whether they are countywide or individually based districts, all seem to be based on the same assumption that approximately four and a half or whatever the percentage was growth rate is what we should assume. And so the actual population numbers themselves kind of fall out of the equation. All that really happens is to set your -- to agree on Page 12 November 30, 2006 what you had at a particular point in time and how fast you should grow from that and make appropriate plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand the pattern that's been set by the AUIR, and that is a pattern that I as well as others have fallen back on in reviewing from prior years to see how this year looks. But like Norm Feder mentioned yesterday, that it's been done that way all this time doesn't mean that that's necessarily the correct way to move forward. I think part of the purpose of having the AUIR reviewed by these boards, and that started last year if I remember correctly, was to look at other possibilities, maybe needed changes and things that can be done to make the accountability better so that the public, when they get their tax bill each year, knows that the process to get there had all the elements in it that it need. That's why I'm asking questions about things that don't seem normal. I, you know, when I see a list of buildings that are used by the public and I see a huge one missed that I use almost every day, it puzzles me. And I understand your argument, it's too late to do anything about that for this AUIR, but I think that maybe it would be better for a clear conception of everybody that has to read this document to explain how some of this happens and doesn't happen. So I guess at this time that's the only comment I can add to it. MR. HOVELL: I think somewhere along the line you are right that revisiting what is the purpose and the goal of the AUIR, that type of conversation should probably be added with the general coordinating groups. When you do it individual category by individual category we don't see that big a picture. So I don't know when the time to do that is, but I know that on our end we have the same types of concerns, especially when we transition, as I mentioned yesterday, from long range planning into the specific planning. Because regardless of the level of service that you Page 13 November 30, 2006 pick, the reality is that when we try and actually plan a specific project we need to go to a specific functional area and talk to them about their specific needs for how do they plan to grow, what drives them to grow, and who controls that growth. The perfect example is the judges, that's a very political process. But when that process says here, three more judges, we have to provide space for them. And that drives a specific amount of square footage. Doesn't matter what the math from the AUIR was, it is going to drive a specific proj ect at that point. So I don't know how to __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No -- and I'm not, I don't think we can propose much different for this year's AUIR. MR. HOVELL: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to plant seeds of ideas for next year's collective thoughts on getting a better document that can be more accurately understood by the public and everybody involved. Are there any other comments or questions from the Planning Commission or the Productivity Committee? Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Adding a leased space would dramatically change the actual performance against the level of standard, because just the financing of the facility is the determinant whether we put it in the numerator or not. As you've said, we could exclude huge amounts of space from the calculation if there are decisions made to lease it rather than own it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I see what you are saying. Lease more. I think the direction the county seems to be going in is to own more than lease more, but I certainly understand. I don't know if that is the right or wrong direction -- MR. HARRISON: If the level of service at 1.7 or 1.52 is accurate, comparison of actuals to that where some is excluded because its lease is fallacious. Page 14 November 30,2006 MR. HOVELL: If I might, that was the point of the extra lines on this chart. The blue line and the solid red line are the owned facilities, compared to the 1.7 square foot per capita level of service. The green line and the dashed red line include the leased facilities. But as I mentioned before, if we had included the leased facilities back when we did the initial establishment of a level of service, the calculation would not have been 1.7, it would have been 1.9. The net result is whether or not we're over or under the delta mathematically works out to be exactly the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any other questions, concerns, comments, suggestions on the government buildings portion of the AUIR? From a -- I think the Planning Commission will have to resolve our issues right now as far as recommendation goes. Before we do, are there any suggestions from the Productivity Committee? MS . VASEY: I'm satisfied with the way things are right now. Although if they wanted to take a take on the review, as you suggest, of the factors to see what buildings should be included or not included that would be productive. But for this AUIR I'm satisfied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point, with the amount of time we've got, this A UIR needs to be processed and we do have to move it forward in some format. So generally we're looking at recommendations to go forward in the manner that we can ask for stipulations, and one of them then might be that we stipulate closer review of the buildings that are in this, understanding it may -- maybe provide a better understanding as to why they aren't or maybe should be included into this. I think the other issue would be the caveat of yesterday's meeting for the Planning Commission. And for those of you that were not here it was an issue involving population statistics, and we had stipulated a strong suggestion to the Board of County Commissioners with each recommendation based on population that we made yesterday that the Page 15 November 30, 2006 use of the population statistics by the various elements of the A UIR be reviewed to see if there is not a more accurate way or an alternative way that could be utilized in lieu of the gross population statistic used. And we had discussed housing units as an example and other calculations involving that yesterday, with that stipulation that we move forward several items from yesterday's meeting. So, at this point, and the only other comment I have on this, and I know, Ron, you addressed it yesterday and I'm not challenging your addressing of it because it wasn't yours to originate, but the population being used in this particular element is on a countywide basis. And the argument and the response that came out yesterday was that we have some facilities that do service countywide residents, and I realize that, but there are about 40,000 people between Marco Island and the City of Naples who don't use all of our government facilities such as this room right here. They have their own council chambers and they have their own building department. They have a lot of their own facilities that they use that are not taken up in this AUIR. And those same facilities, because they use them and because they use some of ours, I think there needs to be a ratio maybe looked at for the incorporated areas of the county. They don't use a hundred percent of our facilities like our unincorporated residents do. They use them to a certain percentage. And my suggestion would be on this one that any motion made that we add on a stipulation that that be considered for the future as a look-at. MR. HOVELL: If I could address it a little bit more, too. Some facilities service everybody, some facilities service, as you point out, only county residents, not city residents. But in the end this is one category. And unless we're going to establish a bunch of different subcategories, in the end we have to somehow calculate one standard of service. And the one we have right now is based on a countywide view. If we were to go through all that math and come up with a bunch of Page 16 November 30, 2006 different sub-ones and then do the math to conglomerate it into one it might turn out to be different but the population would also turn out to be different. And the level of service, again, going back to the math, all that really in the end counts is what is the growth rate that you want to use. And so I would suggest that although that would be an interesting exercise, maybe the real focus ought to be how do we best measure the growth that we want to project for the future that is needed for it, whether you want to call it population base or as you suggested a minute ago maybe somehow related to building permits, either houses and! or commercial, and what do we want to use to gauge the growth and establish a growth rate from which to project forward how much more things we should build. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's the gist of the motion that we had going forward yesterday, and that does stand as it was yesterday. So with that all said, if there are no other comments from the Planning Commission's perspective, there are eight of us here today, we need to make a motion to move this forward in some manner and then I guess go on to the next issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that this body approve the -- or recommend approval of the AUIR with regard to government buildings, with the understanding that this board also believes that the BCC should have the opportunity to evaluate alternative means, seek alternative means to realize the purpose of the AUIR. And I'll defer to Mr. Chairman, who might be able to add a little more eloquence to it ifhe so chooses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get a second. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made my Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Page 1 7 November 30, 2006 He got ahead of you, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I didn't know he seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as discussion goes, my suggestion would be to add to that the same language that we added to the motions yesterday that were population-based, and that was simply, as I previously stated, that the consideration of population and the way it's statistically used by the county now ought to be looked at in regards to the uses on this element as well as any others that are population based for a better method of determining projections and means. The suggestion was housing units but whatever better method might be out there, I think we ought to explore that a little better. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. Had my inventory of grey matter been adequate, I would have been able to vocalize that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure exactly what that means but I think that's the gist of it. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just so essentially what we're saying is we agree with the methodology used, we're just not guaranteeing that we accept a population number. What does that mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I mean -- it's too late now to change the methodology. We're agreeing that this has to move forward. We're agreeing that basically this is a reasonable analysis at this point. But I think what we have said is that we don't necessarily agree with the way the population statistic that's been developed applies to each one of these and there may be a better system and we're urging the Board of County Commissioners to consider looking for a better way to look at elements of the AUIR for calculation purposes, other than strictly population. And does anybody else have any comments? Mr. Murray, do you accept the -- Page 18 November 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I certainly do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- changes to your motion? Does Mr. Vigliotti accept that as well? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion as stated and amended, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 to O. Thank you very much. Appreciate bringing back all of the information that you did. I would like to move now back into the order that we had started yesterday. We had finished with the utilities. The next item on the agenda would have been the recreation facilities followed by the community park and the regional parks. We need to take them one at a time for purposes of voting. MS. TOWNSEND: Morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Morning. MS. TOWNSEND: Amanda Townsend, operations analyst with the public services division. To address some of the questions that we were left with last time we discussed the parks and recreation facilities A UIR, first question was on Page 64, the surplus that is shown in the five-year window of $27 million. And it was really a legal question as to whether or not there were any legal ramifications for showing that surplus. Page 19 November 30, 2006 And we had discussed how, when we got there that surplus really won't be there if we continue to value facilities the way we do. Nonetheless it shows there now, and so the question was is there a legal problem with showing that surplus. The answer, in a word, is no. We have seven years to spend our impact fees, and there is a mechanism in place for returning them. But that will not be necessary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I -- just so the rest of the board knows, I concur with your statement. Margie did the research. She wasn't able to be here today but she relayed that information to me as well as the chairman so I could let everybody know that was her findings. Thank you. MS. TOWNSEND: Great. Second question was again sort of a legal question and that was about carrying Conservation Collier lands in inventory. We haven't finished our discussions with Conservation Collier really about that yet. At this point we still feel that we don't __ there is not a problem carrying that land in inventory at this point. Also, the amount of acreage we're talking about is three and a half acres. So it's not going to swing our AUIR either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Margie and I did talk about that at the time I spoke with her. She did not have a clear consensus on that yet, although she was, it seemed to me, that in the discussion was going more towards not being able to be done than being able to be done, although I think she still needed some time to resolve any legal questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chair, just a clarification, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question, as I recall, was will it be part of your -- are you going to have some kind of agreement with maintenance. But I heard you say carrying in inventory. You're not intending to carry that portion in inventory or you are? Page 20 November 30, 2006 MS. TOWNSEND: It was a change between last year's and this year's, that Cocohatchee Creek preserve, which is adjacent to Veterans Community Park, about three and a half acres, we do already have an interdepartmental agreement in place that parks and recreation department does maintenance on that, loose litter and patrol and that sort of thing. And because of that, because the parks and recreation department is responsible for helping provide that recreational amenity to the public, we put it in inventory. The same when you, if we have facilities on school property that we maintain or have helped develop, we put that acreage into our inventory. So we modeled, basically, on the kinds of cooperative agreements we have with the school and followed suit with the Conservation Collier lands. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I understand that. It seems it's a rather small area, but I would imagine if they were larger areas they would impact on what your total proj ected needs would be and that certainly is something to look at. Okay. I think you've answered our question in regard to that. Thank you. MS. TOWNSEND: Another question was about the EAR directives to amend the LDC requiring some -- a suitable neighborhood park in private developments. It doesn't have immediate bearing on this AUIR but it was a question that was asked. And that is, will there be an impact fee credit to those developers who provide that suitable neighborhood park. My answer last Monday was none is proposed at this time. And I just wanted to add some extra information to that discussion, and that is that neighborhood parks of course are not part of the growth management plan. We inventory their facilities but not their acreage in the AUIR. If parks and recreation is to develop a neighborhood park, it's done with ad valorem funds. Therefore, if a private developer were Page 21 November 30, 2006 providing a private neighborhood park, they would be offsetting an ad valorem expense not an impact fee expense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: And the final question that I carried away from the last time we talked was about the cost of a bocce court. And I have an answer for that. That is that park staff contacted a vender and we came up with a total for a new bocce court of $22,400. That includes the court, shelters, lighting and the scoreboard. For a shuffleboard it would be about $20,500. The value given in the inventory, I believe, is 29.9 so it is a slightly overvalued facility in the inventory . We took a look last time and we saw tennis courts were undervalued by about 45 percent and we had that discussion that for next year we need to go through and look very carefully at all those facilities and what their value is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other reactions you want to have before we ask questions? MS. TOWNSEND: I can carry away any other questions that I needed answered immediately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from the panel? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There was a question on public versus private facilities and whether you kind of inventory or if the private facility has recreations, that you take those, the population that would match off of this thing. You did send us out the guidelines, but have you looked into that or -- in other words, for example let's say there are tennis courts in a gated community and the tennis courts match the population according to our resource, but are probably exceeded according to the data you sent out. Are those people taken off of your inventory? MS. TOWNSEND: No, the people are not taken off of the inventory. The way we use that information is to help us decide Page 22 November 30, 2006 which facilities to build and which we think are met, where the public's needs are met privately. Certainly, just because there seems to be an extreme number of tennis courts out there available privately, they are still not available to every member of the public, certainly there is not one in my neighborhood. So we know in the parks and recreation department that we need to provide tennis courts but we can provide them at a lower level than the state-recommended per population guideline. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the other question is any facility where you require payment for access, is that on this list, is that considered part of providing public areas? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. You mean any recreation facility where there is a user fee involved? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes, we do inventory those. User fees offset operational expenses but they do not offset capital expenses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a follow-up to that, do you inventory all of those facilities whether they're user fee or not? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it doesn't matter if it's a user fee, you inventory it. MS. TOWNSEND: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just an example, in my neighborhood there is a really nice tennis facility that nobody uses because user fees are so high and they go in the private communities to play tennis. So to me that's not an accessible recreation facility because of the fact that the fees are, in some cases and I think in this case, really high. So I mean we're not really providing it for the public, the public Page 23 November 30, 2006 is providing other ways to access the recreation. Anyway, a statement not a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was wondering how we were going to develop that into a question, but okay. Are there any other comments from any members of the panel? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Amanda, do we keep track of the amount of people that use all these facilities once they are built and -- MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Particularly on our fee based programs. Of course we have very good numbers on that. That's all kept electronically. We do also park counts in parking lots on a fairly regular basis. We have, of course, numbers of all of the participants in all our leagues, the number of teams, et cetera. So we are laden with data. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How about park usage as compared to what you feel the facility can handle in the beginning? Do you do a comparison? MS. TOWNSEND: Certain of our facilities have a land management plan on them that addresses carrying capacity, particularly ones where there is an environmental stewardship aspect to it. Barefoot Beach preserve would be an example. I can't say that we've ever had like excessive carrying capacity issues in many of the community parks. We know that they get full. But exceeding carrying capacity in the community parks has not been an issue, with the exception of course of sports fields where the leagues have a greater demand than we really have fields to put them on. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've provided us with some new charts. And before I get into the specifics of some of those, by the way it was nice that you referenced the SCORP guidelines, but on Page 24 November 30, 2006 such short notice it was hard for me to read and digest 300 pages, although I did some of it. So we will have some questions involving those 300 pages. Population. It goes back to a question I asked previously. I believe you used the countywide population statistics, but the recreation facilities that you show credit for are only those in the unincorporated areas of the county even though our residents use the incorporated areas just as much as the residents of the incorporated areas use the unincorporated areas. So it goes back and forth. I still don't understand the reasoning for not including the places and facilities like Fleischmann Park, which has racquetball courts and tennis courts that are used by a lot of -- in fact, I can tell you I use that park more than I use county parks. I go there much more frequently. Lowdermilk Park is a great park to go to, it's easily accessible. Yet it's not on there. And I use that as a county resident much more than I use any of the county facilities. And I'm just wondering why, when you use the city populations to generate more needs for county people, you don't at least give county people the credit of the city facilities, that the city populations are being used against us for, more or less. Can you offer an explanation? MS. TOWNSEND: I do understand the question. Of course I'll remind you that countywide population is used for recreation facilities value. Not for community parks, but is used for regional parks. The community parks are unique in that they use the unincorporated population numbers. Yes, the new chart that you see that's by facility guidelines is using the countywide numbers. And what I can really tell you is that, not dissimilar from what Ron Hovell was explaining, that if you change what you're inventorying, then you are also going to need to change your level of service, because you want that relationship to stay the same. Otherwise you will be denigrating the level of service. Page 25 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean that's under the assumption, in Ron's case, when he has got bodies that have to function in the government, they have to be put somewhere, it's a vital statistic not a non-vital. Parks, if we didn't have an overwhelming number of parks in Collier County it may not be as bad as if we didn't have someplace to get our driver's license. So I think the criticalness of the two departments is a little different, especially with Collier County. And according to SCORP there are so many recreation areas in the State of Florida by waterways and things like that they don't even include a standard for those because they are just everywhere. So people have a different opportunity for recreation than they do to go to government facilities, so I'm not sure the comparison is apples to apples in that regard. But anyway, I made my concern over the population. I don't think you should include the incorporated areas without including as well their facilities because we do use those facilities. Now, back into the SCORP guidelines that you provided, the document that I read was the Outdoor Recreation in Florida 2000. They did not provide a definitive guideline. They provided a range of guidelines that I could find, medium, maximum -- minimum to maximum then a medium. And I notice that we've taken and gone beyond their guidelines in some -- I shouldn't say beyond meaning better, in some cases beyond meaning worse. I'm wondering, for example, the swimming pool complex. The SCORP guideline is one for every between 1,000 and 50,000 people, with a median of 25,000 people. We're using one for 110,000. And I would like to understand how we came up with that arbitrary -- or not arbitrary, but that statistic. MS. TOWNSEND: That is in direct response to that inventory of facilities available privately. We know that there are, I think, the inventory revealed something like that 250 swimming pools available Page 26 November 30, 2006 to people privately. So that's one facility where we know we don't have to do quite as well as with the SCORP because there is an amenity out there available privately that sort of offsets the public need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That swimming pool that we have up at the new reg -- and I think you call it a regional park up off of Livingston Road? MS. TOWNSEND: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the size? How many acres is that? MS. TOWNSEND: The Sun and Fun Lagoon is about a nine to ten-acre complex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much of that is -- many square feet of water, do you know? MS. TOWNSEND: I believe its a million gallons. I don't know in square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, an acre is 43,000, what, 560 or something like that square feet? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sixty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your nine acres is not all swimming pool, but you have a substantial amount of water there. The guidelines in SCORP said that an averaged-sized pool that they were counting on was 4800 square feet, yet our swimming pool there you have got down as required inventory, three. So that means countywide you have three swimming pools but it sounds like they're all quite in excess of the standard use by SCORP, which means for every three that we have we may have 25 of the SCORP standard size. Is that a reasonable statement? MS. TOWNSEND: I hadn't thought about it that way, to be perfectly honest. I'm looking at these as swimming pool complexes, not simply a swimming pool. And I haven't considered it in square footage. And I would have to go into the text of the SCORP to really Page 27 November 30, 2006 see what their discussion is about that particular facility if there is one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, I brought that with me. I'm not sure that we're going to have the time to go through all that. I'm just trying to make points that we can discuss. If you don't have an answer for that right now, then we will maybe consider it for next year. But I think that if you were to break the number of swimming pools down, and the sizing range that SCORP was talking about was footnoted as 4800, based on a standard community pool measuring 81 feet by 60 feet parentheses 48,000 (sic) square feet. Based on that we may be in better shape on swimming pools than what your documents appear to be at this point. When we get into some of the other issues like multi-use fields, they range between 4,000 and 25,000, yet our standard is lower at one to 10,000. Now this is an issue that takes up a lot of space and it's been controversial in some locations. Not everybody necessarily participates as much in team sports as some of the other SCORP indications are, where you have walking trails and things likes that where we seem to be shy on but our standard is worse than the SCORP's in wanting those produced. So someone has gone in and decided that this community needs more of something or less of something above and beyond the SCORP standards. How did that happen? MS. TOWNSEND: Again, what we're trying to do mostly is respond to what we hear from the community, the community input, what our people out in the field know when they have stressed fields because we have so much play on our fields and our fields don't have time to rest and grass dies. What we know when we've got teams that want more facilities, when we have trouble scheduling, when, you know, that when the neighbors, when the lights are on until 10: 15 Page 28 November 30,2006 instead of 10:00, the neighbors are upset because we're trying to squeeze games in. That's one thing. We have a huge staff out there that has a sense of the demand and we're taking input from the community and from them and then we're looking at things like that private inventory that you've seen and trying to make adjustments. This is fairly new for us. This is the second year that we've really looked at these and started to adjust. This is the first year that we've had the inventory of private facilities and we're still tweaking it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to try to get to the end because I know this is an issue that I may be interested in but I'm not sure everybody else is. As far as regional parks, how big is your biggest regional park? MS. TOWNSEND: North Collier Regional Park is 207 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 207. MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. Well, Barefoot Beach preserve is classified as a regional park, and it would be 342, I think, or 56, one or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had said that you focus on regional -- you have regional and community parks, you don't do neighborhood parks. The definition of a regional park by SCORP is a minimum of 250 acres. By that definition it sounds like we only have one regional park. And then SCO RP goes into weighing in all these state parks. They actually include the state parks which you exclude. That's another bone of contention with me because we have all these facilities. A TV riders, for example, don't use your parks, they use the Big Cypress, or they try to use wherever they can use. There are other parks out there that the public is benefiting from that are not recognized in your statistics. And the state recognizes them in their summaries. In fact, they have a nice summary that shows where they think our county's at and where they are at. And Page 29 November 30,2006 they provide their facilities. With all that information I'm real concerned that we could do a better job in analyzing what is really needed out there in regards to SCORP and what's provided by the state and what's provided by our incorporated areas. MS. TOWNSEND: Just to briefly address what is provided by the state. Several years ago we did inventory state owned lands and regional parks and we chose at one point to exclude them. And the reason is this -- we talked about this last Monday also. When you have large areas of passive recreation or ecologically sensitive land that you can't develop facilities in, you meet your acreage requirements but you can't meet your facilities value requirements because you can't develop active recreation facilities on that land. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the idea of multi-use pathways and hiking trails is a big issue. In fact, I'm not sure if you are aware of the survey that was recently done in the East Naples area with over 300 respondents, eleven of which wanted a soccer field, out of 300. The rest were all for other uses that we don't commonly see in our parks for some reason. Leading one of the issues was hiking and trails like that. Yet, and I think that if we were to incorporate some of the state facilities then you would have a lot more opportunity for hiking trials and being able to show a lot more. On here you've taken the SCORP standard one per five to 10,000 people and upped it to one to 25,000, which, to my sense of the word, is you are saying it's not as important then as some of the others where you brought them more in line with SCORP or are more popular according to SCORP. I know you can't do anything about it right now. I know this needs to move forward and we're out of time for this year's AUIR. But I would hope that, and I think that next year if we review this, if we're still in the loop, these will be issues I would like to have a better Page 30 November 30,2006 response for in next year's AUIR. So I'm not going to try to belabor the point any more, I think I've done too much of that already, so I'll move on. Are there any questions from the panel of the parks and recreation? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, in your research of the SCO RP thing was there any distinction between fee access and free access recreation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, there may have been. I just couldn't get through the 300 pages. I was focusing on another issue last night and so I didn't get through it all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Staff could maybe answer that. MS. TOWNSEND: I'm not aware of any, that the document addresses really the difference there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One thing that I think would be important to know, and I was looking through this and I had not finished it, and that's to find out if there is any age relevance in the way SCORP applies itself in different demographic areas. We have a higher median age in this county than other areas in Florida possibly. That age difference may account for a different assembling of recreational facilities needed here. And that's another area that I think ought to be explored a little bit more, and will come up again I'm sure in the future. Other than that are there -- Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I just wanted to mention from our discussion on Monday that one of the things that I would like to recommend to the Productivity Committee for their consideration in our comments is that, while I think that the, your program looks fine, we would recommend approval, I would like to see you look more at your level of service standards. Because I really don't think they are very good for actually getting at the service that you provide. Page 31 November 30, 2006 U sing the specific dollar amount per capita that you do is leading to -- it doesn't come up with a cost increase, it leads to understated requirements, large surpluses, the $27 million that you show in the A UIR period and excess revenues that are due to the impact fee change of including beach and boat access. So all of those things are making it, are creating very strange things with $27 million surpluses and even cash increase -- cash surpluses too of revenues over expenses in the period. Also with the acreage, the acreage per hundred thousand people, that leads to some other very strange things where large chunks of land meet your requirement for the level of service standards for many years but it's not meeting the requirements that you have for other types of land services. So I was -- I'm hoping that you can -- and I don't have the answer, but I'm hoping that you could look at that and see if there are some better level of service standards to be able to evaluate your program and make sure that it really is meeting the needs of the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments? Hearing none, is there, from the Planning Commission's perspective is there a recommendation? Mr. Murray, you are the only one that seems to want to make recommendations today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm hoping my function can work effectively here. I would recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the 2006 AUIR summary with regard to recreation facilities, all the park recreation facilities, with the additional recommendation that the BCC review to see if there can be a better basis to determine the AUIR, rather than just population. And you've said it, I hope it's sufficient as I've just said it now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that follows suit with our Page 32 November 30, 2006 previous recommendation. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? The only caveat I would like to make, and it's just for the record, is that I do not believe that omitting the facilities in the City of Naples and the City of Marco Island while calculating and using their population is the right way to go. I think that is strongly wrong. So with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to make another comment if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. It's your motion, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want you to know it has to do with my thoughts regarding your bringing out the SCORP, is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SCORP, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the other issues. And I think it benefits the parks and recreation people and Ms. Ramsey's operation to know these things are there, and I'm sure they know that in one sense, and they have already had a determination, perhaps it is a -- no, in fact, I'll say it is a good thing that you brought it out because now they know that there are other things, that maybe a left oblique is necessary somewhere along the line. Not that I think you are doing a bad job but I think they are open to doing a better job. And I think that's what we're attempting to do here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no other comments, we'll call for the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 33 November 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. We'll move on to community parks. MS. TOWNSEND: I don't have any further information to present but I'm happy to entertain questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the questions -- I asked my questions last time. You are still doing a countywide population and you are going to make that change, and, I believe you didn't make it. We didn't get the correction but you are going to make it, right? MS. TOWNSEND: No, sir. Community park land has never used a countywide population. They always have used unincorporated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So even though it says population countywide, it's the unincorporated. That's right. You corrected that last time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No problem. Other than the population statistic as a whole. Any comments from anybody on the committee? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Productivity Committee-- Planning Commission will take a vote on it. Do you have any particular vote that you are taking on it that we should jump on? MS. VASEY: Actually, my comments addressed all parts of the park program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We'll just move through these then. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission in regards to Page 34 November 30, 2006 this element? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make the same recommendation as I had earlier, and I'll try to read it again. Recommend approval to the BCC with regard to the 2006 AUIR summary, as it relates to, what is it, community parks, with the further recommendation that the basis used to determine the A UIR, currently population, would be reviewed with the intent to seek a more effective basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Motion made by Mr. Murray. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. N ow regional parks. The only question I had left on there was the issue involving the impact fees, which has been answered. Any questions from the panel on regional parks? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, that's where the bocce court issue was raised. Page 35 November 30,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where the bocce court issue was raised? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have my standing objection to the population but that's been said. So is there a motion from this panel in regards -- from the Planning Commission in regards to the regional park? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll keep my hand up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Might as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. With regard to the regional park land, recommend approval of the 2006 AUIR summary, with regard to the regional park and with the recommendation of approval with the additional recommendation that the BCC review the basis used to determine the AUIR, which is currently population, with the intent that there may be a more effective basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all of those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? Page 36 November 30, 2006 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. Recreation department. MS. TOWNSEND: My pleasure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure it probably wasn't but we understand. Next up on the list is -- oh, I'm sorry, did we miss something? MS. TOWNSEND: Libraries. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry? MS. TOWNSEND: Were you going to take libraries next or were you going to go in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, we could -- since you are up here why don't we finish that off. Thank you for bringing that up. Next in line was the jails and law enforcement but I'm sure it wouldn't take but short a bit of time to move into libraries. And those are Page 121. Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: To address some of the questions that were raised yesterday, there was a question about the difference in impact fee projections between the 2005 and the 2006 AUIR. What I discovered is that the impact fee number that you see in the 2005 AUIR had rolled up into it grants and carry-forward. In this year's AUIR in the revenues we broke that out. In last year's it was not. So the 10,597,000 figure that you saw in last year's AUIR actually included three and a half -- better than three and a half million dollars worth of grant and carry-forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that wouldn't have helped you get a raise in impact fees. It would look like you already had it. MS. TOWNSEND: Secondly, there was a question about a line item in the revenues of last year's AUIR that was $6,918,000 impact with the cryptic per BCC policy directive description to it. I have not completely been able to unearth the source of that figure but I do have Page 37 November 30, 2006 a good guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, since we need to try to finish with this I guess the best guess at this point is all that we can hope for. MS. TOWNSEND: In the fall of 2005, there was a board action about the size of the expansion of the Golden Gate library. It was determined at that time that that expansion was going to be 17,000 square feet. It was also determined that it would require an impact fee increase to achieve that. I believe that the number you see there, that $6,918,000, is inadvertently a ten-year projection as opposed to a five-year projection on what that impact fee increase would gamer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you get the impact fee increase? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. And it was -- it was estimated early on in that, in the fall of 2005 at $600,000 a year. When it passed, it was looking at a $731,000 a year increase. The number you see there, divided by ten, is right in the middle there, and that's my best guess as to the source of that figure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were to add that figure to last year's impact -- anticipated impact fees, combining the two with the increase, you were looking at about $17 million in impact fees. And again, unfortunately, that probably goes back to the question, in this year's anticipated impact fees where the increase is 9.8 million. What happened again? MS. TOWNSEND: Let's back up just a little bit. Here again that ten million dollars includes grants and carry-forward. You have to take those out. And then also that $6.9 million is probably a ten-year figure, so it should probably be halved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's a ten-year figure, not a five-year. MS. TOWNSEND: I believe that is a ten-year figure in there. It's my best guess as to what was in last year's AUIR. Page 38 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regardless, we have to start with what you have this year anyway. MS. TOWNSEND: Precisely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions anybody had lingering on the library issue that hasn't been answered? MR. BA YTOS: One issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: One issue -- Mr. Baytos. One issue we had discussed at some length yesterday was, given what appeared to be some changes in library usage, is there some better way to determine our forward planning rather than just growth population numbers? MS. TOWNSEND: Marilyn Matthes, the library director, is here. She has some information for you on that. MS. MATTHES: Marilyn Matthes, library director. We talked a lot yesterday about technology and how it changes library use. Technology also lets us more easily make mistakes and also compound our mistakes year after year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's true. MS. MATTHES: Last year during the AUIR, Mr. Murray pointed out a mistake in the '04 AUIR, which we corrected then. And I thank you for pointing out the door count seeming to go down. I went back and looked yesterday and I discovered that in February of '02, when the new headquarters library opened on Orange Blossom, I added a column in my door counts for that collection of data for the new library and it didn't calculate at all in any of my door counts, so what you are getting now is a revised count of those door counts and it shows from -- instead of increase from 2000 to 2005, actually a year-to-date increase of 32 percent in usage. It does show a decrease in usage from fiscal '05 to 06. The beginning of '06 is when we were closed several days for Hurricane Wilma, thus really compounding our loss of door counts. Also, as we remember back to that time, the storm didn't -- we Page 39 November 30, 2006 thought it was coming and it didn't come and people really were boarding up or moving out and we really lost a lot of door counts for that time period. But, yes, it has gone down between '05 and '06. MR. BA YTOS: So the numbers that you provided for the impact fee study -- MS. MATTHES: They were incorrect. MR. BA YTOS: They were correct -- incorrect. So all of the points I was making before become moot. MS . MATTHES: But I do appreciate your noting that, because it certainly caused me to go back and look at it again, and I thank you this year for that correction. There were a couple of other things that you wanted us to look at and we will look at as we go forward with this process for future years, including collocations at other county facilities, including schools, and also a different way of calculating standards. And we will look at those in subsequent months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you had any discussions about the error in the door counts that were the basis, apparently, for the impact fees that Mr. Baytos had analyzed in regards to how that affects the impact fee analysis that now is apparently in error as well? MS. MATTHES: No, I just handed it to our impact fee -- Amy, this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe -- I see Amy is moving to the podium so maybe she could tell us what the ramifications are as far as she might know them now in regards to impact fees. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record. The ramifications -- this is a discussion in the Productivity Committee that was used, and correct me if I'm wrong, those numbers that are here, but we got into this discussion trying to kind of validate the need for libraries, trying to look at, as we talked about technology and different things, how was the library being used. This wasn't anything that was Page 40 November 30,2006 included in the impact fee study or is not incorporated in any way for the impact fee study but was another way we were trying to see if there were other ways to look at the information, be sure that there was really a need for the libraries in the way that we were currently considering them. So this information is not incorporated into the impact fee study at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the comment that Mr. Baytos made when he asked is this the information we were provided in regards to the impact fee study was just the internal study the Productivity Committee was making, not the study that's gone out and done the analysis and the basis for our impact fees themselves. MS. PATTERSON: Correct. When the Productivity Committee was reviewing the impact fee study, that's -- they asked for additional information as a comparison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just want to make sure the record is real clear. MS. PATTERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Are there any questions concerning library buildings? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Buildings, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on buildings. We have to take them one at a time. Okay. Then I guess the Planning Commission can take a position on it. Are there any thoughts from the Productivity Committee before we go forward? MS. VASEY: Yes, I'm going to recommend to the committee that, along the lines that Marilyn mentioned, we would like to have another evaluation of whether the level of service standard of .33 square foot per capita is still relevant for the very reasons that we Page 41 November 30, 2006 talked about yesterday with the technology. And that's exactly where the issue came up when we were on-- casting for the information was whether that .33 square footage per capita is good or not. And I think that that is, you know, that is still something that maybe needs to be looked at. But other than that we're satisfied -- I'm satisfied with the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, so the suggestion of the Productivity Committee will be to consider the analysis of the .33 square foot per capita figure? MR. HARRISON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So -- I mean, I agree with that. I think if the Planning Commission also included it in their suggestions that would be helpful too. Is there a motion, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to the library buildings 2006 AUIR, we would recommend approval with the additional recommendation that the BCC review the basis used to determine the A UIR, the population, and with the intent that there may be a more effective basis, and to evaluate or to look at the level of service standard of decimal 33 square foot per capita as a question of its relevance today. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all signify approval by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 42 November 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None is opposed. Now we're on library books. Are there any questions or comments for library books? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry if you did this yesterday, but what exactly is a book that's our unit? I know what a book is obviously, I hope, but -- MS. TOWNSEND: The library inventories, for the purposes of AUIR, books, both hardback and paperback and audio-books. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only points I had for last was the impact fee adjustment, the impact fee issue, which I think was already responded to. And explore using books per person by -- and through door count in lieu of the population statistic. That goes along with the caveat we have been adding to all of our stipulations anyway, so I think that's covered by that. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Follow-up. What is the percentage of hardbound, paperback and audio, do you know? And is that growing in audio? MS. MATTHES: It's definitely growing in audio. I don't have a percentage. Audio-books are minor compared to print books. But it is a growing collection. We're also exploring different ways of providing that. We expect to start circulating online downloadable audio-books in the coming Page 43 November 30, 2006 year. Something that we don't have to shelve and we don't have to maintain other than pay a description service for. Percentage wise, it's still minor compared to the print materials. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Assuming the Productivity Committee's positions on this is mimicked from the first one? MR. HARRISON : We talked yesterday, this is Harrison, about the collocation effort whenever possible and also the focus on the Hispanic population, you may remember. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Okay. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And did I understand that you're foreclosed from downloading to an I-pod anything in the future in audio? MS. MATTHES: Unfortunately the companies that sell to public libraries, sell services, do not sell an I -pod version, and that's entirely due to Apple's licensing and their own restrictions. It's not our choice. You can -- I assume you can go to Apple and download an audio- book but they don't have programs that sell them on a cost effective basis to public libraries. We certainly do talk about that and there is talk in library literature encouraging Apple to make that kind of change. But to date they have not elected to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: One other recommendation I think we would like to make is that you look at a different level of service standard to include the number of items in all formats per capita as opposed to just books and the audio-books. And, Brad, that was one of our major discussions yesterday because it's becoming more -- there are more and more of these other media, and in order to really support the community that's a better measure than just the books now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I ask a question, please? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course, Mr. Murray. Page 44 November 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm not disagreeing in any way with Ms. Vasey, because that's poor thinking, future thinking, if you will. How much of it -- I know you've indicated that fraction is small. Can you make a guess as to how much? MS. MATTHES: Five percent at the most. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's a good starting point for now beginning that process, that 5 percent. MS. MATTHES: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That does add the dimension that Ms. Vasey raises. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had one clarification. And I understand the collocation issue and the level of service for all formats on a per capita basis. The Hispanic issue, Mr. Harrison, what was the -- what direction -- MR. HARRISON: We were curious what proportion of the collection was catering to the Hispanic collection -- population, as opposed to English-only speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's just a statistical answer you are looking for there? MR. HARRISON: We were. We did answer it yesterday because they talked about the number of volumes that were there for Hispanics. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure it was resolved or addressed. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess you'll have to answer it again. Mr. Midney wasn't here yesterday. He wasn't here to benefit from the answer. MS. MATTHES: Actually, did I give you a percentage yesterday? MR. HARRISON: I think what came up was 12 percent or so of the population are Hispanic and your collection has got a comparable Page 45 November 30, 2006 MS. MATTHES: I wouldn't say that 12 percent of our collection is in Spanish languages. Probably it's less than 5 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Just to summarize, the discussion point was, Mr. Harrison's concern was we have a large growing percentage of the population, I believe the statistic was 19.4 percent of the current population being of Hispanic origin. His concern was that the library was doing enough to recognize that growing trend in demographic. And Marilyn had, I believe, addressed the question to his satisfaction that they recognize that and they were continuing to increase the number of volumes and materials and mediums that were available within the native Spanish language that is 19.4 percent. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It would be interesting to actually have a figure, because I know in the Immokalee library where we have about 70 percent of our people who are Hispanic, just by eyeballing I would say we have less than 5 percent that is Spanish language stuff. MS. MATTHES: I would agree with that. We also get into the discussion of are they wanting materials in Spanish or are they wanting materials to learn English, both. So it's a compromise. As I said yesterday, I don't think you were here, we do buy significant numbers of materials in Spanish. And our -- actually, even our online catalog has a Spanish version. You just click on a button and you can get all of the instructions and all the information about it in Spanish. We do bilingual story hours for kids. Twelve years ago we did a three-year grant in which we hired a bilingual librarian for the Immokalee area. And we do try to hire more bilingual employees in general now. If we have a choice we're certainly going to take a bilingual employee. And it's not just in the Immokalee area but also Golden Gate area, East Naples have significant numbers. And really, all of our libraries are seeing more traffic by the Spanish speaking Page 46 November 30, 2006 people. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think you are doing a goodjob. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going further on that, if I were a speaker of Spanish and I knew about the catalog or the methodology and can go online either at the library or another way, I could, could I not, I could request books be sent to my local library , could I not? MS. MATTHES: Of course, sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then the question would be, would the availability of a variety of topical interest books as well as translated into Spanish, current best ten seller type (sic) things, are they as readily available? In other words, can we give a sense of equality to people of another language? MS. MATTHES: I hope so. I really -- we buy periodicals in Spanish. Miami Herald comes in Spanish. That's a subscription. There are some other periodicals that are available in Spanish and that we use. We also do advertising on the Spanish language radio programs. Staff appears, not on a regular basis but a frequent basis, discussing Spanish programs for the community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me help you a little bit more, because I wasn't trying to embarrass anybody. What I was driving at is there any impediments within our system to deny anybody the opportunity to obtain what is available? Now what is available may be limited by virtue of economics and marketing, et cetera, et cetera. But are there any impediments within your system to deny folks the full opportunity to obtain if they choose to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, isn't that -- that's a pretty ambiguous question. I mean, someone could say the parking lot is not marked right. I mean, I'm sure that's going to be -- I don't know how anybody could categorically answer a question like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, what I was trying to do is not create a negative but in fact I thought I was helping to create a Page 47 November 30, 2006 positive in that I believe the system, as you've indicated it, allows for folks to be able to benefit from what is available. MS. MATTHES: We certainly try to be proactive. And including -- included in that is we've had staff training for basic Spanish for the front line circulation staff who deal with a lot of people who don't speak English very well. There is a -- there was a ten-week program that we sent a number of staff people to on a weekly basis to get them up to speed in standard library terms in Spanish, is basically what the course was geared to. And we've done things like that. I can't say that we have a Spanish speaking person in each location every hour of the day. That really doesn't work out well for us. But there is no, no reason that -- we're trying really -- I guess, to put it on a positive light, we're trying to be proactive in providing service to the entire community and we try not to exclude purchase of materials that would be in foreign languages to the constituencies that we do serve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I apologize if I appeared to put you in a state of embarrassment. That was not my intent. I was really playing off, I think, Mr. Harrison's ideas. He recognizes that we have a growing influence and need, and I just thought I would give you the opportunity to indicate how you are facilitating that. Thank you. MS. MATTHES: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? I notice you have used the word Hispanic. I'm assuming then that the periodicals and books are in Spanish? MS. MATTHES: Yes. We also have some Russian, German, Czech, Polish books too. But primarily our language other than English is Spanish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what the mix in Immokalee is but I know, I thought I heard there were dialects of Page 48 November 30, 2006 Haitian and Guatemalan and things like that. I'm not sure they all speak the same language. So I'm not sure what value it is to try to cover one if not all. So, I mean, I'm satisfied with the way you're doing it. I think it's as relevant as it can be, so, onward and upward. Any other questions on the library book stock issue? If not, is there a motion to recommend? Mr. Murray, ifit wasn't for you we wouldn't have any motions today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, I would defer if someone else wants to tackle it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'm glad you make them. Someone's got to step forward and do it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me discuss the 2006 AUIR having to do with library book stock that is currently at 1.75 books per capita. And we would recommend approval of this AUIR portion with the additional recommendation that the BCC review -- well, I can't say that in this case because we're using books per capita. Yes, I can. I will say with the review of the basis which is ultimately used to determine the AUIR, in this case population, with the intent that there may be a more effective basis. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll move it along with a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would the motion maker and the second consider adding the request to the BCC to consider exploring the collocation of these facilities and also modifying the level of service so that all formats should be considered in the per capita rate? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be open easily to the second portion. I need more qualification about the collocation. Does that have to do with schools or something? I forgot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it was just to explore it. Whether it works out or not would be up to the departments to determineS Page 49 November 30, 2006 whether it's feasible. I think we heard a strong argument yesterday that the security issue is overwhelming. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, now I have a recollection of what we're trying to -- yes, I would agree with that. I think that's a good idea. I hope that the exploration is not -- yes, let's go forward with that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second also accept? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 to O. We will take a break until 10: 15 for Kady and the court reporter. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will return to their seats we can continue with our meeting. The next element for final review is the county jail element of the AUIR. And Chief, I'll let you go forward. CHIEF SMITH: For the record, Greg Smith, chief of administration for the Sheriffs Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 97, by the way, for everyone's Page 50 November 30, 2006 sake. CHIEF SMITH: I don't think we had any questions or follow-up regarding the j ails but I'll be willing to entertain any questions or additional observations at this time. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I hope I'm not repeating stuff that other people might have covered at some of the other meetings, but I have one question about the weed and seed program which aims to test two components. The weed part is to get more people off the street who might be contributing to criminal activity or just maybe vagrancy, making the neighborhood less desirable. Has the stepped-up law enforcement with the weed and seed program resulted in part in, some part to increase the number of jail beds needed? CHIEF SMITH: I'm sure that it has a direct effect, especially with regard to the Immokalee facility. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How much of an effect would you say it has? CHIEF SMITH: I can go back and look at the population numbers from last year to this year and draw that correlation out, but I don't have that this morning. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I have another question. Since 9/11 has there been an increase in the rate of arrests of undocumented workers and has this impacted the jail bed rate? CHIEF SMITH: I can say that there are several initiatives that we're currently involved with with regard to our participation in the Regional Domestic Security Task Force and also with joint operations that we have had with ICE where we have -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: ICE? CHIEF SMITH: Immigration Customs Enforcement, where we have -- and that's under the Division of Homeland Security, that we Page 51 November 30, 2006 have participated with them to take in undocumented aliens. But we usually do not detain them in our jails. They are usually transported to federal holding facilities. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you see or does the Sheriffs Department see as part of its mission to enforce the INS laws in terms of not allowing undocumented workers to be in Collier County? CHIEF SMITH: The sheriffs mission is to cooperate with every law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction in Collier County including ICE and Customs and Immigration enforcement. He's willing to partner with them on whatever initiatives that they bring forward. It's also an issue germane to our agency as well. Recently we have had other resources made available to us where we can check via our laptops in patrol cars through the Resource Clearance Center out of Immokalee, where we can check on the documentation status of people who we encounter in the field. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you feel that people who don't have documentation to work here but who are here, do you look at them as criminals, since they are illegal? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, this is about jails, and I have to ask that we don't get into politics in regard to this issue. Let's stick to the jail and the jail beds. I think that would be more productive. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm just asking because this does affect our use of the jail beds and the census that we have in our jails, which is the AUIR, what we're talking about now. But I'll withdraw that question. Has anyone attempted to work with judges in sentencing guidelines to perhaps try to get some hold on the amount of jail population that we have and the number of beds that we need? CHIEF SMITH: Currently there is a jail study that is underway that will be published, I would say, within the next month that has been undertaken by the county. That was at the behest of the Public Page 52 November 30, 2006 Safety Coordinating Council which is chaired by Commissioner Coyle. The charge of that council under statute is to develop means to introduce programs and initiatives that will forestall the need to build future jail beds. So the answer to your question is yes. We're working very diligently. It was the efforts of that group which has led to Collier County receiving three new judges because it's been recognized there is a direct correlation between the speed of the judiciary and what happens with regard to the j ail population. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You mean people waiting for extended periods of times in order to have their trials? CHIEF SMITH: People who do not for whatever reason make bond would remain in jail until they arrive at their trial date. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That sounds positive. Just a final question, do you have information as to the Collier County rate, I guess, it's 3.2 per thousand? How does that compare to other counties in the State of Florida and nationally? CHIEF SMITH: It's very comparable. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the jails? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Do we have any additional new sheet for Page 97? We had the first revised one but at that time the revenues needed to maintain the existing level of service shouldn't have had the brackets on it and footnote four star talks about it would likely not be feasible to build a 60-bed addition or stand-alone jail during this AUIR period. But then we changed it to do exactly that. So it seems like there needs to be some administrative changes in the information on this sheet. MR. BOSI: Ms. Vasey, I will make the modifications in terms of Page 53 November 30, 2006 eliminating the bracket in terms of revenues needed to maintain the existing level of service. I guess it didn't strike me -- a memory chord in terms of the removal of the feasibility to build just a 60-bed addition. I'm not sure how we address that because we do have that 60-bed deficit within this five-year planning period. And I'm not sure if we had taken any steps to add any capital improvement programs that would satisfy that deficiency. MS. VASEY: We did in your 11 beds planned in AUIR under Page 99, change sheet, shows 64 beds going in in the fifth year of the AUIR period. MR. BOSI: There is still a 60-bed deficiency, and that's where that footnote -- MS. VASEY: I see. Okay. But this is still kind of -- we did add a 60-bed addition and now you are saying it's not feasible to add a 60-bed. MR. BOSI: There were two modular expansions capable at the Immokalee facility, and the last, the 64 that they have in the fifth year is the last of that. So maybe I need to expand upon there are no more modular expansions available and therefore the construction of a 60-bed facility -- expand that footnote that way to further explain it that we were out of modular expansion capability within both of the facilities. MS. VASEY: That might be a good idea because that certainly confused me. CHIEF SMITH: That is a good point. Just to build on that a little bit, when they built the Immokalee Jail, the new jail, in 2001, they left the ability to add on a modular component of 64 beds. The electrical is pigtailed, the plumbing is stubbed out and everything is ready to go with that. In fact, they'd only have to build more staff base or controls there because they've expanded to the size necessary to support the extra 64. Page 54 November 30, 2006 So from that standpoint facilities did a wonderful job back when they prepared the site to bring that additional, so we can bring over 64 beds and do if rather cheaply. MS. VASEY: And that sort of was one of the other issues that I was going to hit on. It shows a requirement for 3.1 million, but as you discussed the last time and just now mentioned again, it probably, since everything is ready, except for, you know, pouring the concrete or whatever is needed for the building addition, the modular part of it, it shouldn't really be that expensive. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. I'd really have to defer to facilities for the hard and fast answer. But just in my layman's view, you don't have to do the site prep, you don't have to acquire the land, you don't even have to do the engineering specs because you are going to build the exact replica of the structure standing next to it. So all that is laid out already. So I would think that it could be done at a much reduced cost than that. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any there any other questions on the jail portion of the AUIR? As far as the Planning Commission goes we need to take a position on it. Has the Productivity Committee -- my notes are that modify the brackets that are on the page, get those corrected and explain better the 60-bed facility. Is that consistent with the Productivity Committee's thoughts on this issue? MR. HARRISON: I think so. MS. VASEY: Yes. There was only one other thing that I was going to mention and that was the j ail study has a very strong capability of changing. If the planned initiative to move the inmates through the system faster works, then that will affect the number of beds per hundred thousand population that's required. And perhaps in the future we can look at moving, if the study makes it possible to Page 55 November 30, 2006 adjust that level of service standard. CHIEF SMITH: That is correct. That is our hope in working with those initiatives, that we may arrive at a point -- if all other external factors remain neutral, I just throw that caveat out, that we may arrive at a point where we can reduce the LOS. MR. HARRISON: Harrison here. Chief Smith, do I remember when you brought this to the Productivity Committee talking about how the addition of the judges and the more prompt processing of the inmates, it could free up like how many beds, was it like a couple of hundred? CHIEF SMITH: It could free up as many as 200 beds. MR. HARRISON: A lot. CHIEF SMITH: Yeah. Your jail population is a direct correlation to how swift those who are held there move through the judicial system. And that's recognized by the judges, that's recognized by just about anybody that looks at it, you know, that's not in dispute. And certainly that need was recognized at the state level when those additional judges were appropriated to Collier County . We feel very good about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We need a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray, would you happen to be able to make a recommendation? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would be thrilled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to the 2006 AUIR matter concerning county j ails, I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval, with the additional recommendation that the BCC review the basis used to determine the AUIR, which is population, with the intent that there may be a more effective basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Page 56 November 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. And we had discussed that the staff is going to remove the brackets and explain better the 60-bed facility reference. I don't think that needs to be stipulated but -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that was a given, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And that as far as the jail study goes I think so that would be part and parcel to the comment concerning the use of the population statistics. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that was also part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 to O. Move on to law enforcement. That was the one, Chief, I think there were some lingering questions on. CHIEF SMITH: There were some questions regarding the percentage of time deputies spend devoted to the incorporated areas of the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think it was more of you didn't Page 57 November 30, 2006 count the -- you counted the countywide population including the incorporated areas -- incorporated communities but you didn't count their police officers in your statistics. I hope that's the same, that becomes the same question to your answer. But that's what I thought was the question. CHIEF SMITH: Right. That's a different way to get there I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean-- MR. BOSI: I was going to say that we had left and the issue was we were counting their population -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: -- as the chief had indicated. If we're counting their population. But I guess the mandate of providing service was falling upon those municipal police stations and not the county sheriffs department. The question was do we -- but then the statement was made from Chief Smith that the officers, the sheriffs officers do spend a percentage or some period of time within activities related to the municipalities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with your statement, but I also -- I think where I was trying to go is, you got a guy who is a trained police officer. I don't care what uniform he's wearing, his presence is going to have an impact on the people and the protection and security of the civilian population. The City of Naples has a lot of those people in uniform. So does the City of Marco Island. All I'm saying is they have to be considered. If you are going to use those populations to justify more law enforcement it should equally be used -- we should use some of their offsetting personnel in regards to that. So that was the gist of the question I thought that was asked. But Chief, I'll let you go forward and explain the best you can. CHIEF SMITH: I understood the question to be what percentage of time, and I think we arrived at that, from what you just pointed out. Page 58 November 30,2006 And I apologize for my confusion on that. And I suppose the answer depends on to what unit you are assigned within the sheriffs office. For instance our marine patrol and our air units are based in docks and hangars within the city limits, so they are exclusively in the city and travel outside of the city back into the unincorporated areas to service us. So they spend a good deal of time there. Deputies who serve civil process, police officers cannot serve civil process, that must be done by the sheriff and his deputies. So we have to go into the city to serve all manner and form of civil process. So we have a presence in that regard. We still maintain a substation on Marco Island within the city limits with minimal staffing to do things like accident reports, to give them police reports and the availability to service those citizens that come in and need the services the sheriff has under his umbrella. Also, as we also point out, we also dispatch for the City of Marco Island. So we have a lot of interaction with them as well. Road patrol deputies don't spend a great deal of time answering calls that they have been assigned there within the city limits, but what does happen is we travel into the city to go to our training center, which is located at Gulfview Middle School. The PDC is where our training center is. So we have uniformed deputies in marked cars as, to build on your point, going into the city and coming back out some six or seven hours later. All those marked units and officers in uniform have a deterrence value that's being provided to the city. Also we have been called on for complex investigations, for pursuits, for large joint operations. And the sheriff is the -- is the co-chair of the Regional Domestic Security Task Force that provides domestic security-related issues for all of Collier County. So from that standpoint we provide service as well. Also today and every two weeks from Thursday we have what's Page 59 November 30, 2006 called a Comstat process where we join with the cities of Marco and Naples and have a joint meeting of the PDC where we discuss crime trends. So we have today all of our command staff over in the city with a joint meeting. Their presence there, as you pointed out, has a crime deterrence value. So we do provide some service to them. And also there have been studies that have pointed out that what you do in the unincorporated area has a value with regard to those people who live in the incorporated area because the criminal element is mobile for the most part, and if they are not encountered and dealt with in the unincorporated area would have the capability to transit into the incorporated area and be there. So -- and that kind of stuff is hard to measure. But there is a value presented to the city. I suppose that it would serve no value to you if you lived in the city, worked in the city, recreated, shopped in the city and never left the city. Then, again, you could make a very strong argument for what value is the Collier County Sheriffs Office to me personally, take away the fact that we go in and out of there frequently. So from that standpoint you may have a case for adjusting those population figures. Also, it should be pointed out there are special operations centers about to be built in the City of Naples. So we're going to have a large contingent of deputies in that regard as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It seems very confusing trying to split up duties and responsibilities. Seeing as we're using the population figures for the City and Marco, why don't we use, just use their officers in our figures and make it so much simpler? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me expound on that because I think I started the ball rolling on this question and I understand now better your operations. And I think it goes back to the way and the format of this AUIR. The departments have been locked into certain formats, levels of Page 60 November 30,2006 standards created by statistics that may not be the best for what they are trying to do, and the unit cost corresponding to that statistic. I think that for the recommendation to look at a better statistic to use for your department, just as we have for the others, I think you could find a better statistic, one that incorporates all of the other municipalities and still provides you with a level of service based on a realistic population or whatever it is that drives your numbers better than the one that we're using here. Mr. Vigliotti, I understand your comment because you're along the same lines I was earlier thinking. But I now, based on what the chief said, this is more of an issue that can resolve by a better statistic weighed properly than just using a blanket bold statistic on its face value. And I think that's back to what we're trying to do with each department, have them look better at what they use for a statistical base. And I think this one could be done better next time. F or now the fact that you have a surplus and not an impact on the ad valorem tax base at this -- I'm not that concerned about this year. There is not much we can do about it. But I would hope that by next year with the recommendations we've been making that we can come up with a better statistic for you to use that does take into consideration the other municipalities. Is that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- kind of where you're going? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, that will achieve the same goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just adding to that piece, what comes to my mind is that it's clear there is an overlap of some degree. I'm thinking about it from the point of view if Dr. Lee and the county were evaluating how many new police officers he needed for the city, how much impact would he take into consideration of the presence of Page 61 November 30, 2006 sheriffs deputies and all of those things that you related to. And so it does become a true question that needs to be resolved I suppose. Certainly not this year but next year it could probably lead to it. And I think we're getting to a finer point, and we thank you for your effort that you're making to help us understand the full impact. That would be my comment. CHIEF SMITH: Yes. You're very welcome. And I do not argue that there could possibly be a better formula derived, and we will commit to working with the planning department next year to look at some alternative formulas to use. Certainly, you know, you could use calls for service, you could code your patrol time, you know, there are several different ways to look at it, other than just based on population, just as you pointed out several times this morning already. Historically, it's always been population, that's what we've gone with. But certainly there are some other factors that we can determine as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions on law enforcement? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the Planning Commission votes is there any comments from the Productivity Committee to help guide us? MR. HARRISON: This is Harrison. We've had significant discussions with the sheriffs office on the capital projects that they have, like on Page 119. There is $18 million for airport operations, and that's led to conversations about what aircraft do we have, how are we using them, and that sort of thing, because for most of us we think of law enforcement as officers in cars on the street. I don't know if the chief wants to say anything about that. EMS center of course has been in the papers quite often as they are challenged to find a suitable site to put it in. But that's a high tech dispatch unit that all emergency services are plugged into so that they Page 62 November 30, 2006 have like one source that tells them, you know, an emergency of some kind. So that's a very desirable facility. Do you want to say anything about the airport, Chief? CHIEF SMITH: The only thing I'll say about the airport is the devil is in the details. The detail has purposely been left out of this report because it is a public document. There are some very sensitive missions that are going to be carried out there that I would be willing to discuss offline with any member of either the Productivity Committee or the Planning Commission. But for the purpose of this, we're going to build an $18 million hangar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I bet that is going to be a beauty. CHIEF SMITH: And I hope I've led you to the conclusion that it's not just a hangar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. HARRISON: And if we look at the funding I'm not sure, with all of these sources of funds, if there in fact is a surplus because it looks to me like there is about 38 million of new debt coming along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mayor may not be. CHIEF SMITH: Let me say this, that the airport operations center, the sheriff is funding himself, which is unprecedented, out of his budget through his turn-back each year. We've already made three of the $1.6 million payments. And we just broke ground this week. So we're in pretty good shape in that regard. And as Mr. Harrison pointed out, the emergency operations center, ever since 9/11 all we've heard about is interoperability between different emergency service workers, and that's exactly what that is designed to do is have everyone that is participating in the cogent disaster in one room coordinating all the services and all the functions of the county under one umbrella. I just can't advocate enough for how much this community and the size that it's progressing to needs that center. Not only has it got Page 63 November 30, 2006 dispatch but we also will have a new East Naples substation operating out of that that will get us out of the fire department, the East Naples fire department where we've been tenants in two rooms for the last 15 years. So we're moving out of that and finally getting an East Naples substation in the deal as well. Orangetree substation, as we pointed out the last time, right now we are operating out of a double wide trailer on the grounds of the middle school out there because we agreed that the county could use the funding previously allocated for that to some other proj ects. And we'll just go with that for right now because it seems to be working, and give the county a chance to catch up on some other things. So that's why it's been structured out through the year even though the need for that center was three years ago. We brought it on line this past year, so. MR. HARRISON: Chief, would you expect the new emergency center to affect the response times of all of the first responders, EMS, fire, et cetera? CHIEF SMITH: I would hope that it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The comments, I think, are all asked. Is there a motion regarding -- from the Planning Commission for law enforcement? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I please make a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's about time you would, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to the 2006 AUIR matter on law enforcement having to do with the level of service standard of one decimal 96 police officer per population, I make a motion that the CCPC recommend approval to the BCC, with the additional recommendation that the BCC review the basis used to determine the AUIR, that is population, with the intent that there may be a more effective basis to be learned. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, Page 64 November 30, 2006 seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 to O. Thank you, chief. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Chairman Strain, I did want to point out one thing, because every motion has been added with the recommendation for the BCC to look at other statistical methods for analyzing level of services in the specific AUIR. The question -- or the point that I wanted to make that that will have to be in conjunction with revisions to the impact fee studies, and I believe that impact fee studies will have to be revised, or the majority of them will have to be revised as we go to our new population methodology. So those opportunities should be there. The reason why I say that is the AUIR for the Category B facilities really acts as the checkbook to make sure that floor level that was established within that impact fee study, that that level of service is being maintained. So if there is departures from how we are now measuring the level of service for, say, for instance, for law enforcement, if it goes to Page 65 November 30, 2006 something that is not population-based or it's different from what the methodology that was expressed within the impact fee study, there could be potential legal issues with that. So when we would go and revise the impact fee study for law enforcement we would have to agree upon the new methodology that we're going to establish for the level of service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, I think that that goes without saying. I would have assumed if you are going to change something it has to change everywhere, and that's why the legal staff in their advisement to the Board of County Commissioners, in any discussion like that, I'm sure they would point out that those ramifications have to be dealt with as well. I had assumed all that would have to happen. If we changed our methodology it's far and more wide sweeping than just the AUIR. I think all of us understood that as a fact, but it's just a matter of it still needs to be done or still may need to be done, needs to be determined. MR. BOSI: Thank you for that, Chairman Strain. And I guess I was just putting that out for the obvious, for the viewer of this proceedings just to let them know that that would be a necessary component of that. I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Chief, thank you, I think you are finished unless -- CHIEF SMITH: Thank you. I would like to make one comment in closing just because it came up and there may be some viewers out there who are wondering as well. But if anyone would like to know Sheriff Hunter's philosophy on the import of the immigration laws or the guiding philosophy with regard to immigrations enforcement within the Sheriffs Office, I would like to refer you to our website, www.colliersheriff.org, where we have several position papers published on the subject. So you can get the information there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. CHIEF SMITH: Thank you. Page 66 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next issue in the AUIR will be the emergency medical services remaining questions from yesterday's meeting. This is on Page 136. MS. BAY: Good morning. Artie Bay, for the record, EMS. I think the first question you had was how EMS intends to repay the 7 million debt service to the general fund. And what we're going to have to do is, this is a result of our stepped-up building, and once we have a new building that's actually been constructed, the units are in place, the ambulances are equipped and ordered and in, we're going to actually have to do another impact fee study. And that's going to generate the revenue to payoff this debt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you are putting a debt on the books that you have no source of funding to repay that's known? MS. BAY: Well, we know we're going to have to redo the impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, the impact fees have gone up dramatically in this county. There is a long and strong push against raising them any more because of some of the other impacts they have on new and affordable housing and things like that. I am not saying there won't be any more, but that's a pretty risky bet. MS. BAY: Actually, I don't know that the EMS impact fees have been increased to the extent of some of the others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They haven't. I know they haven't. But anybody have any questions on this? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Amy is the authority, but -- Amy Patterson -- but it's my understanding that you need those facilities, that you are bringing those facilities on line. And if you are bringing them on line and then trying to use impact fees to pay for a deficit that currently exists, which is what we've got right now as we bring these on line, you can't use impact fees for that. Impact fees can only be used for new growth-related items. And you are working off a backlog right Page 67 November 30, 2006 now; is that right, Amy? MS. PATTERSON: What you said -- Amy Patterson, for the record. What you said is correct. But it was my understanding that these are growth-related stations that they are adding, so if they are related to growth then there is no reason that the impact fee can't be used for them. If there are deficiencies that they are accommodating then, yes, they would have to be paid for out of another funding source. MS. VASEY: I think according to the Chart 138 it shows that they are current deficiencies, at least the first 4.7 of them are. Now maybe if you are serious about changing your impact fees I would recommend that you have another impact fee study before you run into the ones that are, you know, after this next year. Because you have a deficiency right now -- MS. BAY: Right. MS. VASEY: -- and so you can't use impact fees to make that up. But as you address the ones that are for future growth you can do those, but you should get your impact fee study in first, I think. MS. BAY: Okay. Were there any more questions to that issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, as a follow-up, I'mjust trying to figure out how this document that you've provided to us will work. And maybe Amy needs to clarify something else other than -- something Ms. Vasey said I'm now curious. If you spend some of this money that you're counting on for future impact fees now, isn't that an existing condition then? It's qualified automatically as existing? So then how do you reimburse it from future impact fees? I think that was kind of more the question I understood but it didn't get answered. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MS. BAY: I'll let Amy address that. MS. PATTERSON: Sorry. Amy Patterson again for the record. Could you repeat the question. Page 68 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you take a building that you want to build right now, and you get a loan for it and you build it, partially build it or whatever, then eight months, six months, a year, two years later you finally get the impact fees increase so you can payoff that loan, that you built that building from, isn't that kind of like paying in arrears? Can you do that with impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: I think there are probably two separate things going on here. There are stations that they are required to build for their level of service that they are going to use these general fund dollars for, or whatever they might be, and any things that are deficiencies, they are not going to use impact fees to pay for. Anything that they use impact fees for would then be growth-related. They would have to be. But when they build anything that's paid for, once those facilities come on line and are added to the inventory, that would constitute the need for them to update their impact fees. If they have added to their inventory that's where they would come in and do another study which would generate additional impact fees. So I think it's two separate things. Anything that is a deficiency has to be funded by another source. Anything that is growth is going to be funded by impact fees or impact fees into the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they construct some of these 4.7 needed surplus or deficient facilities with 13 or $14 million and the impact fee study doesn't get done until that's completed, the impact fees then can be used only for what's built after that, not what's built before that. Is that correct or incorrect? MS. PATTERSON: The impact fees would be used into the future for what's built after that. But that facility would be added to the inventory, which would -- because it's paid for, would then help the impact fees in the future. I know it doesn't make sense exactly, but they are not using impact fees to fund a deficiency, I guess that's the bottom line. At no Page 69 November 30, 2006 time does that ever happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not debating that. What I'm worried about is, I think Ms. Vasey hit on it, maybe I'm -- I hope I'm reading it right, by putting this $7.3 million in there now as a loan against future impact fees, you really can't expect that to happen because you can't put something in there now as a loan and use it against future impact fees. Like you just said, they have to be paid for what is going on in the future, not what is going on in arrears. And Michael, you have been trying to say something. I'm sorry. MR. BOSI: And this is the one Category B facility I think where this board is going to have to make a recommendation to either find the additional revenue from the general fund or to lower your level of service, because the impact fees that we expect in the future cannot be used to pay down this current deficit. The board had decided with this level of service standard that one per 15,000 population, one unit per 15,000 population was the level of service that they wanted to go with. If they want to maintain that level of service they are going to have to utilize revenue sources outside impact fees, and more than likely it will have to be from the general revenue fund. So your recommendation is going to have to be based upon that type of an action. So it won't be able to fall back upon impact fees to pay for this specific facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: This was my first meeting last year, same topic and everything else. If we keep budgeting and supplying funds and people can continue to operate, now a matter that may not be as productive, you know, we have the EMS, we have the fire departments, now you have Marco wanting to join in. And somewhere along the way a squeeze has to happen in order to do things more efficiently and so that the agencies work together and can Page 70 November 30, 2006 maybe accommodate this. But if we keep funding all these levels of service for all of these different departments and they aren't -- where does that fall into our last year when we were told that that doesn't apply here, but then it's not changing, it continues to grow and perpetuate more problems and other fire departments need to have more. Is there a way, by budgeting, to force economies to happen? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good question. And I don't know if anybody can answer it. It is an ambiguous question. I'm sure everybody is going to say there is. COMMISSIONER TUFF: We're going to say let's go ahead and do this and then we've just perpetuated another year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure everybody is going to say let's go ahead and do this. Of all of the elements that we've had, I have a lot of respect for the chief and his abilities for EMS operations. But I think from an accounting viewpoint there are some problems in how they put things on paper that they are doing. We pointed out a lot of this in yesterday's meeting in regards to some of the collocated units, the response times, the interactions with the fire departments and how multiple facilities are responding to every call. And I think all that needs to be weighed in on this. And I don't think this is reflective of all of that information. I'm not sure if I'm -- I'm not trying to answer your question, just giving you my thoughts on it. I'm not sure that is going to have any better answer. Ms. Vasey, did you? MS. VASEY: Yes. I really don't think that you can plan to use, plan to repay the $7.3 million loan with impact fees. Amy is absolutely right, when you redo the impact fee studies and you have four new stations, that will generate a higher impact fee rate because you've got more in your base now. That was part of the problem in the past. They have had so many leased stations that they don't get Page 71 November 30, 2006 any credit for that the impact fees are very low compared to others. So by increasing the number of owned stations that will increase the impact fees because you are -- it's based on what you have. So it will go up. But I don't believe with impact fees planned of $6 million over the five-year period that you could expect to generate $7.3 million by increasing them sometime in the future. So I think you may have to -- the solution to that maybe you'll have to increase your additional revenue required line, because I don't think that that's a financially feasible solution the way it's written right now. MS. BAY: I guess what we were looking at too is we were looking at these four stations that we were directed to put on line this year, as growth stations, because you recall from last year we switched from the permanent population, which had been used since 2001, to the weighted population, which -- at the permanent we were going along just fine. But as soon as we switched to the weighted population that put us where we needed to, you know, increase to maintain our level of service. MS. VASEY: Right. You had been using weighted until 2002 and then switched to permanent and then switched back. MS. BAY: Right. MS. VASEY: And that certainly, I think, can account for a large part of the problem now of how many stations need to be built in the next five years. And you can use your impact fees for some of the new stations, but you've already counted that, the current impact fees are in the $6 million that -- for those stations that are coming on line now. MS. BAY: Correct. MS. VASEY: So I think that number can't really be supported through impact fees even after you increase them. MR. BOSI: I will say that the way that this is reflected, and that is shown as a revenue but it's also shown as an expenditure within this category, so that would be reflected within the additional revenue Page 72 November 30, 2006 required to maintain the level of service. So I think that money is being accounted for that that loan has to be paid back because it shows up in expenditure. And that's part of the factor that arrives at that $1 7 million that will be required to maintain the level of service standard. But it still hasn't gotten you from the issue that there is still $1 7 million that would have to be allocated to provide for this type of a capital improvements program. MS. VASEY: You are sort of in a do loop here because the 7.3 million revenue that you're getting from the general fund as a loan is to provide the expenditure of $7.3 million under expenditures, which is for the commercial paper of $11 million which shows up under revenue. So it's a rather complicated kind of thing but you are still left with the problem that the $7.3 million from the general revenue as a loan has to be repaid. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison, did you want to contribute to this? MR. HARRISON: It seems to me like the major issue here is the economics of the stations, because we looked yesterday and the available inventory cost on average 2 million per station. The chief shared with us yesterday a couple of recent examples that they got it even below 2 million through collocation, donation of land, et cetera. So, you know, to go forward with 3.3 million for fully independent stations seems to be not in the cards. That's double our recent experience. So if our capital requirements here are based on the 3.3 rather than something at 2 million or less, some of these financing questions go away. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It occurs to me too. It seems to be an interesting problem because, in terms of collocation, the Page 73 November 30, 2006 expression there would make it that you would have many, many more fire stations in order to operate. You would, I think, likely have more EMS stations for population and locations and time than you would need fire stations. So I'm not sure you can achieve the result you intend by all collocation. I think that they are stuck with that. But I realize that anything that the CCPC will do with regard to this as we have to go forward, that you need to make certain that you have the funding, that it's more clearly established than this. This is not going to work for you. CHIEF PAGE: I just want to bring up, you know, when we talk about -- I'm sorry, for the record, Jeff Page with EMS. When we talk about collocated stations, that may be collocated with public works. We've also looked at other county departments where we may be able to collate our facilities together. So in some cases that land is already purchased, it's just the structure involved. And of course the -- we're still looking to work with the school board, with their property, things of that nature. But it's not just the fire districts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, good. Then I was in error. Then Mr. Harrison's comments were quite right on. And I didn't realize that you would collocate with others. That just makes good sense. And his point is well taken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: I would just like to remind us of a couple points that we covered yesterday that have not been addressed. One is that this is one of the most aggressive near term capital plans we've looked at in the AUIRs. And at the same time it's recognized, I believe, by the community and certainly the Board of County Commissioners that this is an activity where we have more duplication and overlap than in perhaps any other government service. And the fact that there is a study underway now that might lead to some sort of combination and better utilization. And yet we seem to be going and looking at this Page 74 November 30, 2006 AUIR in a vacuum and ignoring everything else that is going on with regard to this. I'm not -- you know, being my first time in this process I'm not sure how all that fits in. But if it doesn't fit in here I'm not sure where it does fit in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would tend to agree with you. I think for that reason this summary that we have in front of us is not a good reflection what needs to go forward. I think the issue of the 7.3 million is huge, and that you can't count on that and how to pay it back. And until that is defined I don't see how it can even be in here. But taking that out may end up reflecting a level of service needs to a greater degree at the same time when we have other operations that can be relied upon for response times. Maybe we ought to go back, as suggested by staff, as one of the things that could be corrected on here is considering a level of service standard change that would be more accommodating in regards to what we have out there. I think that would meet Mr. Tuffs concern. I think that's a good valid point. Maybe that would force more cooperation with other departments. I know there is some going on now so we get a better product. I also know that we have 32 units total according to statements that I heard yesterday, but only 22.5 are actually listed here. I think the value of those being off the books not shown as clearly as maybe it could be does have an impact on this document. As Mr. Harrison pointed out yesterday, when we finished with this staff had already left. The document that was provided to us on Page 151 shows the EMS fleet, and the fleet total is more units than are being reported on the summary. Granted now, all of those units maybe full ALS life support systems but they all have intrinsic value to the community in both service and availability. There actually are 40 line items there. Some are obviously not vehicles, but still it seems to be more than 32 vehicles there. Page 75 November 30, 2006 Maybe closer scrutiny of these documents would provide a better summary page. I'll leave that to the staff to -- CHIEF PAGE: Well, I can tell you that on Page 152, that reflects the growth units that it came in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. CHIEF PAGE: -- for the newer units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't -- I specifically said -- on Page 151 there are 40 lines. With the exception of maybe two of those they all seem to be some kind of response vehicle, maybe three. And then on Page 152 on the top you have one more vehicle, a 2006 Ford, white. I don't know what that is. But some of the -- I'm wondering how many of these are the ALS system units. CHIEF PAGE: I'm sorry. I see what you are talking about. For example, about midway down it says Hallmark. That's a trailer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. CHIEF PAGE: Some of these Fords are actually, they are Crown Victorias that supervisors -- I'm sorry, office staffhave. Not all of these are ambulances. So that's -- the Wells Fargo or Wells Cargo toward the bottom, that's also another trailer. There is a state vehicle. This is all of the vehicles they provided out of the EMS fleet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize, that's why I said not all of those would be counted as ambulances. I realize that some of them, based on the value, would not be an ambulance. But I don't know how that is correlated with the 32. But the 32 units that you do have, even though ten of those are reserve units, I'm still not clear on how they are reflected in your inventory as a positive to the taxpayers. They are usable units. Anyway, I don't know where to go with this. I mean, I don't -- I don't believe the numbers are workable the way they are. It may not just be a simple recommendation to lower the level of service, only because I'm not sure what the real numbers need to be to get to a point where you know if that's the right thing to suggest. Page 76 November 30, 2006 Any comments? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: About the report -- CHIEF PAGE: Before we get to that. Mr. Strain, the EMS units are reflected on the equipment page, as listed as 32. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm talking about the summary page, on 136. I was just wondering where the 32 ALS units are reflected on Page 136. My Page 136. I have no idea what you may have. CHIEF PAGE: They are actually reflected on Page 149. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that was pointed out yesterday. Those are the 32 units that -- you go to Page 136 under available inventory it shows 22.5 units. In that matrix that you showed yesterday there are a certain number of ALS units factored in with a certain number of new facilities and collocated facilities. I'm just wondering how the full 32 got factored into the 22.5. If you did explain it yesterday, I'm sorry if I forgot. CHIEF PAGE: Okay. MS. BAY: The 22.5 are the front line units. We also have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go farther. So I understand it, and I might be the only one. When you say 22.5 are the front line units, what is a front line unit? MS. BAY: Those are the units that are on the roads every day. Those are the units that are always active. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 22.5 are ALS ambulances? MS. BAY: Yes. And what we consider a unit is the ALS ambulance fully equipped and staffed. Okay. Then there is like, we have for maybe special events or we need units up for seasonal units. We bring them from that reserve fleet. And I would like to clarify something I said yesterday. I misspoke. You had asked if these units, if these ambulances were all equipped. Yes, they are. I said no because I was thinking about the Page 77 November 30, 2006 medics taking their monitors out when they go into fleet for some reason, if the truck breaks down. They take their monitor and take it to another truck, because we don't leave them on the trucks. But obviously they are not going to be moving stretchers and backboards and all the other equipment. So they are fully equipped. We just -- and we do have monitors for all these vehicles. They are just not locked in the vehicles. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure I was the individual that initially raised that question and it's still haunting me, this issue about how we treat it. This even makes the case in my mind more that they should be completely used. If I were to buy six automobiles, I could only drive one at a time but they are all available, they are all ready to go, they have gasoline in them and I'm paying for them. They are my asset. If somebody asks me do you own an automobile I wouldn't respond one, I would say I own six. So it's an asset, a considerable asset, now, especially since you've indicated that they are equipped. And you indicated that they were subject to rotation, which means that they are in use. So for all intents and purposes, while I recognize you keep some in reserve, some are bound to be in the shop for repair or maintenance, et cetera, et cetera, but they are all part of your inventory. And I think you must find a way to include them in there with -- MS. BAY: And we have done that. But we also took, I believe it was Mr. Harrison that brought up the point that we were tying everything to 20 stations. What we have done is corrected this, and we've divided it by units versus stations, which reduces the inventory a little bit, by about, well, actually $53,000. Because we, instead of tying it to 20 stations, we tied it to the 22 and a half units. And if you looked at the lines, each of the ambulances are listed Page 78 November 30, 2006 along with all of the other vehicles and the equipment. Those are the equipped ambulances that you are looking at. And then we've sorted that out by the 22 and a half active units. So they are included. And they are also included in that, in the cost per station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That does help, that chart. And by the way, the court reporters, I noticed Cherie's in the audience. Does that mean you guys need to switch? THE COURT REPORTER: Whenever you're ready. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give us a few minutes to try to get past this thought and then we'll try to take a ten-minute break so you can switch. Okay. MS. BAY: So that's brought down our cost for stations, both for the owned and collocated stations, so -- I didn't bring the sheets. Obviously, it's going to change all of our numbers. And when we're projecting out for our required inventory, we're basing that required inventory or those number of units. We're basing on a collocated going forward, a blended cost, because we don't know what's going to be owned, we don't know what is going to be collocated, so we're going to say, okay -- and historically two-thirds of our stations we own, one-third we're collocating. So we blended that to come up with -- the new figure is actually, it's down to 2.8 really. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, everything you are talking about needs to be put down on paper so we can assess it. It can't be done obviously right here, now, today. Weare not going to probably have any other issue left over after today except for maybe this. But I don't know if it's productive for us to weigh in on this summary sheet, that isn't as accurate or even close to being accurate -- MS. BAY: I do have the new numbers. I just didn't make copies. I thought it might be a little too much to digest. Page 79 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the thoughts of this panel in regards to getting the information? I think you still need to go back and address Ms. Vasey's issue and the 7 million. I don't think you've done that by the comments that you've supplied here today. MS. BAY: I think Amy has a comment she would like to make regarding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far -- Mr. Harrison, I know you have to leave. I would kind of like to get a consensus on where this board thinks this might be as far as review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, I would have a hard time developing an adequate resolution to offer or really a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't think we can move ahead based on the changes in numbers involved we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey, any comments from the Productivity Committee? MS. VASEY: While all of these numbers are changing, they are changing in small amounts and the problem is big. I do have a suggestion, and we can wait until after the change if you like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. VASEY: I wrote up some comments that I'm going to propose to the Productivity Committee on how I think we should handle it, and it's asking for either substantial changes or not approvIng. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VASEY: We can go over those after. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to take it -- can you girls switch off in five minutes? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. We'll take a five-minute break Page 80 November 30, 2006 until 11 -- well, actually a six-minute break until 11 :20. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will-- everybody has resumed their seats and we now have two court reporters, so that means we can talk really fast. Mike turned on the mic. Thank you. Okay. We left off in the EMS. And Ms. Vasey, you had some possible comments? MS. VASEY: Yes. Did you have anything you wanted to add first? CHIEF PAGE: I just wanted to finish up with the outstanding questions so that I resolve the rest of the questions. One of the questions was, what was the ratio that was used for the reserve week? In 2006 it was 4.5. For every 4.5 units, you put one in reserve. This year in the budget, that was changed at 3.5 at the recommendation of the fleet manager. And that's based on historical breakdowns, things of that nature, and also benchmarking from what other systems use. It's a 3.5 reserve. The second question that was still outstanding was the increase for the portable radios. The cost the radios that were reflected in the impact fee study was based on historical information that went back several years. When we looked at it yesterday, those radios are no longer even available to buy at that cost. So that's why the cost in this year's AUIR reflected that increase, I think by about $1,000 or so. So it's just a newer radio. It's still 800 megahertz. They all still work compatibly, the old ones with the new ones, but the newer radios do cost that much. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No more bells and whistles that we'd have to concern ourselves with additions or replacement of the Page 81 November 30, 2006 current fleet of radios? CHIEF PAGE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's just compatibility and it's a new series, I assume. CHIEF PAGE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you, that answers the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you just said, based on an internal policy of going for reserve stock, you've increased the need for at least one more unit, maybe even two in reserve to accommodate the active vehicles you have by what you just said your fleet operations manager did. CHIEF PAGE: In the budget that was approved by the board this year, there were two additional reserve fleet units put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they reflected in this AUIR? CHIEF PAGE: I don't believe so, because it's FY '07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Vasey, did you want to -- MS. VASEY: Yes. In going after the discussions yesterday, it seems clear to me that these are problems that are really beyond our ability to solve, and all that we can really do is recommend to the BCC another possible way of looking at things. And if I could, I'd just like to -- it's sort of a complicated one. If I could just read it. I've got, well, my thoughts down on this. And this is what I would be recommending to the Productivity Committee to consider at our next meeting. Recommending substantial changes in the EMS facilities. U sing the current level of service standard, EMS needs to add 11 units to current inventory of 22.5 units during the AUIR period, requiring 1 7 million in additional revenue. We question whether the program is financially feasible. Impact fees do not cover debt service on existing bonds and new commercial paper loans. The general fund will make $7.3 million in loans overr Page 82 November 30, 2006 the five-year period but it's unclear where EMS will get the money to repay these loans. EMS level of service standard has been one unit per 15,000 population for many years, sometimes using weighted population and sometimes only permanent population. However, during recent years, three fire districts and both the City of Naples and the City of Marco fire departments have added a total of 19 advanced life support units that can respond to medical emergencies and provide paramedic interventions. Five of those units carry Dr. Tober-trained county EMS paramedics under the exchange program. N one of these units are included in the inventory, and to that extent, more service is being provided to the countywide population than is identified in the level of service available inventory. While these fire district units cannot transport patients, 56 percent of calls result in transport, they do provide a service to the community. We recommend that some level of service be recognized from these 19 units providing emergency medical service to the community from the fire districts and city fire departments. If even a part of the response provided by the five exchange units with EMS paramedics were counted, it would save millions of dollars in required additional funding. We recommend a reevaluation of the relationship between the level of service standard of one unit per 15,000 population and the real ultimate goal of an eight-minute response 90 percent of the time. F our new units are planned for FY '07, and this will improve the current performance of an eight-minute response 80.75 percent of the time. That's where you currently are now. And it's possible that the response time goal could be achieved with a level of service standard of one unit for a population greater than 15,000. If so, the number of required units in future years would be reduced. I strongly feel that we're over-served because of the fire district Page 83 November 30, 2006 units, 19 ALS and these five exchange units that actually have EMS personnel, you know, paramedics on them. And maybe it can't be one for one, but there must be some way to recognize that that service is being provided and being paid by taxpayers through, you know, in many instances the fire district ad valorem taxes. But somehow we need to count that. And I recognize your comments from yesterday, that they're not always available, but they often are. And it just seems to me that we have to find some way to count them. And so this would be my recommendation. CHIEF PAGE: Can I respond to that? MS. VASEY: Sure. CHIEF PAGE: I agree with you, that I do think with the four units coming on that there will be an opportunity to re-look at that population figure. The only thing I would say about the ALS engines, as I pointed out yesterday, oftentimes they're responding to the same call from the same station, so they have no impact on the response time that we're aiming for, that eight-minute travel time. The only other thing I would caution you, too, is in the past we have had this ALS engine program, I think since 1999, maybe '96. In that time, both the City of Naples and North Naples dropped out of that program, and only recently reestablished it with the county in the last few years. So I would just caution us all to -- if we started counting them as part of the unit inventory, if any district had to do that for staffing purposes, things of that nature, where they have to remove themselves from the program, like both of those did, in just those two districts, that would be eleven units out of the mix. So that's why we haven't really -- for two reasons: One, that we're both responding from the same station, the same call. The way it's working there, there is no improvement of response time. The Page 84 November 30, 2006 only time that there is an improvement is if the transporting unit's out of district and that other ALS unit is able to respond in their vacant position. So we haven't seen a large increase, but we are working right now to see what impact the ALS engines have when we're not in the districts. And that's something Mr. Stedman is working on in reviewing all the times from the Sheriffs Office. MS. VASEY: And one of the things that we don't know, and I didn't ask any questions about it yesterday, is what are the response times for some of those exchange units and some of the other ALS units? It may be that they are providing comparable or close responses to, in some instances, medical emergencies that you're not getting to right away. So your response time on that call shows maybe 10 minutes but they were actually there and started in eight minutes. So, you know, maybe we are getting a better level of service than just counting your response times would give us. CHIEF PAGE: My understanding in talking to Dave is our ALS units, at least the ones that we're staffed on, are in our response time mix. The only ones that would be in question possibly are the ones that don't have our personnel on it. They're not filling out the run reports. If for whatever reason the ALS engine responding for, let's say, from East Naples, if that crew member does not fill out the run report saying that he responded and arrived on scene, I have no way to track that information. But that is something we're working for and hopefully we'll have that information shortly. MS. VASEY : Well, just given the level of additional requirements that are needed and the possibility out there that there's a whole lot more service than we're counting that is providing -- meeting the response times that you have as a goal, I would caution, Page 85 November 30, 2006 you know, very much against spending the kinds of millions of dollars that are necessary. Plus you've got four units coming on line this year. So already out of the 11 you're going to have four after this year already on. So we're just talking about seven additional units now. And that's very close to, you know, just kind of a little bit of the other service that's out there. You can make some of this go away. CHIEF PAGE: Correct. I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question I was going to ask earlier was I didn't note whether the helicopter -- do you still have responsibility for the helicopter? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it's in your inventory. Does it impact on the response time? CHIEF PAGE: Certainly, it does have an impact on response times to calls out on the Alley, things of that nature. I'd have to talk to the database administrator to see how that's factored in. I really do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you think it would be significant or negligible? CHIEF PAGE: You're talking probably five -- four to 500 transports a year with the helicopter. Not all of them are from the scene. Some of these are going from base stations or hospitals. But I just don't know how that's factored in. I can't give you an honest answer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. I would say if it raises -- as I did with the library people, if it rises to the five percent category, that's a good statistic to start keeping. Because if I recall correctly, you were requesting an additional helicopter. I knew you had parts that were essentially equal to, I think if I recall correctly, 75 percent of your helicopter, should you need Page 86 November 30, 2006 replacement. Is that a fair statement? CHIEF PAGE: Well, in regards to a second helicopter, there has been talk with Mr. Summers about looking at a second helicopter for when our helicopter is down for an extended period of time. That could be anywhere from three to six weeks, depending on what kind of service. But we're also talking to Lee County, you know, they have a second helicopter, as a way that we can do a lease option or something like that for that time period. But that's all-- there is a thought out there that there is enough inter- facility transports from our area hospitals that could fund an additional helicopter that could be used for reserve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I remember quite clearly 90 -- $138 revenue for a transport, yes. And there were some factors there. I know it's a tricky area to get into, and I'm not trying to take away from the solid issues that we have established here. I see what your efforts are, and I would hope that you could qualify the information more, because I too realize you just cannot do what you had hoped to do here. I think that might have been a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any comments from the other members of the Planning Commission? Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I just have a question about something that seems to be minor. But the laptops, $4,000, why are those so expensive? CHIEF PAGE: Those are Panasonic Toughbooks, military grade, like drop them. They're just more indestructible than a common laptop. It is pretty much the standard, I can tell you that, through fire and EMS to purchase that type. But I think also associated with that cost is probably some of the software involved that we have to load on Page 87 November 30, 2006 these computers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The helicopter puts out how many services a year? CHIEF PAGE: How many responses? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHIEF PAGE: Hmmm. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How many per day? CHIEF PAGE: Well, that could certainly vary. But I think we, in this year's budget, predicted about 600 transports a year. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You predicted, but I'm trying to find out actually, in this past year how many did it actually perform? CHIEF PAGE: Almost 500. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. That's the question I was looking for. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on EMS? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on comments that we've heard, I think to sum it up, I know the Planning Commission's going to vote on this. I would hope that we'd want to support the Productivity Committee's position that there needs to be an adjustment to the level of service, incorporating the fire district involvement into that response times, and that there needs to be some clarification to the repayment of the 7.3 general fund loan that's shown on the summary sheet. Are there any other points that need to be made from the Productivity Committee or made from our perspective? I know you guys are going to do a refined paper on it more or less. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I think that we should have counting all the ALS that's in the East Naples, Golden Gate and North Naples. Page 88 November 30, 2006 Unless that was part of your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was the first statement I made, the recommendation by the Productivity Committee to adjust the level of service using the fire districts involvement up to their response times, was a critical component of that -- I mean, that's like a summary of the paragraph that we heard. I hope that reflects generally what -- MS. VASEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little confused. I thought the Chief indicated that he did include those ALS units where his staff were involved. CHIEF PAGE: Yeah, we do include some of those. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what's tricky, you use the word some. CHIEF PAGE: Five of those units and whatever run reports we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the point is the level of service can be adjusted because we have overlapping jurisdictions responding to these kind of calls. If that needs to be the basis on which the recommendation can go forward and to get this particular issue funded, that it ought to be done through reconsideration of a level of servIce. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't disagree. I thought I'd try to give some thought to what he had made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But isn't the problem that there's a requirement from both agencies, I'm not sure where that came from, to respond? So there's nothing that EMS can do, they have to respond anyway, as if these other agencies didn't exist. CHIEF PAGE: That's correct. My point is I think when we Page 89 November 30, 2006 factor in their response times, since we're going out of the same station most of the time, there is not going to be any difference. The level of service with that eight minutes travel time that we're trying to factor in is still going to be the same. But we'll run the numbers, we'll include all other ALS engines, not just the ones we're on, and take a look at it. But I think at the end of the day, at least what I was getting from Mr. Stedman is, is that it's going to be insignificant, due to the fact that we're both collocated, respond at the same station, that type of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's interesting, because they were here yesterday, and their standard of service is four minutes. CHIEF PAGE: They have a four-minute response standard for them to be on scene, that's correct. Did they say that they made that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were asking it. For the two districts that were here yesterday, I would say that of all the districts in the county, they're probably the most -- let's say hardest to reach that routine. They're distant districts, they are sparsely populated, Isle of Capri and Ochopee. They don't make it. They believe with a couple of station positions they can make it. I would believe that most of the other stations probably are already to that standard. But I think their standard is equal or better than the one you have. And if they both leave the station at the same time, and they've got a four-minute response time that they're meeting more than you're meeting your eight, maybe there's a possibility they could improve on their response time. I think that's the objective we're looking for. CHIEF PAGE: Well, I'm certainly not going to speak for the fire districts, but I can assure you they're not making a four minute response time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that differs from the comments that were made to us yesterday, so -- Page 90 November 30, 2006 CHIEF PAGE: In Isle of Capri I don't doubt that they could. I mean, the island -- where their station is, they're able to do that. Ochopee, I don't believe they would be able to handle their -- I certainly know they couldn't handle Port of the Islands in four minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The point was if they put a station at Port of the Islands, they could. CHIEF PAGE: Right, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where they were going. Mr. Vigliotti, did you have something to say? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can I make a motion at this time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure everybody has had their comments put in. Everybody is satisfied? Okay. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a recommendation of denial based upon the $7 million that basically they can't figure out where they're going to get the money to pay it back. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Adelstein. Discussion from the Planning Commission and any assistance that the Productivity Committee wishes to offer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is the last chance for them to come back with any numbers, is that right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we move it forward in a motion today -- we could continue it. Although, I'm not sure that is a productive use of our time. I think the Productivity Committee's recommendation to adjust the level of service using statistics from -- or response times from fire departments and their involvement and their equipment as well, and Page 91 November 30, 2006 also then that requiring a clarification of the repayment of the general fund loan of 7.3 if it's still needed once they adjust the level of service, that is a solution to move this forward. Recommending denial, I don't believe gets us anywhere in regards to what the BCC has got to deal with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be my concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have got to put something forward to the Board of County Commissioners that they will have to move into an A UIR document that they can base the budget, I believe, next year. By denying it altogether doesn't take it out of the budget. It might be more productive to try to correct it if we can make recommendations. Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: No, I was just going to make a comment. I'm not sure if the appropriate motion would be a recommendation of denial, because not only is the 7.3 million dollars unaccounted for, there's actually 17 -- there's an additional $17 million that have been unaccounted for. So the charge of the CCPC and the PC is to either recommend approval, recommend approval with identification of alternative revenue sources, or recommendation of approval with a lower level of service to make it financially cost feasible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree. So -- I think I understand, Mr. Vigliotti, your concerns, but I don't think that a denial gets us to a point of assistance to the BCC and how to deal with this. So for that reason I wouldn't be in favor of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Neither would I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But we have to take a vote on it so that we can get to another motion. So the motion has been made to recommend denial. Page 92 November 30, 2006 All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All those against the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion to deny is not approved by eight (sic) to one against. Now, can we have a second motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can we have a second motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. We don't have a motion if we don't have a second motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We denied recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing's on the table right now, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine. Then I would make an effort to do so, if I may be allowed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go right, ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to the 2006 AUIR emergency medical services and facilities and equipment, would hope that the CCPC would recommend approval with the requirement that the -- well, let me put it this way, the requirement that the Productivity Committee's recommendations will be followed and an effort would be made to modify and determine the true sources of income, revenue, going forward to the BCC, and that the level of service -- if that cannot be accomplished, that the level of service be Page 93 November 30,2006 reduced to reach the goal. Is that a satisfactory motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a second and then we can discuss it. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For discussion. Mr. Adelstein seconded it. There's three things I think we need to consider. Number one is this still is a population based issue. So our concern and stipulation about having them recommending to the BCC to consider an alternative method of calculation other than population and to look at that in regards to this issue is equally as important. Number two, the Productivity Committee's recommendation in summary suggested that an adjustment to the level of service using involvement with the fire districts and their capacities be considered. And I think we should you support that. Number three, there ought to be a clarification as to the repayment and the use of the 7.3 general fund loan, because that is certainly an undefined amount of money right now in this budget that isn't clear on how it's going to be paid back, based on testimony today. I think if we were to send it forward with those three things as caveats, that does bring in the Productivity Committee's concerns, which I think are absolutely right on the mark. That's not an advertisement, by the way. And the clarification of the 7.3 issue is the issue that Ms. Vasey has also brought up and is well founded in regards -- it just isn't addressed property. And so Mr. Murray, if you would consider those three amendments to your -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The only one I thought I actually missed was the matter of the population as such. I thought by my statement about the Productivity Committee, I was referring to Page 94 November 30, 2006 Ms. Vasey's rather good monologue of the details that she saw. So if that's considered covered and by your statement, I will accept that as being the case and also add that we make the additional recommendation that the BCC review for the purpose of determining whether or not the current use of population as the basis is the most effective, with the intent that there may be a more effective basis to be obtained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I'm a hard -- sometimes a lot of words confuse me. I just want to make sure that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's my weakness. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My confusion or your words? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My words. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure that we're on the same page. And I understand now you have a population statistic issue. Your comments regarding the Productivity Committee's comments were more elaborated on ways to correct their concerns and issues. I'm not going there. I'm simply saying they have recommended in their statement a reduction in the level of service as a solution to the problem. And to get there, we should be considering the response times and the equipment availability from the fire departments. I think that's a good recommendation. That's as simply put as I thought it was. And that's where I wanted -- I would like -- think it should stay. And then the other issue of the clarification of $7.3 million is valid as well. Are you -- is that where you are going? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where I've been. See, I was totally taken by Ms. Vasey's statements, that's where I thought she was so complete that that's what I felt should we (sic) relate to. And I thought it was 1 7 million that we were really concerned overall with. Page 95 November 30, 2006 So if it satisfies to say that what you've just indicated, I completely agree with that. I was merely perhaps being too expansIve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As unclear as the record is, I think it's clear enough what we intend to do. Does the second accept those changes to whatever extent they are changes? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm trying to make sure what they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the intent's clear through all the discussion that we've had. Any other comments? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have a problem with reducing the level of service standards, because we're still trying to get to the response time that we need. By saying that, are we saying that we think that there's not that many units that are needed in order to reach that response time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Ms. Vasey's statement indicated, as I believe is a correct consideration, that the fire departments have large amounts of equipment, well equipped, with trained people that also respond to the same issues. And that where they can be utilized to help reduce the level of service, we certainly ought to be considering lowering the level of service for the county that is offset by the reliance upon the fire departments and their equipment they supply. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But what if when you factor in the fire departments, as he was saying, the difference is not great. And how are you -- what if you still don't get to your level of service when you factor in the fire departments? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that would be up to him to argue in front of the Board of County Commissioners. Because unless we want to continue this and get that methodology brought Page 96 November 30, 2006 back to us, which I'm not sure is as productive right now. Let's move it to the BCC with this recommendation. Any other questions or comments? Call for the vote. All those in favor -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I do have one question. We're talking about the document that was read to us today, that letter in the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're referring to the Productivity Committee's position that they related to us and that was read to us by Ms. Vasey. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That wasn't in the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, it wasn't. Okay. It's in there now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I referenced Ms. Vasey's -- I called it a monologue. I didn't know what else to call it. It was a very good -- MR. HARRISON: Dissertation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Treatise. Dissertation, treatise, very well done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we go too far a-field. We have a motion. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. Page 97 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Midney opposed. That will leave it six to two. Motion carries. We can move on to drainage. Thank you, Chief, we appreciate your time today. Gene, welcome back. You're getting to be a regular fixture around here. MR. CALVERT: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, appreciate being here. For the record, Gene Calvert. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the intent of where we left it yesterday was that you provided us with a lot of information, new information, new charts, new pictures new data for us to consider. It was better that we had an evening to consider. And I think we now-- we just go forward with any additional comments you might have and then questions we would have. MR. CAL VERT: Primarily just to answer questions that you may have regarding what we brought forth yesterday and talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions from the panel? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gene, I've read everything. I want to reiterate from yesterday, you have no millage increase you're asking for through this AUIR implementation. You're simply providing a list of work items in an order by which you're going to work on those, because the allocation from the ad valorem budget has already been fixed and set. Is that a fair statement? MR. CALVERT: That's a fair statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I could not debate whether you should be working on this way or that way, probably anymore than anyone else could outside your department. On question I had -- I have as a result of things I don't see on your revenue source, when you construct miles of canals, and especially now that you're talking about treatment lakes, those generate a fine fill. As Norm has told us so many times, fill is a big Page 98 November 30, 2006 factor in the cost of his roads. What is the utilization of that fill, is it moving to another department where you could show a revenue stream from it to help offset or help implement other programs in your department? MR. CALVERT: We're certainly looking at all those options. In a project that we're getting ready to bid here within the next month, we're offering two bid alternatives on the material. One is to haul into a county designated location within a certain radios of our job site on -- to be used on a county proj ect. The other alternative is for the contractor to dispose of the fill -- or the excavation material. This would give us an idea of what the value of that material is to the other departments within the county or if it's more cost effective to let the contractor dispose of it. So we're looking at both of those alternatives in this upcoming bid document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you schedule for the use offill, I mean, I know travel distance is always included in the excavation number to a point. Beyond that they usually have a surcharge. And also if you stockpile it and then have to reload it you have loader charges and hauling charges from that point. When that contractor is allowed to keep the fill, are you seeing -- is he providing you with a credit in the bid for the value that he sees from the fill that you can actually see, or is it something that he just -- you just have a lower number from his bid based on the fact he gets to keep the fill. MR. CALVERT: That's an option that he has the ability to provide. He can either give us credit on the charge of the material, or that he can bid it at a lower cost or a higher cost, depending on what he foresees as the most cost effective means for that construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I hope that at least if you know the value that he's providing the fill, the roads department then Page 99 November 30, 2006 know that they can buy fill at a certain value. MR. CALVERT: This will give us an opportunity to evaluate that. If there's a value in that fill material and other departments within the county desire to have that fill we'll have some firm numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. You raised a very good point, and yes the quality of dirt is no longer dirt cheap, there's no question about it. Most of the fill though that we're getting out of the maintenance of the canals is not very clean fill. And so we found some uses for it, but it's difficult on other uses and cost for clean up. But given the cost of fill, we're reevaluating all those issues again. Because even if I have to clean that fill, it may be viable. We've used some in some of our landscaping where we can. There's some other purposes we've used before, but it is not typically coming out as the type of clean fill that I'm going for and unfortunately paying very dearly for in projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Through soils management there always is the possibility of creating good fill out of bad fill. MR. FEDER: Exactly. And the costs have gotten to the point where that's becoming a real question. And we're looking at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The important thing was, and that is value needs to be ascribed to it. And it certainly has value. We shouldn't be giving it away or letting it just go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gene, one other questions I had is on the top under level of service standard. Existing department prior to January of '89 under current level. Is that the ten-year storm event that most of the existing development prior to '89 is under? MR. CALVERT: Yes. In the undeveloped area, particularly in Page 100 November 30, 2006 Golden Gate Estates, that is the ten-year, three-day event, storm event. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are any of your improvements through this drainage and canals and structures geared to improve the level of service in the prior to '89 areas? MR. CALVERT: We've got some projects, particularly up in the Immokalee area that is designed to meet the level of service that has been established. And that is our goal, is to try to meet those level of services or to exceed those levels of services in some of those areas. We've got some areas that don't meet the level of service of D, if you will, or C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in the level of services prior to '89 where you have a ten-year storm event, that is problematic when we have ten-year storm events that flood the areas, like they recently have in Golden Gate Estates. Augment -- to offset that and to give them a better, say a 25 year storm event, do you have facilities planned for those ten-year storm event areas that will improve then to a 25-year storm event standard? MR. CALVERT: No, we don't, because what our standard is, is defined by the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So everybody that's in a ten-year area is stuck with that? MR. CALVERT: Under the current Growth Management Plan, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's good to know, because the current Growth Management Plan then needs to be watched. Thank you, SIr. Are there any other questions for the drainage canals and structures? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to have to abstain Page 101 November 30, 2006 from this, because myself and I think three other commissioners on the dais today didn't get the information that you'll be voting on. So I would obviously have to abstain, and I don't think you'd have a quorum that should vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't know why -- I mean, so now you want people to abstain so we don't have a quorum to move this forward? I don't see how productive that is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If I'm going to vote on stuff I don't have, what am I doing? I'm guessing. Unless you want to provide it to me and give me time to check it out. What would you do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, we got this yesterday. And honestly, the only thing I've gone done is at breakfast this morning I circled two things that I was concerned about to request of staff. And the reason I'm not too concerned about it is they're already using an allocated source of ad valorem tax dollars. No matter what we do here today, they're still going to get that allocated source of tax dollars. So out of this document, all they're providing for us is a breakdown of the facilities that they want to plan and prepare with that money over the next five-year period. As I said to Gene at the beginning of the meeting, what he wants to do and where he wants to build matters not to me. He has the money to do it. He will put his priorities where they are deemed to be needed. I don't think we can micromanage it and involve ourselves in those priorities with the limited information and time that we have for this document. Therefore, I can't see how this document hinders anything by moving it forward with a recommendation of approval. It is not contingent on population. It is purely a work program is all it is. And he's the best one to decide what the work program is over this board at Page 102 November 30, 2006 this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My notes from the last meeting was that there was a concern over the fact that a new canal cost the same as cleaning a canal and stuff like that. Was that information provided yesterday as to why that is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happened is Norm came forward yesterday in a rare event, a staff member actually said that we're right, there may be a better way of doing it, not following the pattern of the past. And he came back with a whole new program. Norm, if you want to expound on that. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'll try to be fairly brief. And I appreciate that we do have some members that weren't here yesterday. Essentially we reviewed a number of things. But to that question specifically, we went back and looked at our program, and one of the things we acknowledged that is not fully in here, but we're moving towards it, is that a mile of canal versus a mile of canal is not one and the same thing when you start talking about both the issue of flow capacity for retention, for storage and for treatment. We looked back at our work program as an example Commissioner Schiffer, and what we saw was that we had a project that was shown as reconstruction because we're making improvements to an existing mile of canal in LASIP, as an example. We're going from a ten-foot at top, two-foot deep to a 40- foot wide at top, six-foot deep. So the cost for that construction, while noted as reconstruction, in the effect is basically the same cost as new construction. So that was why we had that issue. And we acknowledged that obviously at the end I now have a 40-by-six which has far greater both storage conveyance and treatment capabilities, but it still is only one mile of canal, the same one mile of canal typically in the way that was reported and the way it's been reported in the past. And so what we've done now is we've given you exactly how Page 103 November 30, 2006 many miles we're doing, how many under reconstruction, how many under new, and an idea of those items. We also went through and identified, as you'll see in the material -- and I'm sorry I didn't have before -- but in that material we passed out yesterday was structures. And we defined the structures down from anything from a fixed weir to a moveable weir, to pumps, and to spreader lakes and lakes. All of which even within the category have a wide range of costs and implications by size and magnitude, but nonetheless are very different. We made sure that we identified all structures out of inventory, which was another question. We've gone on GIS. We feel very comfortable with the miles, with the more specificity of the GIS analysis on all the structures we've identified on that map, although to get it to that size there is a couple that are on top of each other in those diamonds, but the numbers are there and shows you by the type of structure where they are. And then if you look at the last page we gave you is a new Attachment B, which shows you four of the items which we are permitted over the next five years, major projects, what we're going to do in the sense of how many new structures, how many lane miles of either new or reconstructed. And so rather than trying to put a unit cost per se, when the units are so different, what we've done is given you exactly what will come out of a very detailed work program, which even last year you had us put in what was designed, right-of-way construction phases, what the product is will be coming out of that to give you more definite. And then the real thing that came out of this discussion is we need a better unit of measure than canal miles. Because I'm only going to add two, but I'm going to reconstruct a number of them. And yet they will be the same canal mile. But they will go from one instance, and actually there is more extreme than this, but one from 10- foot wide, two feet deep to 40- foot wide and six feet deep. So Page 104 November 30, 2006 obviously we need to go to something like acre feet or something, and that's what we're trying to look at now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Norm. If anybody that wasn't here yesterday does not feel comfortable in voting for this, then but by all means then that's your prerogative not to vote for it. Although I think if we do not have a quorum, then we just move it forward with a non-vote, just as hand recommendation. But one way or another I think this needs to get moved forward. So with that, is there any comments from Productivity Committee? MS. VASEY: Yes. I'd like to draw your attention to Page 19, the new one. And we're going to -- I'm going to recommend to the productivity committee the approval of the program. However, it appears that the MSTU revenue for projects that benefit property owners will not be sufficient to support applicable capital projects. And you know, you can see at the bottom of the page there, the county policy is to have cost share ratios, one-third county, one-third grants and one-third MSTU s. Well, there were no MSTU collections that cost -- there were no collections for that in FY '04 through '06, as Gene reported yesterday. However, there is a line on Page 19 for MSTU and other identified revenue of$25.8 million. And that item is very questionable -- that funding source is very questionable to me, because of the fact that there have been no MSTU collections. And even though Norm said yesterday that without the MSTU cost share, they would go forward with a proj ect and only spend the county share and the grant share, if they got it, I think this really calls into question the BCC policy that property owners who benefit from these stormwater management proj ects should pay a cost share, because their property -- the value of that property increases when it no longer floods. So I think there's a problem with the policy. There may be a problem with the funding, but there is definitely a problem with theh Page 105 November 30,2006 policy that I would recommend be brought to the attention of the BCC, because I don't really believe this policy is being followed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the last EAR, there was some discussion of the formation of MSTU s to pay for drainage. There was __ I know there was some objection to that, at least I voiced some at the meeting. And it follows a little bit of what you're saying is that -- and I'm not sure I'm in agreement with you for that reason, that's why I wanted to mention. From a planning perspective, Collier County has been developed. And a lot of drainage systems in this county are paid for through ad valorem tax or other sources. And it seems that the remaining areas that need to be developed happen to be areas like Golden Gate Estates that have been here for a long time but have never benefited from the extent of the drainage provisions that other areas in the county have benefited from. I certainly am against the fact of using MSTUs in some areas and not using it countywide to pay for all the county drainage so -- because it unfairly burdens one section of the county's population, although it benefits from ad valorem taxes. I'm not sure where that's going to go. I'm not sure how it irons out. But MSTUs as a whole for drainage, I'm a little concerned about them unless all the drainage is either paid by MSTU s or not, where everybody is equally paying for it other rather than just some benefiting from ad valorem taxes. So I understand where your suggestions go as far as the revenue stream. Gene, do you have any counter to Ms. Vasey's concerns about whether that revenue stream is there or not? MR. CALVERT: It's certainly a valid concern. And that's one of the reasons we did include that note at the bottom of the page at the double asterisk about -- stating that the individual project funding will be expanded based on the receipt of funding or, conversely, reduced if the funding is not there. The policy is certainly a concern. Weare endeavoring to follow that policy. One of the recommendations you've kind of alluded to is Page 106 November 30, 2006 the management of that particular policy as well as the whole funding program. We did make a recommendation to the county manager about a month ago to do a management study or review in conjunction with the Big Cypress Basin of the stormwater systems. And in part of that management study, we would look at not only the operation of the canals, but also how we finance these things and how we maintain those systems. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My original -- when I read it originally, I had several quotations on it -- not quotations, but exclamation points optimistic with regard to that particular issue. And I hadn't spoke up earlier, but it had been bothering me a great deal with your response about that note below. It seems to me that if we can establish that the county has a responsibility to provide maintenance and services to avoid flooding, to then indicate that well, if they don't go ahead with it, we won't do much about it and we'll just let them flood doesn't ring -- you're probably not coming across the way I would have preferred in terms of that. And I don't mean to make it personal to you. But I'm sure that's not what you mean. And I recognize that you're struggling to look into the future and get people to go along and, you'll probably succeed. But I would hope not too dissimilarly in my mind is the issue here that relates as well to EMS in their optimism about where there'll obtain funding. So while I know you will have to do that, I would hope that you would take a different tack with regard to tell well, we'll only do a third. That means you'll have two-thirds flooding you haven't been entitled to. I'm sorry to make it seem personal, but I'm rather frustrated by that response. Page 107 November 30, 2006 MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I'm not sure I'll eliminate any of that frustration, but I'll try to elaborate a little bit further. When the policy was being looked at, essentially there's a feeling that there is as countywide benefit to improvements for drainage in any area around the county. There's also a feeling that there's some benefit that accrues more so, or more specifically to those properties that are being specifically addressed with some of these capital projects. There's also a feeling that we are paying into for the drainage through the Big Cypress Basin and the Water Management District, a separate set of ad valorem. And that's why the policy was set up one-third, one-third and one-third, as a way to bring that forward. The Catch-22 that I think is being raised here is that while it is true that we, under that policy direction, are going to go forward, and if I have the county funds, which is the only part that I can specifically commit two because of the .15 mills, we can do the one-third solution, which might make 50 percent of the improvements, spending one third of the dollars. You start downstream, of course, because you otherwise you don't do anything good, but you work your way up. That's the way we're doing LASIP. So far, Big Cypress Basin on these capital projects has come forward, not a full one-third yet, but we're assuming that's where they're going to be. So I might get to half or the two-thirds solution, which might provide 80 percent of the relief. The concern though, is, and the one that's being raised is how do we get the MSTU if I have to provide 80 percent of the relief to come in with one-third of the dollars to do the last of the job, the last of the work. One thing we're starting to look at is we're also having to pay, and I'll use LASIP as an example because it took us 20 years to get the Page 108 November 30,2006 permits and now people are surprised about a project we've talked about for over 20 years. But nonetheless, is we have right-of-way that we have to acquire, easements. We're feeling that those costs for right-of-way and easements could add on to the construction costs, as I look at the policy of one-third, one-third and one-third. And where those right-of-way easements are provided, they become an in-kind match to that one-third. Where they are not provided, then maybe an MSTU needs to be formed to pay for those people that insisted to be paid for those easements, even though they were getting a particular benefit. Although, yes, the county also countywide got a benefit. So that's the balance we're trying to -- I fully understand the concern. I understand from both sides of that equation very honestly that how do you figure out exactly how this gets funded? You could argue that it's a county service, just go and do it. But yet at the same time, a lot of these areas got developed, and new development is coming in. And when new development comes in, we require it to meet all the standards and provide for drainage. And they're paying, when someone comes in and buys in that area, for that full cost of it. And then I'm going back, some of the argument is well, that new development, because it's meeting standards, is building higher, and therefore helping flood some of these other areas, so therefore there's a responsibility for the county to come. And there's the other argument, they didn't pay for it. Why aren't they paying? That's why I believe the board settled on the idea of the one-third, one-third, one-third. And we're trying to implement it. The only thing I know for sure I can tell you is that I will not go beyond the one-third county portion, and I will seek to get the other two-thirds, because we want to do the 100 percent solutions and address these needs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Norman, if I may? Page 109 November 30, 2006 MR. FEDER: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate very much what you're saying. What rings in my mind was the comments made by Commissioner Coyle with regard to Rock Road. He went into a great length to explain to folks that this is not a compulsory matter, and that they can decline to benefit from it, and they don't have to go forward with an MSTU. So I'm not really sure -- MR. FEDER: Actually, that was on Haldeman Creek, because on Rock Road the citizens came together and are forming the MSTU voluntarily, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. But my point is taken, is it not, I mean, that's why I raised the issue, because of the confusion I have. Is it the board's policy to advocate, or -- he said clearly, we cannot compel. And I heard that we will require, that was the original statement, and perhaps a misuse of the word, that we would require them to enter into an MSTU, and we cannot do that. MR. FEDER: I don't think the terminology should be require. And I know right now the best answer I can give you, which like I said, I don't think will necessarily add to your comfort, is that we would provide the one-third level of solution that we could with the county funds. Ifwe get the one-third or more from grants, particularly Big Cypress Basin one-third, we'll provide the two-thirds solution. And if we don't have the MSTU come forward, we wouldn't be able to go to the 100 percent solution. But that two-thirds would have provided major relief in some areas. In these capital projects, you have secondary, tertiary mixed in. We would have done most of the secondary, so therefore the relief countywide would have substantially been addressed. So that is the feeling is that the last of the project work, which is a little bit more locally related, isn't done. That's the choice of the area if they do not follow through on an MSTU. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand the principal Page 110 November 30, 2006 is very good, and perhaps with the right approach that people will be induced to go into it. MR. FEDER: We don't feel that's a simple matter, so we understand the concerns being raised. But that's the concept and that's the way we're approaching it right now, and we're open to any recommendation on how we proceed even better on that. But yes, MSTU s are not something that people freely want to go into. But there is a localized benefit as well as there is a countywide benefit. We're trying to address all those things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS . VASEY: Yes, I would like to just mention that one of the things that I guess makes me so concerned about this is I was on the revenue commission when we worked on this issue, on how to take care of the flooding problem and how to find the money for it. And we recommended the establishment or the use of what had been established earlier and never used, which was the stormwater utility, and put the absolute money that was needed into the program, the .15 mills. The idea being that then you could qualify for grants because you had a guaranteed funding source every year. But it was always understood that the MSTUs would be created to participate in that, and now I really feel that the guaranteed funding source and the grants are totally denigrating the idea of MSTU funding, which I always thought was essential to the whole program. And I felt at the time that the commissioners felt that, too. That's why I think it's important to identify that there's something broken in the program right now. And, you know, and then throw it into their lap to deal with it. Because that really -- that was the whole deal, it was going to be a shared responsibility, because all of us are paying through not only the county taxes, but through the grant funds from South Florida Water Management. And those who are benefiting do have a responsibility to contribute something. That was the feeling on the whole revenue commission. Page 111 November 30, 2006 Somehow some of that's being lost, I feel. MR. FEDER: I'm sorry, excuse me. Yes, and Ms. Vasey, I agree with you fully. If we go through and do the two-thirds cost solution, which might be 80 percent of the needs, the 20 percent will be more localized of the remaining needs. And if they are not done by MSTU, they are generally more localized. But obviously we'd rather be doing the full program as we're trying to do in forming the utility issuing the .15 mills. The other thing we're trying to do as well as MSTU s is go through other grant sources, which may be another avenue for us. But again, a plan is one thing. So far we don't have MSTU money coming In. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, before you leave, if you do one-third the county money and one-third with the grant money, will there be people able to be benefited from the use of that money in regards to drainage. MR. FEDER: Yes, countywide what we do is emphasized, and that's what we're doing on, LASIP, the downstream outfall that services not only the LASIP basin but other areas. And we do some of the conveyance there, the more secondary features first and then some of the more tertiary features within the basin itself would probably be dependent upon whether or not the MSTU monies came forward to complete the hundred percent proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the two-thirds portion of the project, there would be a lot of homeowners then that would benefit from the ability to have that drainage in place. MR. FEDER: No question about it. And so would the county as well. But yes, they would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the one-third that isn't in place because the homeowners refused to be taxed for it separately, they don't get the benefit, while those other people who aren't getting taxed separately got the benefit. Is that where this is going? Page 112 November 30, 2006 MR. FEDER: Everybody benefits from the two-thirds. Obviously, folks right there may maybe a little bit more, but everybody does benefit through that. The more localized benefit would not be funded if the MSTU doesn't come forward. That's in general terms. Now obviously every project, we're going to figure out every drop and item on that. But generally yes, that is a correct statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern has been the fairness of the MSTU focused on a handful of people who are poor, remaining one-third who just didn't get the benefit of being further downstream. I just don't see the MSTU as a viable, fair alternative. MR. FEDER: In reality it would probably be the one's upstream to it, in some respect, because the downstream would be where you start all your projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions on this issue? Productivity Committee, your position is, says you've already stated. MS. VASEY: That's what I would propose to the Productivity Committee. And then that sub-committee is not here today. But as I recall, Sid Blum also had a problem with the MSTU. So we'd discuss it at the meeting and then have the whole committee vote on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation from the Planning Commission? Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, second by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion? Any discussion? (No response.) Page 113 November 30,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I want to note that I didn't abstain, because after having received the information and reviewing it, I'm comfortable voting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you for that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do think procedurally, though, and it's really staff, that if members aren't here and things are handed out, we should make an effort to get them to those members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of that might have been yesterday we didn't know who was going to be here today either, so that caused a little bit of problem. But thank you for participating. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: One final thing before you close the workshop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not closing it for a while yet, Mr. Bosi, but go ahead. MR. BOSI: Okay. The original charge coming into this year's AUIR process as evidenced by the book that was before you, you had a four to six month -- the board originally wanted direction on that four and six month utilization of the weighted population. Obviously with the population issues that have been well discussed and versed that that no longer is a relevant issue to make a recommendation upon. Page 114 November 30, 2006 I just thought that maybe the Planning Commission would like to at least have a motion or at least text to that to speak to that point to the Board of County Commissioners, that based upon the problems with the population and the likelihood that we are moving to a different population methodology in the recommendation, that even in the AUIR process to utilize potentially a different statistical analysis for the -- measuring levels of service within the AUIR, that that analysis of the four versus six no longer would hold value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that from the day we started, we basically ignored the six based on statements made by staff that the six may not even have been into fruition in front of us, and they responded differently to the BCC at the time the question was asked. So I didn't see the six as even a valid point. I'm sure that -- and I -- is that -- MR. HARRISON: We couldn't even look at the numbers to see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think formalizing that statement in a motion would be probably a good idea then to support staffs comments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray made a motion to support the four months scenarios in lieu of the six, based on the testimony provided by staff and others at these meetings. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 115 November 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, seven to zero, with one person missing at this time. (Mr. Kolflat was absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That clears that up, Mr. Bosi. Thank you for pointing it out. And I think now we're going to take a little bit of time, and for everybody's benefit I thought we would just finish and not take a lunch break and come back for the remaining amount of time. Ms. Vasey has gone through a lot of time and trouble to prepare some summary comments in a draft nature that she's going to present to the Productivity Committee. I thought it would be helpful if we could hear those, is she was willing to let us participate in those and at least weigh in on them so that we can maybe go forward with her statement. Ms. Vasey. (Mr. Ko1flat is back in the boardroom.) MS. VASEY: Thank you. I'm not going to bore you with any of the things you've already heard. We've already discussed a lot of the issues. But we did vote with you that first day to approve the road program. And I'm still recommending approval of that. But I did want to put some comments in here about what we discovered. And in our comments, that was one of the things that what we were trying to do is provide not only a recommendation of approval, but also give the BCC some additional information that we thought was important that Page 116 November 30, 2006 came out of the review. And so on the road program, I wanted to talk a little bit about the fact that the -- there's a lot of uncertainty in the program. And I know we all recognized it. But I wanted to be sure they did, too. The cost per lane mile for the last two awarded projects is double the unit cost that's actually in the AUIR. So this is going to come back to bite us in the future. I mean, we just have to recognize that the expenses are definitely understated. Also, the revenue, as Norm said several times, and also I think Don Scott mentioned it, too, the $180 million in revenue that's for developer contribution agreements and the advanced reimbursements, most of that is very uncertain at this time. So this funding, though, is to -- would pay for the fourth year of the program, which is good. Because that's -- we've pushed all of that uncertainty out to the fourth year. But I just wanted to be sure that the Board of County Commissioners understood that there is a lot of uncertainty built into this program. But I still think it's the best that they can do at this time, and there's nothing else they can do, because they're required to balance the program based on the projections of revenue and cost to meet concurrency. So they've got to do it. This is the best they can do. But it's a little scary. So that was the comment that I wanted to convey to not only the Productivity Committee, but to you guys and then also to the Board of County Commissioners. And then we've already covered the drainage and the parks and jail, EMS. We've talked about most of them. Weare -- I am recommending that we approve the Isle of Capri fire district program, as long as it can be funded within their current 1.5 million, just as you guys did. I wanted you to know that that's in there. Also the Ochopee one. I personally -- I don't believe it's feasible. But that's up to the Page 11 7 November 30, 2006 commissioners to look at. And I just provided them some comments about, you know, some of the information that we discovered in our review. But we are recommending if they can do it, fine. It looks like a real challenge. Also, we are going to include some recommendations -- well, not recommendations, but we have our own concerns about population. You guys have adequately addressed your concerns on the population numbers. We at our last meeting had quite a few discussions about the realistic -- how realistic they are in the context of the housing market, the affordabi1ity issues, and what we really think will happen with population growth. Regardless of what DCA says we should use, we really think these figures are very much overstated for what's going to happen. And I included that there -- Larry Baytos provided a paper at our last meeting, and I've basically just taken that paper and scaled it into this format to provide for the commissioners as our feelings on population. But, you know, with not only the current housing situation and affordability, which we've seen in school populations, you know, that people are not moving in with children because the people that have children can't afford to live here. These things are going to affect population. Plus the hurricane experience, we feel probably has scared off quite a few people for the next few years, until people forget. But I think that's going to hit, we all agree. So those are the comments that we're going to probably be at least talking about at the productivity meeting. I'm not sure what will actually come out of it, because the whole group is pretty independent. So I can't tell you what will come out of it. But those are the kinds of things that are coming up. And then each of the sub-committee members will bring up things. But as the vice chair and the one that has been here for the Page 118 _""_"_'~""'" ......' _. VI.V _._"'"".~"_...._"..,, November 30, 2006 whole set of meetings, I started the document and then there will be adjustments and changes to it, I'm confident. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly thank you for your comments. And from my perspective, at least, I think you -- I believe you're going along the same lines that I have expressed or felt too during the meeting. So I have no objection to at some point agreeing that we're in consensus with you on the concepts you made in your statement. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to ask Ms.Vasey whether or not she felt that the -- lacking a better term, constancy of the use of COs, the hotel rooms, the motel rooms and all the rest that's been stated here is a better baseline from which to start the process. Or have you evaluated another format that you think you might go with? MS. VASEY: Frankly, that is more your area than mine. I've understood your conversation, but that is not an area that I'm very knowledgeable on. And so I don't really have a strong opinion on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think what we were trying to do is let everybody know that there might be a better system out there. And 9.1.5 actually expects you to use the best statistics available. And that's all I'm simply suggesting to staff, is look at alternatives. And Bob, it may be housing units in one case, but it may be calls for service in another. And for one we know it's traffic counts, and another it's response time. So I would hope that the departments would each look at their best way of calculating how their facilities could be improved and look at that statistic and possibly look at a recommendation and do better. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That wasn't something that I appreciated earlier. I'm wondering, is there -- you said 9.J.5 requires that you go for the best methodology. So that means a mix is Page 119 November 30, 2006 permissible. And the question next is then whether it's desirable on behalf of the county, whether that presents problems and so forth. But I like the idea. I think everything should be looked at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we put the record strong enough on the population that it's not going to be missed. And I would bet that next year if we ever were to have the same statistics come forward, there's going to be a stronger justification for them, if that happens. So I think that's the intent of the population. I know you guys are heading down a similar path. Yes, sir, Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: I just have one additional comment. Janet's comments were more about the specifics of each AUIR. What I'm trying to put together for our committee is some comments on the effectiveness of the whole process. And that would get into issues such as correct numbers being presented on a timely basis. Also introducing some, rather than a mere arithmetic process, which I think it seems to be now, that staff introduce some evaluative comment regarding what's going on in the community. And for example, the issues regarding the EMS possible consolidation or mergers, you know, it was like it was -- didn't happen if you weren't reading the papers. If we didn't bring it up, it would not have been addressed here. Another issue we'll bring up is the issue of standards, standards of service, the references to standards proposed by the library association and by EMS associations, and those kind of service standards. The example I use, it's like asking the judges association how many judges there should be per hundred people. It's a natural upward bias based on our interest and our training and education. So we're going to suggest looking at some real world benchmarks such as pick a -- you know, a comparative group of ten counties or so, how many books do you have per thousand population. Page 120 November 30, 2006 What's really going on out there? We might find that we're, you know, not doing enough. But let's look at something other than broad generic standards for planning our capital expenditures. Those are some of the issues we'll try to address when our committee meets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Baytos, I think that also is along the lines of thinking of most of us. I can tell you, to meet some of the issues you brought up, you brought up this idea of looking at other counties for comparative. And actually, 9.1.5 has a statement in it that says in addition, the department shall make available upon request -- and by the way, the department being referred to is DCA-- beginning on December of '86, examples of methodologies for resident and seasonal population estimates and proj ections that are deemed by the department to be professionally acceptable. I think DCA's reaching out and saying you can do things. We even have standards which we've approved, come and look at them. Here are some better ideas, or possible additional ideas. And I heartily agree with you, that's what we ought to be doing, is comparative basis. There's a lot to be learned from the mistakes of others. So -- Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a couple of general notes I had. One thing is that kind of overwhelms me is that we use the county as the denominator in this thing. For example, libraries, how many books do we have, we divide it by the population of the county, when maybe they're in the wrong place. I mean there's -- I kind of think we should be able to get down to more of a micro, you know, populations and things like that, just to see where some of these things are. In other words, if the -- all the books are in one part of town, then everybody -- we're wasting transportation to get to the books. So in terms of parks and some of these other things, I wouldn't mind seeing some more micro data, rather than the county, as the Page 121 November 30, 2006 denominator, which is one. Another thing, too, which is -- and I know it shouldn't be in the AUIR, the county attorney doesn't have to teach me that anymore -- but in some of the other goals in the GMP, I wouldn't mind us looking at those. One is obviously the affordable housing. But remember when we did the EAR, we found out that the watershed plan was decades, seven years at least behind. So I'm sure if we looked at that every year and were reminded that we're not doing anything, I think we would deal with it better. So, I don't know what process, but it would be good to go through the GMP, find out whatever is a goal-oriented requirement and get a yearly inventory of that, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, if I'm not mistaken, when you have an issue that involves capital facilities, it becomes then a possible consideration of the AUIR; is that how it works? MR. BOSI: If any of the elements that are included within the CIE or any of the capital improvements programs that are put out through this and provided by the county, it becomes part of the AUIR. So yes, you're correct in that statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think in the last EAR review, Brad, I think you may have brought it up, that affordable housing ought to be considered as an element or an issue in the CIE. So that may be a way to get this all started. MR. BOSI: It may be. And I guess there will have to be discussions with the county attorney, because that is not a commodity that the -- that the county is specifically providing for the citizens. So there will definitely have -- where that sits -- and I think you made the point, because of that issue that maybe it could be a Category C, where it kinds of sits somewhat outside of required provisions but still something of vital of interest and necessity to monitor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I bring this up, remember, I preface this, but you don't have to tell me that it doesn't have to go Page 122 November 30,2006 to the AUIR. I'm not really just saying in the AUIR. I'm saying while we're doing the AUIR reminds me that there are other goals. So it can be in a separate pamphlet, it could have nothing to do with this process. But the scariest thing is when we looked at the EAR and there's the watershed thing due in 2000, and nobody touched it, nobody mentioned it, nobody knew it was laying in there undone. So that's what I'm trying to cure with something, whatever process it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think that from this panel, I didn't hear any objections to the positions that are being conceptually drafted by the Productivity Committee, so I think with that we can say that we would be joining you in your concerns, so that would help. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Were we making comments about the process for everybody, or it was mostly just productivity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything you want to -- this is going to wind up the AUIR, so if you have any comments relative to the AUIR -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: The main one that struck me as being -- and I wasn't here for all your stuff, so I didn't want to chime in too loud, but like the parks, we spend millions and millions of dollars on some things. We have greater resources, and yet at the same time, you hear the crying, the little leagues can't have a place. They don't have a soccer field and we're building a mega million dollar water park. And maybe that was the right thing to do. I don't know who sets those priorities of what is important. But I didn't hear any indication whatsoever is will we have a need for this, because we have 27 kids doing this, and these 15 people can't get here. There is no quantifying of why do we need what we need. It's just so generic and blah. How do you know? Page 123 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may have missed the handouts, but there was a revised set of tables in our very first meeting with the parks and rec department. We had asked for some additional information. They provided a new set of tables. In the tables they referenced a guideline for parks and recreation called SCORP, S-C-O-R-P. If you check that out on the Internet, you can download their book. It's three hundred pages, and actually in that book is apparently how these standards are set for the population statistics, the number of users, the acreage, the sizes, what you call each particular group of acreages, whether it's an urban park, community, park, neighborhood park. I would suggest that. Because that seems to be where our parks and recreation department is going, is they used that SCORP guideline, how they changed it and modified it. And today's question centered on why they thought those changes should be done, with the caveat that next year maybe they ought to look at how they did those changes and why they did them and why they weren't in line with SCORP. I don't think this year we could have done much with that based on the time frame. But I would -- you know, Russ, that book is -- I'd go on the Internet and download that PDF. It's three hundred pages, but it addresses everything. There's a lot of issues in there that are really interesting, and they might shed some light on better questions next year for the parks department, and hopefully we'll have those -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: I guess I'm hoping that they could bring that so we don't have to have -- they've answered those questions before we get together, otherwise we're going to be two years down the road before we can address it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: That actually was part of our recommendation that were taken in productivity was to take another look at those level of service standards. Because the dollars per person and the per capita Page 124 November 30,2006 and the acres per capita are just too big of a chunk to have any effect. So we were recommending to look at those level of service standards and try to come up with something more functional. And what I was thinking in that is maybe we need to look at the number of baseball diamonds and soccer fields and things like that as part -- you know, you can't go through the whole list of 20 items and have a level of service for each one. But that was the issue that we were trying to get at too was are you providing what you really want. Whereas if you get a big chunk of land like this transfer for the -- what is that, the A TV, that satisfies the acreage for I don't know how many years, but what does it give that the community really needs? So I was real unhappy with those level of service standards and was hoping that they could come up with something better by next year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it not true that under the Planning Commission, it's chartered that any member may raise an issue that can be placed upon the agenda if it's so deemed as applicable to our duty? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I don't know how to answer that question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm talking about if, let's say Commissioner Tuff had a concern for the issue of the plans for parks and recreation, could he not raise that and ask that it be put on the agenda as a matter for study? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a right as a planning commission to request additional studies. That's in the charter that we're authorized by. I think we did that today. So I don't know what more we would do by trying to request they put it on some agenda that is out of a time frame or sequence that's going to be done automatically anyway. Page 125 November 30, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay, that satisfies that. But both Commissioner -- this guy brought up the issue of how long it takes before we see it again on the AUIR -- no the EAR. And Commissioner Tuff also indicated that his concerns were. So I thought that I would point out, if it's valid, that if we do have a concern for a specific, we could give it a little bit more eyeball. That's all I'm really saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Ko1flat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: There is a public petition process before the commissioners. Any individual can request a public petition on this. That's five minutes to explain what they want and they decide whether they want to consider it on a future agenda or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that this is not at petition of a specific item, it's more of a level of service study. And I think after today's meeting, that's going to be done. But Mr. Murray, I don't think it's any harm that we ask periodically of staff where they are at with it. And if we find they're not working on it, then we could probably formalize that in the form of a regular demand for a study, which is one of the rights I believe we have to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My point exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let's just -- and Russell, since you brought it up, I would assume every couple of months if you want to ask, put in an inquiry ahead of time before the meeting to Mr. Schmitt so he could get the answer by the time of the meeting, give him the courtesy of an advanced notice, he could tell us if they're working on it. I'm sure with all that's been said, things are going to be worked on. I shouldn't say I'm sure, I hope that with all that's been said. Are there any other comments for the AUIR? (No response.) Page 126 November 30, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, is there a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER TUFF: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by numerous people. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Michael, thank you very much for your attendance. MR. BOSI: Thank you Productivity Committee and Planning Commission members. It know this is a long process. Hopefully we'll improve it based upon your suggestions. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:43 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman Page 127