Loading...
CCPC Minutes 05/21/2007 W May 21,2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE WORKSHOP OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY SUBCOMMITTEE Naples, Florida, May 21, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission and Collier County Productivity Subcommittee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in WORKSHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: PLANNING COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain Brad Schiffer Donna Reed Caron Lindy Adelstein Robert Murray Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti Tor Kolflat Paul Midney(absent) PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE: J anet Vasey Steve Harrison Larry Baytos Joe Swaja ALSO PRESENT: Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 May 21,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, we have a hot mic. Will you please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Good morning and welcome to the May 21 st meeting of the joint workshop between the Collier County Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee. The purpose of today's meeting is to review the methodology for the AUIR for 2007. This is an outcome oflast year's review of the 2006 AUIR. Between these two committees and the Board of County Commissioners staff was directed to go back and research alternatives to the methodology used in last year's and come back with a report prior to this year's. The meeting will be broken up into two segments. The morning segment will be limited to the overview, the library, the emergency medical services and discussion of governmental buildings. The afternoon segment, which won't start before one o'clock, will be for parks and facilities, county jail and law enforcement. We'll be taking a lunch no later than noon. Hopefully will have an hour at that time. The meetings -- this meeting will be recorded. Our lovely court reporter is sitting here with her back of her head to the camera for Katie's benefit. And we will try to hopefully speak very slowly enough so that an accurate recording can be taken. I think I'd ask that everyone please be recognized before we go into talking so that we're not talking over one another. And also staffs going to make these presentations on a segment-by-segment basis. And for efficiency I would like to see us let staff finish with their presentation and then ask the questions at the end of each grouping of each section of presentation. That way staff can stay focussed and then we can have our answers more concisely related at the end. And with that, Michael, did I miss anything? MR. BOSI: No, Chairman. I think we -- you've hit everything. Page 2 May 21, 2007 My name is Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning. I've provided a PowerPoint overview of the executive summary that I'll go through and then we'll -- as Commissioner Strain had indicated have questions towards the end. As indicated during the 2006 AUIR the BCC made recommendations pertaining to a number of service providing divisions and departments to analyze the current methodology of establishing level-of-service standards. And it was determined that these level-of-service standards were the most effective in determining need for each respective capital facility and service. Parks, jails, law enforcement, library buildings, library book stock, emergency medical services in government were the areas that the board directed staff to look at in terms of -- that they analyze. The BCC did not direct staff to include transportation, drainage, potable water, sewer treatment, solid waste and the dependent fire districts within the methodology analysis. There was four main components towards the direction that the BCC had provided. It was to look at the existing basis and justifications for the current level of service. It was -- it was those individual reviews from each division and department and the history that -- within those departments have determined level-of-service standards. And second was to identify alternative approaches to -- to the benchmark or the level of service other than the current methodology utilized. And it was more pertaining to a review of level of service used by other governmental entities and their respective capital improvement elements and the impact fee ordinances. A third was determine whether the alternative approaches that were identified can withstand the impact fee legal scrutiny. And that was going to be done with the assistance of the impact fee office and the outside legal counsel. And as you'll see throughout my presentation, that the establishment of impact fees and -- and the Page 3 May 21, 2007 assessment of impact fees has a very strong and a legal tie in to the purpose that -- of the AUIR in -- in what it served within this county. And the last was provide a detailed analysis and recommendations upon the level of service to be utilizing the 2007 AUIR. And before I go into the -- the specifics of the work that staff did, I'm going to provide another overview of the AUIR. And this relates back to the point I made about the collection of impact fees and that -- and its role. Because in understanding the role of the AUIR and what this county utilizes the AUIR for has a direct tie and a direct bearing upon the exercise that staff was undertaking. Section 6.02 of the LDC requires the county to -- and this, quote, provide the public facilities and services, meet or exceed the standards established in the CIE required by Section 1 -- 163.3177, and that's Florida statutes, and are available when needed for -- for development. It's commonly known as the concurrency requirement -- concurrency requirement. Accordingly, on March 21st, 1990, the board adopted the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. An ordinance was subsequently codified within 6.0202 of the Land Development Code. In 6.0202 of the LDC it establishes the monitoring and management program for public facilities through the AUIR which provides for an annual determination of the level-of-service standards concurrency for Category A facilities and identification of additional facility needs. Findings are in the AUIR for Category A facilities forms the basis for the CIE -- for the CIE in the Capital Improvement Elements that are contained within the CIE related to the Growth Management Plan. The Section 6.0202 states that specific -- specific purpose of the AUIR as a management and monitoring program that evaluates the condition of the public facilities to ensure they're being adequately planned for and funded to maintain the level of service for each public facility. For Category B facilities the AUIR serves the purpose of Page 4 May 21,2007 identifying and maintain a level of service for capital facilities deemed essential by the BCC, but not subject to concurrency under 163 of Florida statute. Meaning that for level of services that we adopt for the Category B facilities is a local discretion. It's not something that is maintained or is monitored on a state level for concurrency. So the levels that you establish at your local level are just that. They're local decisions upon the -- the appropriate level of service deemed by the Board of County Commissioners when they make decisions upon those matters. For the B -- for Category B facilities there are 1eve1s-of-service standards that are established within each of the impact fees. This is in addition to the level of service that's established within the AUIR. There's also a level of service that -- that is established within the impact fees. And a lot of times they can be different than what are adopted level-of-service standards are. The leve1-of-service standards identified in the impact fee studies are what -- the amount that we have in our inventory at the date that those impact fees were completed. And those levels-of-service standards establish a benchmark for where we -- we cannot fall below the -- those level-of-service standards identified in the Category B facilities because we're legally -- we are -- we are collecting fees from new users saying for -- for the provision of whatever respective Category B for the facility at the level that's been identified in that impact fee study. So we cannot -- we legally are bound to provide that type of services to the new residents. So the fees that we collect for impact fees, are -- are -- are obligated to provide those services. An example of the impact or the relationship to the impact fee studies on the Category B facilities is provided in 2005. Impact fees were adopted for law enforcement. And due to the establishment of these impact fees, law enforcement which prior to that date was included within the general government provisions for Category B facilities, but once we adopted an impact fee and when we started Page 5 May 21,2007 collecting an impact fee for law enforcement, we segmented the -- the law enforcement out of general government facilities because we wanted to maintain. We had -- we had to make sure. We had to make sure that the checks were in place to make sure that we were -- that we were going to provide level of service that was established within that -- within that law enforcement impact fee going forward. And also that the money that -- that we were collecting related to those impact fees were being -- were being utilized to provide for capital -- capital expansion for those individual services. This -- oh, I'm sorry. This next slide is a quote from the general government buildings impact fee study. Second, through the implementation of the county's Annual Update and Inventory Report and Capital Improvement Element, new development paying the impact fees recommended here will be guaranteed a benefit from new governmental facilities not shared by county residents not paying the fee. Because if the county does not increase the capacity of its governmental capital system that as new development occurs, then levels of service -- service actually will deteriorate for existing and future residents. And that kind of -- that -- that gives a direct -- a direct correlation between what we are doing with the collection of our impact fees and how that money is obligated to be spent. Also Section 6.0202 states that the AUIR is based upon the most recent University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic Research, BEBR or BEBR influenced water and sewer master plan, population projections, updated public facility inventories, updated unit cost and revenue projections and analysis of the most recent traffic or county traffic data. And per that -- per the Land Development Code, the direction is that the AUIR is -- is based upon population growth. And I saw that there was a handout that was circulated amongst the -- the committee and it kind of relates to -- to this next -- the next slide. The rational nexus -- nexus for utilizing population is that Page 6 May 21,2007 population growth within the county places the additional strain upon the service providers. And to maintain the level of service such as level of service established in impact fee studies, the facilities will have to expand to satisfy the demands of a larger population base. Within each of the impact fee studies for the Category B facilities, population is the constant for the studies. And this is based upon impact fees having to comply with the dual rational nexus test which has been adopted by the Florida courts. And the first prong of that dual rational nexus test is that impact fee studies must establish a reasonable connection or rational nexus between the need for capital-- the need for additional capital facilities and the growth in population generated by new development. And the second is that the government must show a rational nexus between the expenditure of those fees or those impact fees that were collected and -- and the benefits occurring to new development. F or all the impact fee study review for this report, population and population growth have established the first criteria of the dual rational nexus test by establishing a reasonable connection between the need for additional capital facilities and the -- and the growth in population generated by new development. The second criteria of the dual rational nexus test is when -- is met when the impact fees collected are provided to a direct benefit to the individuals paying the fees which is maintained through the AUIR process as additional capital facilities and service are provided commensurate with the population growth. Another quote from the governmental buildings impact fee study. In fact, the county's AUIR includes five capital system expansion projects that are planned specifically to meet the demands created by new development for additional government services. The AUIR stands as a checkbook for level of service adopted by the county and formalized through the collection of impact fees. Sure. Too fast? Okay. I -- I will provide you a copy of the Page 7 May 21,2007 slides as well. The AUIR stands as a checkbook for level of service adopted by the county, but it's formalized through the -- the collection of impact fees to -- to maintain the level of services established within those individual impact fees as new population creates new demand upon the service providers. Population. The issue of population projections and the methodology of how the county arise at these projections were an issue of critical concern not only for the 2006 AUIR, but also the EAR-based amendments. Based upon discussion with the ECA, based upon the EAR-based amendments, there's a methodology that's changing for a population compared to what you saw in the 2006 AUIR compared to what you'll see in the 2007 AUIR. The change is from a BEBR high range population projection to a BEBR medium range population projection. And we're transitioning from our -- our seasonal methodology to a -- to a peak season methodology. This methodology is going to be subject to an annual review to -- to make sure that we are -- that -- that we are doing the best job at -- at trying to identify the -- the appropriate growth rate that this county has experienced on a year-to-year basis. This next slide it might be tough to see because of the colors. It just shows you the -- it shows you the existing methodology and the proposed methodology. And the reason why we say proposed because DCA is still -- is still in receipt of our EAR-based amendments. And they haven't been formalized -- formalized or accepted. So it's still a pending proposed. But as you can see, the old and the new meets towards the end of that five-year conclusion. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. I wanted to clarify what Mike just said with respect to the population methodology. It's part of the EAR-based amendment process. And Mike just made a statement that -- that it's not been formalized. DCA has reviewed the population methodology with regard to going to a medium BEBR methodology with a 20 percent Page 8 May 21,2007 seasonal population. It has no objection to that methodology. It was not part of an objection from the -- your purported associated with the EAR-based amendments. And ifthere are no further objections, actually will go into effect later this week. Thank you. MR. BaSI: And the key component, we're switching from the BEBR high to the BEBR medium. The BEBR medium we used to apply a seasonal adjustment which was -- what was basically a 12 percent adjustment upon our permanent population. With a change to the medium -- the BEBR medium, the board has offered policy guidance to incorporate a peak season which is a 20 percent factor to adjust for the influx of population and subsequent influx of demands that the individual service providers will experience during our -- our -- our -- our peak season periods. As part of the AUIR level-of-service standard evaluation as directed by the BCC, staff was to identify possible alternative level of services other than the current method -- methodology utilized. In order to initiate the comparative analysis process, staff looked at Florida counties in which population and population growth -- growth rates were similar. These -- these counties include Sarasota, Charlotte, Manatee, Lee, Pasco and Marion. These weren't the only counties that were -- that were looked to, but they were the starting point for most of the -- the comparative efforts. Unfortunately, a majority of the research efforts from staff was unable to find articulated standards -- standards other -- other than population-based standards for establishing benchmarks for level-of-service standards. Individual counties such as Sarasota utilize a -- an approach that -- that used equivalent dwelling -- dwelling units within the attachments to the impact fee studies that I have provided. That gives a detailed description of how -- how they determine these -- those equivalent dwelling units. But when you look at it, when you look at the demand related to those equivalent dwelling units, the base Page 9 May 21,2007 is always stemming from an additional -- additional people and additional population. Information regarding individual impact fees in levels-of-services standards, they were readily available. But what I was able to determine that there's no other county in Florida that -- that publishes an annual update and inventory report that categorizes both A and B facilities in terms of providing for capital improvement and also for the adopted level-of-service standards. What has happened and during -- during the analysis, what I was able to identify the individual impact fee studies, and they had level of services established within those impact fees, and those are -- those impact fees had established a de facto level-of-service standard. It wasn't expressed. It wasn't expressed that this was the adopted level-of-service standard, but it was the level-of-service standard that -- that was identified at that time in that impact fee study and one that the county was required to maintain. An encouraging study that -- at the -- during the -- that analysis process of this exercise was a Florida Impact Review Task Force that was a joint effort between the state senate and legislator regarding the impact fees of Florida. The problem -- well, not the problem, but the revelation of that -- of that study and review of that study basically said that could it -- the vast differences amongst county, the task force voted not to make recommendations upon the individual methodology within impact fees. That it's a local decision and one that they would recommend that they'd leave -- that they leave to the local. So they offered no guidance with that. Also within that -- within that study I think based upon the environment that we find ourselves with potential tax cuts looming, that one -- on page 5 of their executive summary it -- it specifically articulates that -- that -- that the task force realizes that the ability of local governments to provide for the infrastructure needs that -- that population increases are -- are demanding upon them, do not have the Page 10 May 21,2007 financial resources available to them. And the specific recommendation of this joint -- of this joint task force from the Florida legislature was for the legislation to find new and alternative sources of funding for local governments to provide infrastructure and capital improvement programs to accommodate new growth. As part of the process we also ran the executive summary and the assumptions and the conclusions that we had arrived upon from not only our impact fee planning consultants, but also our outside counsel. And in the last couple slides were basically were input provided from the -- provided from -- from the planning consultant related to the question. With the outside planning consultant and legal counsel agree that population is the best measure of demand for capital improvement programming. If not, which capital facilities would better serve using a different means of establishing levels of review? And Tindale -- Tindale & Oliver & Associates response was-- Tindale & Oliver Associates agree that population is the best measure of demand for all service areas mentioned in this memorandum with the exception of transportation. Demand for transportation is better measured through trip characteristics and new development. And that is the manner in which we -- we -- we established level of service for our transportation. It's not based on population, but it's based upon actual trip counts and what's going on on the roads in the numbers that we're finding. A second question was provided to Greg Stewart from our outside legal counsel related to impact fees. And the AUIR would have to be based upon population to satisfy the demand side of the dual rational nexus test adopted by the Florida court system. If not, what other methods for a specific capital improvement facilities have withstood legal scrutiny in the Florida court system? If any, are these methods recommended? If so, provide the rationale for recommendation. And the outside counsel basically said the AUIR should be Page 11 May 21, 2007 applied in a manner that would be consistent with the demand standard utilizing the impact fees. This would maximize its effectiveness as a tool. And as I mentioned, within every impact fee studies that was -- that the county has adopted, we utilize -- we utilize a functional population, but then we always tie that functional population back to population. And -- and that is the basis for those impact fee studies. And, therefore, the -- the AUIR is in line with that same approach. The general conclusion of -- of the executive summary and of the research effort in the general sense was that population and population growth was the most appropriate factor to measure capital improvements and establish level of service contained within the AUIR. And with our new population methodology and the direction that -- to make sure on a year-to-year basis that we're reviewing that methodology and that the -- the projections are in line with what we are actually feeling on the ground, hopefully, that will give a comfort level not only to the productivity committee, to the planning commission, but also to the Board of County Commissioners that the numbers that -- that were coming out of the comprehensive planning department on a year-to-year basis will be as close to possible to the reality that we will be experienced. And with that I will open up the -- the floor to questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, thank you. I forgot a housekeeping chore before we got going here today. And for the record we ought to take an accountability of who's here. And with Mr. Kolflat if you could state your name and what committee you're on. And that way the court reporter can get it all accurate. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Tor Kolflat, the Planning Advisors, Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad Schiffer, Planning Commission. Page 12 May 21, 2007 COMMISSIONER TUFF: Russell Tuff, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob Vigliotti, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CARON: Donna Caron, Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark Strain, Planning Commission. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, Productivity Committee. MR. HARRISON: Steve Harrison, Productivity Committee. MR. BA YTOS: Larry Baytos, Productivity Committee. MR. SW AJA: Joe Swaja, Productivity Committee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Bob Murray, Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And with that, Mr. Bosi has finished his introduction to today's meeting. Are there any general questions in the nature related to his comments and discussion today from anybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have only one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I just -- I think it was the comprehensive planning department that provided a statistic about build-out would be 1,066,000. Is still-- is that number still relevant? Is that a good based number for us to be using? MR. BOSI: I -- I think it's an appropriate number within-- within the understanding of the context that it was a -- it was a -- it was a build-out effort that was based -- that was began in 2005 that was analyzing the straight conditions as they existed at that time. And it wasn't -- it wasn't an effort to try to quantify potential changes within the Growth Management Plan in subsequent Land Development Code. But it was -- it was an effort that in 2005 that the Comprehensive Planning Department stands behind as -- as having -- still having meaning to -- to the exercise. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in the absence of changes, Page 13 May 21,2007 that number would still be valid; is that right? MR. BaSI: I think -- I think if we undertook the exercise again in the same manner, we would -- we would be relatively close to the -- to the same projection. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I just raise that because I noted that in some instances it's 1,100,000. While the 34,000 is not a big number, it's still a number of significance. Thank you. MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray, I think let me go ahead and I'd like to add something for the record. The same question came up last week in Lee County with respect to their comprehensive plan and their build-out study. Their build-out study currently called for I think it was, like, $1.4 million -- excuse me -- 1.4 million people. But the point that was made by their -- by their Planning Commission also by their Board of County Commissioners with the type of rezonings that they were doing and the comp plan amendments that they were doing, that they were going to obviously exceed that number and it was going to greatly increase. So what -- what transpires in the context of things is we need to periodically redo the build-out study, take into consideration not only land use changes that occur, but also the rate of growth and -- and building that's occurring at what density. So the recommendation from -- from our department would be to -- to always monitor, periodically update the build-out study. Because that number at that point in time was relative, but it's going to change and fluctuate. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Cohen. I wasn't challenging anything. I was just trying to understand if we were all on the same page so to speak. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Mike, we all appreciate the BEBR projection Page 14 May 21,2007 is currently the 4.4 percent. Do you have any idea how many residential units are now in the county? MR. BaSI: Off the top of my head, I do not know the exact number of individual residential units within the county. No, I'm sorry . MR. HARRISON: Do we have any projection as to how many permits are going to be issued this year? MR. BaSI: I would say -- I would say that we do have projections. I don't have those projections available to me. MR. HARRISON: Anecdotally I would suggest they're probably quite a bit less than the BEBR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think so after this year. MR. SCHMITT: Hi. Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development Environmental Services Division. Sir, I -- first of all, we need to distinguish what you're talking about as far as permits. There's permits for all sorts of activities. What you were really referring to I would -- just to clarify would be new starts or permits for new units that -- MR. HARRISON: Residential. MR. SCHMITT: -- new residential units. Historically, and I can pull up the charts and I'll post it if you want to see it, but we've been doing between five and six thousand a year for the last five or six years in Collier County. Last year was, if! recall, somewhere around 5,200 units. Right now the way we're going in Collier County I would expect no more than twenty-two to twenty-five hundred new units this year if it even will be that many. That's how much of a downturn there has been. And that's new starts. So that at least gives you a ballpark. And that's for building permits for building new residential units, single family, multi-family or condominium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Joe. Any other questions in the overview part? Page 15 May 21,2007 Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Yes. When -- when will we be getting the new numbers from -- for the BEBR population? And hopefully it will recognize the kinds of things that Joe is talking about that occurred this year. Because I would assume these numbers are based on last year -- last year's levels. MR. COHEN: And then, Ms. Vasey, we have received the April 1 projections from BEBR. At this point right in time, Mr. Weeks is actually doing the analysis, assigning them with respect to the traffic analysis zones for the purpose of providing the updated population figures for the county. We anticipate they'll probably be done sometime in June. MS. VASEY: Any indication that they're coming down substantially from the past? MR. COHEN: Yes, ma'am. If! recall correctly, for the past year the number for the past year was -- because I think we had an original estimate of around 8,000. I think the number came down to around six -- six thousand something. So the original estimate was down rated based on what our building permit information, CO and documentation was. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions in the overview? Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: Mark, I have -- not Mark. Mike, I have one question of clarification. In several of the individual AUIR write-ups, there are indications that the impact fees will not cover the projected building plans that are being set forth. So that to meet those plans, you would have to come forth with some money from general -- general revenues, borrowing, whatever. Is there anything in the various legislation or rules that requires the county to do that where if, you know, the concept is go growth pay -- pays for growth, could you wait until, in fact, enough impact fees have been accumulated before Page 16 May 21, 2007 you begin moving dirt and putting up masonry? MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. Let me answer -- answer a general question before I -- before I turn this over to our impact fee manager. First of all, the Category A facilities are the only ones that are statutorily covered under Chapter 163.3180 which deals with concurrency. The Category B facilities which pertain to impact fees are decisions that have been made at a local level. With respect to the intricacies of the impact fees, the methodologies and how that money must be spent, I'll go ahead and I'll defer to Amy Patterson on that on how those funds must be used in impact capacity. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. For the record my name's Amy Patterson. I'm the Impact Fee Manager for Collier County. Addressing how the money has to be spent, we do have six years to spend the money from the date of collection. So there's nothing that bars us from collecting money over time, accumulating a pot of money and then putting that towards a project. We have not necessarily done that. The money has been spent on debt service and things as projects have been bonded to pay -- to keep pace with the growth, but that's more of a policy decision of management and of the Board of County Commissioners on how they want to advance particular projects for the Category Bs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, one thing on growth. Growth occurs a couple ways. One is obviously a units built and impact fees paid and people move in. Another method is obviously through birth and stuff like that. Is there a way to isolate that? In other words, when we look at future populations, we're assuming that growth is going to pay for growth, but some of it's not. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean I think we -- when we look at the -- on the year-to-year exercise, and I don't think we segment it out, but I Page 17 May 21, 2007 think it can recognized that the number of COs -- COs issued compared in the -- in the population that we are projecting. And I think that you kind of can find that number by looking backwards by looking at what was the difference between the COs that -- that were -- the COs that were issued, the actual growth in population are -- are a number of -- are a number of individuals per household. But still it's only going to be -- it's going to be an estimation because you never have a definitive number knowing that there's 2.8 individuals within every household that -- that moves into the -- that moves into the county. So trying to -- trying to segment out the in migration and -- and -- and natural birth as part of the population is a little bit more difficult. And I may defer to Randy. He may have a little bit more in terms of the population methodology that David utilizes. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. One of the things that the BEBR bulletin talks about with regard to population is actually looking at birth rates, death rates as well as the reliance on the latest census. One of the problems that we run into in -- in -- in this county as well as other counties is the inability to -- to sometimes factor in with a large migratory population the exact number of people that we have in terms of when we -- when we deal with the transient population. They do the best that they -- they can. To be -- to be very frank in terms of actually getting an actual count, until we get the actual count from the next census, we're pretty much relying on that 2000-based census which in reality probably does not approximate what's transpiring with respect to the -- your question right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And -- and the reason I ask is does the checkbook concept make sense, but we're assuming that all new monies is going to come from impact fees; is that right? MR. BOSI: Well, I think it's pretty much understood that impact fees will never pay for the entire cost of -- of capital improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But would there be a way to Page 18 May 21,2007 isolate when we get the AUIR, not on this stuff, the -- you know, how much money or what the population is that's based on new growth, new residents versus now the old population expanding? Which also could be one person living in a house, sells it to a family of four. The population is going to grow from other than new units. MR. BOSI: I would -- I would have a hard time trying to identify how we could segment that -- we'd have -- segment what percentage of the growth is allocated to the -- to the natural birth process to the in-migration process. I'm not sure if we -- we would be able to segment out that -- that specific -- identify that type of specific population growth. I just -- I don't think you'd be able to do that. (Commissioner Adelstein arrives at meeting.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Enough of that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, you used the number maybe just off the top of your head, 2.8 population. I had understood, and perhaps erroneously, that the base was 2.4. Does the county have a specific number that it relies upon as a base for everything that it projects? MR. COHEN: Yeah. Mr. Murray, for the record the -- the 2000 census says 2.39 persons per household. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two point four roughly; right? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because I've heard 2.6. I've seen the different numbers thrown about. And it would be good for us all to have a certain constant so that we're all again on the same page. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I looked around. I notice that my book is as thick as everybody else's. I at first thought I didn't have Page 19 May 21,2007 everything. I thought this was a study to find out alternatives. And those alternative studies I didn't find in my book. MR. BOSI: Because I didn't find them in my research, Commissioner. There is relatively -- Category B facility information because it's not statutorily required, that information on a local level is relatively hard to obtain. Like, what I said, what we were able to find were individual impact fee studies. The individual impact fee studies provided a portion of our analysis, but it didn't -- it didn't provide all of the -- the analysis that we were hoping to do. As one of my slides said, we were disappointed that we weren't able to provide more alternatives out there in terms of different ways to base level of service other than population. Because the information that I was able to find related to every -- the counties I looked at all went back to population. I understand why. New population growth demands new services upon -- upon individual infrastructure, the providers. And utilizing that, utilizing population growth is a straightforward understandable methodology for -- for basing capital improvement programs. I wasn't able to -- I wasn't able to personally within -- within my research efforts, I wasn't able to find alternative methods that were out there that I could provide to you in great detail. So, therefore, you're right. This -- this effort did not -- did not provide the comprehensive analysis that -- that we were hoping for. But I think the conclusion that we -- that we -- that we arrived upon was a very -- and is a valid conclusion that population growth and utilization of population and time population to our levels-of-service standards is an -- is appropriate. And more importantly is a legally defensible method -- methodology for establishing level-of-service standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your reaction to looking for an alternative was to study other counties? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you ever put any thought into distant space alternatives, in terms based on response time, building Page 20 May 21,2007 permit, quantities, sales, real estate through the tax assessor's office, COs? And then inclusions into tax rolls, increases -- changes like that in the system that could be looked at? I didn't think when this board recommended that we look at alternatives it was to be limited to what was on the internet in regard to what was in the public records regards to other counties. In fact, being a progressive county that we are, I thought the last thing we want to do is look at other counties for a sole source for alternatives. An out-of-the-box idea would have produced other areas that we could have looked at. I was expecting to see statistical analysis that's been done based on other types of measurement. And why are those -- why would those or why would those not work, not just one that comes back to us and says population is the answer because nobody else is using anything different. MR. BOSI: Well, I think we kind of did that, Commissioner, in the sense that it pointed out within the report that, you know, the population isn't the sole basis for each of these individual departments and divisions for the capital improvement program. We look to individual master plans that looked into the operational functions, that look into in depth the methodology that we utilized for population, that looks at -- tries to utilize a functional population that tries to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, can you slow down just a little bit. I know she's -- MR. BOSI: Oh, I'm sorry. That tries -- the individual master plans is where the in-depth analysis and -- and the space standards and all the components that go into capital improvement programs and the needs for the individual departments is provided for in a much greater manner than just simply say that we have 5,000 new -- new -- new residents. Let's put this building out there. I think it goes in -- I think we do a detailed analysis of our capital improvement programs. It's just on the AUIR process it's in the background within the individual master plans. Page 21 May 21, 2007 And as you can see within EMS, it's one of the suggestions within that component. Because we recognize the need for that type of master planning effort. And then what we're -- what we're -- with the dialogue with individual consulting who's going to provide that is we -- we always want that -- that in-depth analysis tied back to population so we can utilize it for -- for the purposes for the AUIR. But also within the EMS we may change from a population base to a response-time base if that's the recommendation that's going to come out of the individual master planning effort. But I think in the report, maybe I didn't stress it enough within -- within the text of the report, that the master plans within -- within the county provide for that comprehensive analysis that may be I -- that as I understand now that you were looking for within this individual report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was mostly going by what the Board of County Commissioners seemed to be looking for when they provided direction. One of which was what are the alternatives that are available and what is the basis for those. And then you were supposed to actually be bringing back to the Board of County Commissioners all those alternatives and those recommendations that come forward from that analysis. Which I'm now wondering basically where you're going forward with the alternative that was started basically is population and that's it. And there's been no studies done on calls for service and how they would react to a level of service. I mean, I understand you just said that that could have been used, but did anybody analyze calls for service, say, from EMS? Put it into table format. Look at its growth over the last number of years and see how that corresponds to population growth to see if population was accurately depicting the growth of EMS. MR. BOSI: Right. And Jeff will be able to get into whether that is done right now. But that's one of the exercises we're going -- we're going to ask the consulting with the master plan effort to -- to look at Page 22 May 21,2007 in terms of with a recommendation for level-of-service standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Mike, that's what I thought we were here to see today. I mean, if you're going to do that, that's great. Then why are we here today if that's not been yet done? MR. BOSI: We're here to satisfy the -- the direction of the Board of County Commissioners. Unfortunately, the -- the information that I was able to obtain from various other counties stated in that -- the utilization of population is an appropriate and -- and legally defensible method for establishing the level-of-service standards. And I apologize. My approach to -- to this -- to this question sounds like it was fundamentally different than what your suggested approach should -- should have been. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Cohen at the Board of County Commissioners meeting said that he gave examples of different types of services that could be -- the levels-of-service studies that could be done. He said one would be population based. One could be distance based. One could be based on response time. And from his past experience, all three of those have withstood some type of legal scrutiny. Now, I may be naive, but when someone presents something like that saying there are alternatives that could be considered, that's the kind of studies I thought I'd see here today looking for in the documents that were provided. MR. BOSI: In the 2000 law enforcement portion you've got a Henderson & Young study where they actually utilized call for services as the basis for the impact fee study. That impact fee study was never adopted because it was recognized that there was holes within the information and, therefore, it could not be legally defensible. Whenever you use operational characteristics within your level-of-service standards and you're benchmarking, if there is any opportunity for -- for -- for a portion of that information not to be Page 23 May 21,2007 provided or if there could be potentially flaws or -- or inaccuracies within that information, therefore, you cannot -- you can't utilize it. You have to be -- have 100 confidence that all of the information that you're providing for within that level-of-service standard it -- it's provided for. And within that study that calls-for-services standard was -- was not found. At the advice of outside legal counsel, not to -- not to adopt that individual impact fee study. Now, I think if we can improve the information gathering and-- and the record keeping aspect of it, maybe we can go in that direction. But in terms of -- but in terms of was that the type of -- of analysis that -- that was provided for within this report, unfortunately, that wasn't -- that wasn't one of the areas that when we approached this -- this endeavor, that -- that -- that was my mind set or that was my understanding of the task that was assigned to us as a staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mike, I understand where you're coming from. I appreciate it. And there's no sense me belaboring -- belaboring the point. I think you know where I'm coming from. This is not what I expected, but we'll go on and try to get through the day. With that I think there's no -- any other questions in the overall scope of things. Because if not, then I think the next item on the agenda is the library section of this report. MR. SW AlA: I have -- I just have one, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, sir. Go ahead. MR. SW AlA: Could -- could we have -- does anyone -- does anyone have a record of our past forecast for population versus what the actuals were? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, did you hear the question? MR. BOSI: I do and I'll make some copies while library's presenting. And I will circulate those -- those handouts around. MR. SW AlA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. TOWNSEND: Good morning. I'm Amanda Townsend with Page 24 May 21,2007 the Public Services Division. We're looking at library level-of-service standards. As I'm sure you know, libraries are a Category B facility. The current adopted level-of-service standards for libraries are 33 -- I'm sorry -- 0.33 square feet per capita and 1.75 books per capita. Using the four-pronged approach, as the BCC directed, we looked at what our current standards are, what alternatives may be used out there. We looked at those against the impact fee studies and then made some recommendations. Looking at square footage first, again, in all the comparisons we did against both other counties and other state standards, we did consistently run up against population as the -- the determination for level-of-service standards. Here you'll see Collier County as -- as -- as opposed to other counties. And also what you'll see there in the chart as FSS is the Florida State Standards for libraries as far as square footage per capita goes. At this point we are recommending the use of population for determining level of -- level-of-service standards and also recommending the maintenance of that 0.33 square feet per capita. We also looked at the books per capita standard which is currently 1.75. And at the advice of these committees, we took a look at what -- what other standards are out there. And our finding consistently that books per capita is being abandoned in favor -- in favor of all items per capita. The Florida State Standards are moving towards that as are many other counties in Florida. Currently the Collier County public library system standard that's or, excuse me, service -- level of service that is out there is 1.87 items per capita items in all formats. And we are recommending moving to that as a new standard. With that I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray. Page 25 May 21,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Amanda, I noted that there's a 0.12 percent increment on the 1.75. Let's just play with the number for a moment. If a book is $20 on average, is that 0.12 percent is presumed to -- presumed to take up all of the other media as -- as a cost? Let's see in can make this clear. We're -- we're abandoning -- quote, unquote, abandoning books so we're going to go into the other media more heavily. Then the next question becomes, okay, what is the number that's associated with that? From this report it appears it is decimal 12 as an increment. I don't know what that represents in dollars, but if you could explain to us or know, if you know, what the book cost is set at and whether or not the media -- what that really represents in real dollars, the increment. MS. TOWNSEND: I can. We are currently using $25 per volume -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Twenty-five. MS. TOWNSEND: -- for books per capita. That has been able to remain static over -- over several years now in part because we are not having to buy as many expensive reference books. This is because those kinds of materials are often available through data bases and on-line. I think the addition to -- or the change to all formats rather than books with that influence of moving to data basis and that giving some alleviation on the price of reference materials we can remain static at $25 per volume no matter what the need. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's a good baseline for me to work from and for you to work from in this question. The other types of media, which I guess are DVDs and things of that nature, if the price per book is going downward, did you say that we're going to continue as a static number with 25 and just use it as a -- as a base as it exists today, that whatever statistic it falls in in terms of total dollars? MS. TOWNSEND: I -- I believe I'm understanding your question. And that is in moving forward will we be continuing to use Page 26 May 21,2007 $25 per volume or per -- per material item and the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And that represents an overall cost for the libraries, but you won't be buying as many books is what I understood you to say? MS. MATTHES: This is Marilyn Matthes. I'm the Library Director and I'd appreciate answering that question. What we purchase in the future won't make any difference on your decision or the board's decision. We buy materials based on consumer needs, customer needs. So if we still need the books, we're still going to buy that quantity of books for customer demand. What we're doing here is combining all formats into this plan and not changing the levels of service for books or A V materials. We're just talking about them all together instead of separately. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Marilyn, the number 1.75 did it not include all of the other media? MS. MATTHES: No, it did not. It included audio books and print books. It did not include music CDs, DVDs, video cassettes, those kinds of items. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marilyn, I appreciate moving off the books per capita kind of thing, but can't we break that down? Can't we study, you know, how many computer terminals per capita, how many, you know, lecture hall seats per capita, how many meeting rooms? I mean, why can't we be better than now we're going to lump it into what we're going to call it an item per capita? I mean, you know, as a denominator I think that's -- you know, why can't we be more specific and -- and, therefore, we could plan and different parts of the county could plan differently? MS. MATTHES: I'm not sure. Certainly in planning for a library we take into -- those things into consideration, whether we're going to have small group meeting rooms and the amount of square Page 27 May 21,2007 footage required for that kind of service, whether we're going to have a -- whether we have a need for a large meeting hall for large gatherings. I think times are changing. And I think this is a difficult process to make changes in the structure to the AUIR and -- and to the impact fee collection. And we have the advice of not only the Board of County Commissioners, we have the advice of the Library Advisory Board. And we have customers who are not -- are not afraid to make advice on a regular basis and we try to listen to that advice. And it's -- certainly is more flexible for the library system not to specify a particular number of chairs or whatever. There are documents that do that for libraries that recommend. I think it's difficult enough to get a standard for libraries for books or volumes per capita and square footage per capita. There aren't too many benchmarks out there widely accepted on how many separate things you need. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think that of all the departments that's going to be changing constantly in the future, I mean, technology is pointing right at you. So I would really think it would nice if you had some other denominator other than item so you could adjust that. Because, you know, I mean we could sit here and, you know, prophesize about what's going to happen to your department. But the point is now we're a lump of square footage and an item and -- MS. MATTHES: Libraries -- some of the libraries we found in the research were actually setting up standards for number of public-use computers per capita. There are several basic requirements of a public library to receive state library funds and one are hours. They're open so many hours to the public. Two, they have so many volumes per capita. They provide certain services like reference services, children's services, those kinds of things. There isn't -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me interrupt you. Those are exactly the kind of things that I'm talking about. Wouldn't it be great Page 28 May 21,2007 if we were looking at that rather than items. But, anyway, enough said. MS. TOWNSEND: And -- and just to address that question briefly. All those statistics are available and there are -- there is benchmarking and there are standards. And -- and we look at them all the time; circulation, door counts, computer terminals per capita, that sort of thing. However, I think for the AUIR purposes, we're looking -- we're trying to look at a standard -- standard -- standard or standards that have the most flexibility for us. MR. SW AJA: Since you have those items -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Vigliotti had indicated he had a question next if you don't mind. Mr. Vigliotti and then Mr. Swaja. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: When you build a new library, it's built with certain standards of capacity either by people, door count, as you said, or usage or rentals. Do you keep records of not only the new ones of your existing libraries, but what percentage of capacity you're at? In other words, is a library built to hold so many people, what's the expected usage? What is your capacity versus your usage? MS. TOWNSEND: We do keep record of door counts. However, I don't think that there is any way to ever calculate those door counts at any -- with anyone given moment against capacity and come up with something rational. When we build a library, we build square footage based on population in accordance with the standards we've adopted per -- per the -- in fact the studies of the AUIR. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. So it's basically whatever money you have you spend based upon money collected versus efficiency? In other words, are your facilities being used to efficiency or not? Do we keep any records on -- of that? MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator. Just to give you a little example of what we've done with the South Page 29 May 21,2007 Regional Library when we brought that on. We actually projected what the service area of that library would be and the number of population that we feel will be in that service area at build-out which is about 90,000 people, I believe. And we then took that square footage and came into the 30,000-square foot facility. So we've looked at it, you know, in those regards, but -- but not as specifically as you're asking. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, my question is if the existing libraries you had now, if the population doubled in those areas where you have the existing libraries, could they handle the additional people? MS. MATTHES: Yes. Yes. We have specific locations, specific populations that visit specific libraries primarily, but we are -- also have a mobile population that goes -- that goes to a variety of libraries. Our downtown library is an example. It used to be the headquarters library. And it was the repository of -- of last copy so that we had a copy somewhere of something. In -- in it's -- in that capacity that collection has grown to about 150,000 items in a 36,000-square foot building which is probably higher than anticipated originally for that building. I don't have that specific number. But we keep adding shelves or adding capacity to those shelves or crowding the shelves. And certainly it would be nicer for the public if we could spread out those books within the building, but we still do have the capacity to hold that kind of collection, that size of collection and make it available. And libraries have typically done that throughout history. Building a new building is -- is a big deal for us. So we have been very creative in how we shelve things and how we store materials. And we're getting a little bit of help in some of the technology. Certainly DVDs store easier than video cassettes. That's currently where that technology is headed. And it's headed beyond that too and we're not -- you know, perhaps the next media down the Page 30 May 21,2007 line will provide some storage options for us too. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What I'm trying to get at is how efficient are you versus capacity versus uses, but that's okay. We don't keep those kinds of records I presume; right? MS. MATTHES: We keep door counts, number of people going into a facility. We keep a lot of statistics, number of people asking questions, number of circulations per employee. And that's something that we compare very favorably for the rest of the state. We're usually higher in our circulations per employee than many of the other libraries throughout the state. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Swaja. MR. SW AJA: I was just going to ask in response to Mr. Schiffer there was a number of items listed that they're already collected. Could those be shared with the board here? MS. MATTHES: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of library? Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Some of these items seem very similar to the kinds -- to the direction that public services is going for the parks and recreation where now you're looking at racket ball courts and numbers of baseball fields and things like that. Would it be possible to keep this kind of information, then, as a nonregulatory level-of-service guideline that -- that could be made available during the AUIR and probably during the budgets for -- for justification purposes? MS. MATTHES: Certainly. MS. VASEY: Would that help? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, and this just may be in general with all these topics, but one thing is we're treating this whole thing as countywide. I mean, isn't there any way to really start doing level of service based on different parts of the county or do we have to keep it countywide? I mean, because especially something like Page 31 May 21,2007 library. I think that as you would go in different areas of the county, different things would be featured, different things should be emphasized. MS. MATTHES: That's certainly true. For example, our children's program at the Naples Regional Library on Central Avenue are -- are much smaller than the children's program services from the Orange Blossom Library because we have more kids in the area and more kids attending programs. So certainly we have a higher level of staff at the Orange Blossom Library than we do at the Naples. And we have the -- the attendance programs, the number of programs, the attendance to show that result. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, you're looking at is that they're requesting actually an increase. We can call it items or books, but it's an increase. Is that something we decide before we move on? MS. MATTHES: It's not an increase. The current level of service for all library materials is 1.87. The level of service for books alone is 1. 75. We're requesting that we include all materials, all volumes in that level of service. So there are other items that get included in that other than just books. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, last time we discussed that a book meant everything. MS. MATTHES: No. A book meant print book and audio book only. We're adding now the video component and also music -- musical CDs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there's nothing here to give us that handle. I mean -- MS. MATTHES: We can explain it better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we're here today -- at least I thought, again, we were here today is to get those explanations and it might lead into my question. What alternatives to population did you look at? Page 32 May 21,2007 MS. MATTHES: Most everybody uses population. There are some elements that aren't as specific or aren't as counted as well. You might think about circulation per capita. And there's -- there's a lot of variables when you talk about circulation per capita. For example, Sanibel Island has almost 19 items in their circulation per capita. And one of the big differences is that they circulate all items for two weeks. We have a three-week circulation period. And that's something that's really not standard throughout the country. So it's a difficult thing to compare. Website hits, people talk about usage of libraries from -- from remote sites. There's still really no -- no standard or people aren't reporting those websites in a standard manner. For example, if we have all of our 140 public-use computers setup so they start at our website, does that give us an unfair advantage to count those numerous times a day as people go back to the home page from within our libraries? And that's really not standard yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me restate my question. What alternative studies did you actually do that you can provide to us today in lieu of population as a statistic? MS. MATTHES: We just looked at what other -- what other libraries and ourselves are counting to use as a comparison with -- with service. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do any studies of your own based on what you may have seen somebody else to look at as a comparison to analyze it against the population base that we're here to talk about as alternatives today? MS. MATTHES: Other than to look at -- no, visits per capita, the number of visits to a library throughout the year, the number of items circulated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you do so a study then-- MS. MATTHES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- based on visits? Page 33 May 21, 2007 MS. MATTHES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess that's what my bottom line is. There has been no alternative study. And so you don't have one to include in the four pages that you've provided to us today. So the basis that you're recommending is population as was originally the whole thing that started this. Is that a fair statement? MS. MATTHES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is there any reason you can't do a comparison from capacity versus usage of existing facilities? MS. TOWNSEND: I think what you're looking for is an analysis of door counts versus square footage; is that correct? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. When a new facility is built, when you buy products, when you buy things, you have to do it on a criteria of how many times it can be used, how many people can fit in your facility, how many times you're going to turn the book over or capacity of usage. How efficient are you? Are you -- can you-- again, did you do a study or can you do a study of your capacity versus the usage of your products? MS. MATTHES: We could start to do that study now. Last year about this time we instituted a new automation system that provides some of those recording capacities that we haven't had in the past. So this is starting the second year with that system. So certainly now we have at least a benchmark year in which we can do that. We haven't had that to date. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: On some of the items you might want to look at then along that line, if you look at the hour meetings on all your computers and see how many hours of computer time you're using compared to what you have available. It would certainly be harder to Page 34 May 21,2007 say, okay, I've got so many library table and chairs, and when do we ever not able to accommodate people. Maybe your door counts need to be more granular, you know, by hour or by whatever. But I think the thrust of the questions you're getting is how much capacity is there and when do you ever run out of capacity? That should be the basis for the benchmark in our view more than some arbitrary measure that we've had historically. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You said that the 1.75 was books and audio tapes. That's all you brought from that, not the other stuff? MS. MATTHES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now -- now you want 1.87. So that's 0.12 items you're going to start buying better than books. I think we'd all rather see more money on the other items than the -- MS. MATTHES: We already have budget for the other audio/visual items. We're not talking about taking only the book money, the 1.75 book money and spending it for other stuff too. We have other budgets for the audio/visual materials. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That have nothing to do with the AUIR? Nothing to do with impact fees? MS. MATTHES: At the -- until a change is made, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So impact fees you only buy books or audio tapes? MS. MATTHES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not computers, not research centers? MS. MATTHES: We -- when we -- when we set up a new facility, all of the capital items that go into that facility are part of the construction project, computers, furniture. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's paid by -- Page 35 May 21,2007 MS. MATTHES: Impact fees at that point because it's part of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm more confused. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Maybe I could help you. I've reviewed their budget a couple of times. And, correct me if I'm wrong, the budget has always included money for these other services. It's just never been accounted for specifically like we do in the AUIR. But they've always -- it's not an increased level of service by -- by going from 1.75 for books versus 1.87 for everything. They've always done that, but now they're going to be counting it differently. So it's not an increase in money or an increase in level of service. It's just a different way of looking at what's being done; is that correct? MS. MATTHES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Janet, in your review we've been spending 1.75 for audio books and books only for AUIR? MS. VASEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that's a really miniscule -- MS. VASEY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, we could talk. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the library portion? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think maybe I need to have a little bit my confusion go away then. If the books -- if the number of books being purchased is declining, is that a valid statement or a valid point? MS. MATTHES: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? Okay. Then my question is not the point. Okay. Thank you. Page 36 May 21, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on the library section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the EMS section. MS. VASEY: Could I ask a question of you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. MS. VASEY: What are we going to do about making recommendations upon each one of these sections? Are we going to wait until the end or are we going to do something as we go along or what is -- what is your plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The overall thrust of to day's meeting was the methodology. And the methodology basically was the populations -- I thought was the population statistic versus any other alternative that would have been brought forward. Reading the book the only alternative -- there were no alternatives. It's strictly recommending that population continue to be used as the basis. I thought then that the thrust of to day's group meeting or discussion would be a decision that that is the right way to go or there was an alternative, that the alternative was the right way to go. Since there are no alternatives and there's only population, I thought if we could wait until the end of the day to make the recommendation whether we accept that or not. The board -- this is a panel discussion. If any of you want to break it down item by item, that's certainly okay with me too. We're getting into book counts and things like that that I didn't know if that -- those aren't alternatives. Those are parts of the AUIR that we have each time and they're discussed usually during the AUIR meeting each time. The purpose of today's methodology I thought was more the statistical basis used as the multiplier which would have been population or door counts or frequency of use or things like that. Which we -- in reading this whole book, there isn't any Page 37 May 21,2007 alternatives provided to us. So I saw today as being completely compromised in that regard. And the thrust of to day's meeting seemed to be then is population what we're going to use or is it not? And based on the input from the various departments and the overview and the staff, I thought we'd come to some conclusion at the end of today. If that -- if you see another or a better way, obviously, let me know. I'm just -- that's just my thoughts. And no one had briefed me ahead of this meeting on what they were expecting of us in regards to staff. So I was just going to go forward with the day and see how it came out at the end. MS. VASEY: I guess I did look at it separately. And as we went along where they provided some changes, like parks have, I was planning to make recommendations, you know, as we went along. And I actually do have a recommendation on the -- on the library ones. And I don't know how any of my subcommittee feels yet, but I -- I would be prepared to address those issues as we go along with whatever we have to offer and then we can still make a general comment at the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the discussion of the AUIR in detail towards the six months or four months from now, whenever that comes up, there's going to be a lot of other evaluations brought into that discussion. Each department will produce a variety of statistics. My personal feeling would be that I wouldn't be able to support any changes in their statistics other than what the one they were coming here for today which was population until I saw how the statistic -- the statistic they're asking for today reacts to those others. Without those I -- we're basically then reviewing the AUIR today. If that's what you-all want to do or if it helps to vote each one of these separately, I already know without any alternatives, I'm in kind of a bind because they didn't do what they were told to do in my book. So -- but I'll be glad to stop at each one. We can pass each one and even if they come out the same as -- and they all pass in the end Page 38 May 21, 2007 the same way, I guess it doesn't make a difference. So if -- if, Janet, that's your preference, I have no problem with that. MS. VASEY: What do the -- what do the rest of my subcommittee feel? MR. SW AJA: From my viewpoint, I'm kind of where Mark is. I'm disappointed that there's nothing back -- getting back where we started with the beginning. And that's not where I think we need to go as an entity to get better. Just I look at 0.33 square feet per capita and I say, staff, so what? It doesn't reflect internet world, first of all. So I'm just -- I'm totally at a loss with this. I'm with Mark as what they were asked to look at isn't here to look at. Basically that's in my mind. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Harrison. I think she was asking her committee first. Right after that we'll come back to our side. MR. HARRISON: Just focusing on methodology then maybe a pertinent suggestion to them would be to give us some idea of the computer capacity and the computer usage. And in terms of the circulation, how many circulations are there? This is the actual raw data on what's being used, not how much capacity is being put in place in books and bricks and mortar. MS. VASEY: Well, I guess that's what I'm -- I'm sort of trying to get to. And that is I saw here it's not where we initially thought we were going to go, but this is a step forward. And -- and -- and we can get more information shown in the near term by some of the things that came out today. For example, I'd like to see that in the future they provide additional nonregulatory level-of-service guidelines for demand-based categories and include it in future AUIRs. It may not be the ultimate that we're going for, but it is a step forward. And -- and then we can start looking at that data and see if maybe that will go to where we'd like to go ultimately. And to have that -- you know, that's just from Page 39 May 21,2007 the discussion today that -- that I see a positive step. And -- and I would like to make that recommendation for my subcommittee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I've got no problem with stopping at each one and taking an assessment. I just know that without the information that I -- personally my assessment's going to be very limited. Mr. Schiffer, before we move into the termination of discussion on the library and either come up with some conclusions or recommendations, did you have something to add? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, I thought we were here today to just study the level of service away from the AUIR just to see that's what we're coming -- that's what the name of the workshop is is to go through these things, focus on just the level-of-service component. And then when we're in the AUIR, we'll discuss whether we're meeting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the methodology was the word used. And methodology involves the reaction to this panel as well as the productivity's as well as the Board of County Commissioners, meetings that took place on the last AUIR. And I read you excerpts from those meetings earlier. They were supposed to come back with alternatives. Now, those alternatives I thought today would be either they would prove to us that they don't work and here's why. Or they would say, you know, it was a good idea. It does work. Here's why or how that comes out. So -- and I could be -- that could be just my thinking on it. It doesn't necessarily mean everybody else's so... COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with you. MR. SW AJA: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think Ms. Vasey's point's well taken. At the end of each segment, why don't we just take a discussion and then I -- you know, it can be the same for all five segments or six, but at least we'll have that opportunity. And, Ms. Page 40 May 21,2007 Vasey, you're more than welcome then to make any suggestions you want, put them on record. And then we can take a vote on where we want to be with your suggestions and how we want to move forward. Does that work for you? MS. VASEY: Yes, that would be fine. Now, I have to see if my subcommittee -- would you be willing to make a recommendation? You know, we may do something total at the end about where we want to go, but I would really like to see the libraries come in in the next AUIR with these nonregulatory level-of-service guidelines based on demand which is what, in fact, we're asking for. And I'd like to make the recommendation that we as a subcommittee propose that to the full productivity committee as a recommendation then to go to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. BA YTOS: I thought that -- Janet, I thought that the library director had already responded to those kind of requests. And she said that she would present data like that as part of the AUIR. Not that, you know, it will change their recommendation of, you know, using population, but it's -- it's understood. There was an agreement that data would be provided; is that correct? MS. MATTHES: Yes, we can provide that data in the AUIR. MR. BA YTOS: I thought it was covered. And basically, you know, I wasn't sure whether I should come today because I didn't see anything different than what we met last fall. So I guess my inclination is just let's move on and not kill our entire day, if possible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student-- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have two panels, two boards sitting here today. And our -- can they as a group make a recommendation or does the productivity committee makes its own and the Planning Commission make its own? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Each group should make its own. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'd be voting individually. Page 41 May 21, 2007 So the four of you could take a position and we'd have to take our own position. And I'll certainly leave the opportunity on the floor for the four of you to -- if you wanted -- is that something that has to -- well, it has to be done in the sunshine. So it's got to be done in the sunshine. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So did you -- I guess I'll leave it for you to continue discussion. And then when you're finished, we'll -- we'll go into ours just briefly on the library issue. MS. VASEY: All right. I'll make a motion that we as a subcommittee make a recommendation to the productivity committee to have the library provide additional nonregulatory level-of-service guidelines for demand-based categories and include it in future AUIRs. And then this would be a recommendation for the productivity committee to consider making to the full Board of County Commissioners. MR. HARRISON: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She made a motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The motion needs a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Harrison seconded the motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Productivity Planner Vasey, seconded by Steve Harrison of the Productivity Committee. MR. SW AJA: Help me understand. What you're proposing as a motion is to do what we thought was going to be done today? Am I right or am I wrong? MS. VASEY: I don't know that I really knew what was going to happen today, but I think this is a step forward and it came out of the discussion today. It's going towards demand based as opposed to population. I think once we see what some of these figures look like, it may turn out that they could be used in the future. I don't know. MR. SW AJA: I wasn't at the last meeting, but the sense I got Page 42 May 21,2007 from listening to discussions at our productivity committee meeting was that was the direction that was given at the last meeting to do it for this meeting. So, therefore, I don't understand what we're doing. Just -- we're just pushing it forward one more time. I'm uncomfortable with that recommendation. MS. VASEY: Any other discussion? (No response.) MS. VASEY: I guess we need a vote. All those in favor? MR. HARRISON: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed. MR. SWAJA: No. MR. BAYTOS: No. MS. VASEY: All right. We've got a tie. All right. Thank you. We're finished. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're very welcome. Now, for the Planning Commission, my comments to Ms. Vasey I thought we'd wait till the end of the day and make a comment on the overview of the whole methodology methods which I thought were the purpose of today's meeting, not necessarily the incremental levels of service in regards to other than method population for each segment. I don't know what the rest of you expected and now is the time to speak up. Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Well, when we spoke generally last time we covered each one of these and then we said could you come up with different alternatives. We weren't specific. So we got back nothing. And, you know, we're extremely disappointed. We're all frustrated and think what a waste of time that we're sitting here today. But the other is what if we don't go through this exercise and say now we say to the library we want this, this, this and this. Will it come to everybody's advantage just for us to clarify that? And that's the only Page 43 May 21, 2007 reason I'm going to sit here the rest of the day and do this. Because if we do that and say, okay, this is what we're talking about, does everybody understand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I think if we were to not take a position on the level of service book calendar standard that they're -- that they're talking about here today, it's going to come out either way. It's going to come out either way in the AUIR. We're going to be debating it in the AUIR anyway. Yes, sir. Mr. Henning -- Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did sign up for a speaker's slip here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're looking for public. We forgot. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tom Henning. The -- yeah. I was sitting in my office listening to the -- to the debate that you're having. And I'm very confused. When the Board of Commissioners in my opinion, I think the minutes would reflect this, is the Board of Commissioners agreed with staff on your recommendations to find alternative methodology about how we serve the people in the individual capital improvement elements. It was my understanding that staff was going to go out and actually do door counts to see if we're hitting the level of service that the people demand. And I don't have the material that you have, but what I'm understanding listening in my office and sitting here is you didn't get what we asked for. You didn't get what you asked for. So what's the purpose of today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's kind of what I was going to, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We can continue on with today if we want. I think the book clearly tells us where we're going and that's staff deciding that Page 44 May 21, 2007 population is the way to go. The alternative is that some of us thought we were going to have aren't here. Mr. Tuff, you had just indicated your thoughts on it. Were you thinking as far as going on with -- with each segment and then voting at the end or voting at the end of each segment? Did you have any thoughts in that regard? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I don't see any value for voting or anything. I think the -- on any of it. The thought is to say to clarify what I believe we're asking. Because obviously we provided no clarity to get back what we had today or it's an intentional deliberate dis of everybody. And I don't know which of those two it is. But if we go through this and we say to the library, I think she has a clear idea. Okay. We're looking at what do we use for libraries? What do we use for, you know, computers? What do we use for audio/visual? I think that -- that was very well understood I hope today. And we didn't maybe make that clarity last time. And now if we do that with each of these, then it may be worthwhile. But if it's an intentional disregarding of anything that we think about, then we need to go home today right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else got any comments? Mr. Vigliotti then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: With each department coming forth I'm going to ask was there capacity? What percentage of usage is that capacity? Are we utilizing all of our services to the maximum or are we just going out and saying, okay, I'm allocated X amount of dollars because of my impact fees are coming in. I'm just going to find a way to spend them. So I'm going to need some rationale from each and every department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. My thought is based on where we're at is why don't we just run through each of these things and help them come up with ideas for alternative ways to do it. Page 45 May 21,2007 Obviously, you know, they didn't. So maybe that's our job at this point is to just brainstorm with them other ways to look at it and then come back later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's interesting, Commissioner. I -- I would -- I don't know if this whole process is an intent to legitimatize staffs view of the way they go. They may very well have tried by trying to get out there and finding -- I'm frustrated in my -- my -- my -- even my speech because I recognize that they failed to give us the negatives as well as what they presumed to be the positive, their view. They needed, as the chairman has indicated, to provide us with what it is they did to bring it to the point where they concluded the only way to go is the same way they've been going all along. So I don't know what -- what we're doing. We can go through this, but it -- it ultimately acts as a legitimatization of what it is they wanted in the first instance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if we were to go through it, the fact that every one of these studies comes back with population, the fact that the alternatives to that population as a base were only looked at as what did other counties do, what could we do whether it was different, better or for worse of other counties and then showing us the outcome of those thoughts. That lacking we have no choice but at the end of today say that we endorse population or do we not endorse population. To get into the other nuances of the AUIR, the individual book counts and the rest of it, I think is possibly beyond today's abilities only in the sense that we're going to have a lot more detailed presentation in the outcome reaction and conclusions of that kind of statistical data when the full AUIR comes to us for a complete review this fall. And that's going to happen regardless of what we do today. So I'm not sure, as Commissioner Henning said, you know, we Page 46 May 21, 2007 need to figure out why we're here today in some regard. We need to be the most productive we possibly can. And if productivity means we go through today and just nod our head at the end yea or nay against the population statistic, I'm ready to do that right now. So it's up to the rest of the Planning Commission on what they -- I mean, I've already heard your thoughts. It sounds like -- and if I'm wrong, you guys need to tell me, but it seems like it's not necessarily needed to go through today to come to a conclusion we may have already read into the documentation we've received. This is a joint meeting with the productivity committee in regards to further carrying on the presentation of population as a desired count basis for our statistics. Does anybody in the productivity committee feel it's necessary or have any inclinations on what they'd like to see happen today? MR. BA YTOS: I personally see little value in a regurgitation of the material in the language because, as you said several times, they didn't respond to the charge they were given. And, therefore, we seem to be wasting our time. That's my personal opinion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do you want to make a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, I guess the county attorney's gone. Before you make a motion I want -- this is a joint meeting. So whatever we do, we need to all do it together. Otherwise, we should stay here or go based on that. And so if your motion is to discontinue discussion, before you make that motion, I'd certainly like to get it -- Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN: Before you act on the motion-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's been no motion made. We're still talking about it. MR. COHEN: Okay. And that's a good thing. I -- you know, it seems to me like there's comments made from the perspective that staff didn't go on out and take a look at various things with respect to Page 47 May 21,2007 methodologies that are out there, alternatives. And I'm -- I'm hearing that and I'm just kind of biting my tongue a little bit because of the amount of effort that was undertaken by my staff to do just that. And I'm really taking a little bit of offense to it. I understand your frustration. However, at the same time, I think it's important for you to know even beyond that research of what alternatives are out there from a state -- state basis, national basis through the -- you know, from a research for the legislator-- legislature, Florida Association of Counties, Florida League of Cities and contacting, you know, other -- other -- other local governments. What we also did is we talked to our legal consultant, our planning consultant. And some of the specific questions that you're asking right here were asked from the perspective is that alternative viable and is it legally defensible. And I'd like Amy Patterson to talk about that for a bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Amy. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson again for the record. I can only speak to the impact fee piece of the level-of-service component, but we did go through each one of the individual impact fees and explored the options for different types of levels of service that might be utilized in order to develop a different standard. For example, libraries, we did ask specifically if there were any jurisdictions that were using door counts as a basis for a level of service or incorporating that type of information into a level of service. And the answer was no. It's standard that population is the driver be it through the books per capita or the square footage per person, those types of things. Now, of course, there's -- there's variables and different jurisdictions of how they allocate that population out and develop their level of service, but for that there's a strong population base. As noted in the information in the packet, EMS has utilized response times in different jurisdictions. But, again, that impact fee Page 48 May 21,2007 study was just updated. And the opinion of the legal consultant and of our impact fee consultant is that population in this case is the best use. Another example which is not being addressed today but is a good example of a suggestion that was made was for the independent fire districts. They didn't necessarily like part of the population components and some of the other information that had to be used to develop their impact fee. However, they had nothing else. And so if they had wanted to use a different set of data, the suggestion by both the outside counsel and the impact fee consultant was to start to collect that data in a very organized fashion that could then show that data over time and then that could be utilized. But our problem in a lot of these things is the absence of accessible and reliable data. As far as studies go also related to jail and law enforcement, a couple of years ago we did have two studies done that utilized something other than population. And both of those before they were ever presented to the Board of County Commissioners were rejected for lack of legal sufficiency because of the data that was utilized in those studies. So if that sheds any light on to what at least my office undertook in trying to find alternative levels of service, we found with most of them that population is the standard that's being utilized at least to develop the impact fee level of service which does weigh heavily into the level of service for the AUIR. MR. COHEN: Amy, could you clarify what the methods were that were rejected that were in the law enforcement and jail studies for the board? MS. PATTERSON: It was inmate population and a heavy call basis. So they were trying to attribute calls and then relate them to an inmate population for a jail. And it -- it got complicated. But the problem was they found that there were a lot of anomalies in that data, both in the law enforcement study and in the jail study. Of course, I can give you specifics if you're -- if you're interested in that, but I Page 49 May 21,2007 know that kind of the option was to either move forward with the study and try to find an outside legal consultant that would accept it or accept that it was insufficient and find a different basis. And that's -- you know, obviously, you don't want to shop around for somebody to tell you what you want to hear. We -- we opted to start -- go back to the drawing board and start over again. And that's how we ended up with the currently adopted studies for jail and law enforcement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Amy, your legal counsel that you asked these questions to came back and said that (as read): It is important to recognize that in the calculation of impact fees, there may be a variety of methodologies that can be used and which could be upheld by the court. Fire and EMS can be based upon population but also can be based upon call data. And they also talked about impact fees based on response time. And then parks separately per dwelling and possibly a per dwelling unit basis. I think what I had expected was that you'd come back with some reports using some of these alternatives saying, okay, we tried to plug this in, but it wouldn't work for us and here's why. We went back and we had historical data only three years ago or we had sketchy data here or this was missing here. Lacking that kind of research is what concerns me that we've simply just fallen back on population statistics based on questions to our consultants that were -- when you ask a survey, if you ask it a certain way, you get a certain answer. Well, the questions seemed to be asked that way too. I don't know if the effort was there. And I understand what Mr. Cohen is saying. There was a lot of time spent. You can spend a lot of time pulling things down from the internet. But I would -- I haven't seen where staff has pulled together these other statistics and shown based on those why or why they were not viable. And one of the people from the productivity committee during the AUIR study actually came in with a table of suggestions involving I thought it was door counts involving at the library system. Page 50 May 21, 2007 Somebody did that and it was pretty detailed. And that was a suggestion. Okay. Then I would have suspected that staff would have came back here today and said, well, we took that suggestion. And we had the door counts for the last five years. Here's what it shows. It didn't work because here's why. And, therefore, we think that population is still a better statistics to use. Okay. You came back and said population is, but you haven't given us the why it was the only one left. And I think Mr. Murray very eloquently stated that a few minutes ago. And I -- it's not -- no criticism of you because you're the impact fee specialist. I'm just trying to tell you what I had expected to see in this packet. And when I started reading it I was substantially disappointed that -- that none of that kind of data was there. MS. PATTERSON: I understand. And I --like I said, if we go to the individuals, we can certainly address law enforcement and jail as specific examples of why those -- those particular levels of service wouldn't work. And as far as the others I can put my information in as -- as I go along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: As far as EMS, we have another way to judge it. It's response time. Roads we have traffic studies. Police we have crime rate and response time again. Jails, amount of capacity. With parks and with libraries, is there no other way to judge it other than we take the money. We spend it. And we don't keep track of the capacity. For instance, we just built that new facility, the water park. What's the capacity of usage? With parks and libraries I think we can come up with those numbers. MS. PATTERSON: That's -- I -- I understand. I understand what you're saying. From the impact fee perspective, it's a little bit more complicated only because we're -- we're bound a little bit more tightly by case law and -- and things that have been tried and tested, but I understand your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anytime a decision is made that is rash Page 51 May 21,2007 or quick, sometimes it's good to take ten minutes to think about it and come back and discuss it. So with that I'd like to give the court reporter a ten-minute break. And we'll be back here at 10:20 to conclude what we either are going to go forward with or not. Thank you. (Short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The ten-minute break is over with. Now that we've had a few moments to think about our decision for the rest of today, I'm looking for any input that anybody has at this point. Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: I would just make one comment on the -- as I understand from the EMS portion of this study that there is a major consultant study that is underway that we don't have the results for that might address many issues about capacity and growing capacity. So that in particular is a subject I really see no value in discussing at this time because, you know, the information that we need, you know, is not available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: You know, I just have one comment with respect to that. I think you're right, Mr. Baytos. However, I think I'd like to hear from Chief Page that alternatives are actually being looked at within that study. So that when it finally comes out, we will know that everything has been looked at, not just population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the question that we're-- need to face is whether we want to continue hearing from these various departments in today's meeting or we basically want to table the meeting for lack of response to our request to have alternatives produced in lieu of the population methodology or let's say supporting documentation to prove that the population methodology is the correct one to use. Page 52 May 21,2007 Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I personally think since staff, everybody's here, that we should run through each department and help them come up with ideas on alternate methodologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, they know their departments better than we do. And if our direction was to produce alternate methodologies for the good or for the bad and that they were to do so, I'm not sure how we could be of any more help to them if we don't know their statistical basis as well as they do. I mean, that was an opportunity that I think they had to actually look for improvement or a verification of -- of what they needed or didn't need. And they, from what I can see so far, they failed to take it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, then it won't take long, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It's -- again, I'm not -- this is up to the panel. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What -- what assurance do we have that it won't take long, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if you go into personalities, you might be right. But the -- in other words, obviously, they could can come before us. We can discuss rather quickly what other ways they could look at it and they've got to go away and look at it some more. I mean, they obviously haven't come up with it on their own so let's help. Everybody's here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under some circumstances that might work. I'm just not sure I could tell Chief Page that look at this basis of a statistical collection and see if you can come up with a better way based on this. I don't know what he's got and what he doesn't have. And that's what I thought this whole exercise was about was for them to come back to us with those kind of -- that kind of data. Page 53 May 21, 2007 MR. SW AJA: Are you looking for a motion, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, I think -- did you have a-- did you have motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He had asked to make a motion earlier, Mr. Swaja. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. I'd like to make a motion we adjourn and let them go back and do what they were supposed to do the first time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. THE COURT REPORTER: Who seconded? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. There's a second from Commissioner Adelstein, but Mr. Swaja from the productivity committee also is supporting that motion. Any discussion on that motion? The motion was that we discontinue the meeting today. Staffs to go back and do what we asked them to do in the first place and what the board was which is alternatives to the population statistic. And then come back at another time if that's -- if the timing works. Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: I agree with Brad. I think we're here. We -- we could look at what they're going to -- what -- what they're demand-based factors are and give them additional guidance that can be included in this year's AUIR. Without that, we'll get exactly what we had last time. And we were trying to get a step forward. And I think this would be a step forward. I am sympathetic to some of the discussion that population is -- is most defensible for impact fees. And -- and AUIR has to be tied to the impact fees. So I think that that -- that maybe they have done some of what they need to do. But if that's true and there isn't any other alternative, then -- then population based level-of-service standards, there is still an opportunity to look at these other demand-based things Page 54 May 21,2007 within an AUIR that gives us what we want and -- and makes it more representative of -- of what the service of these -- of these new facilities would be to the community. So I'd like to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VASEY: That's what I'd like to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a motion to discontinue today's meeting on the floor. Mr. Cohen. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. If you could what I'd like you to do is to turn to page 1 of your executive summary. And there's a reason I'm asking you to do that. And under the objective you'll see there's four steps that the board asked us to evaluate. And I want to go through those four steps again for you. One was to look at the existing basis and justifications for the current levels of service -- service standards. That was for each of the appropriate divisions and departments as directed by the board as well as looking at the history of those particular levels-of-service standards. That was undertaken by my staff. Second, identify -- identify alternative approaches to benchmark level-of-service standard other than the current method utilized. Review of level of service used by other governmental entities in the respective capital improvement element and impact fee ordinance. If you look what's in the parenthetical, we've done that. I think there maybe some disagreement with respect to what alternative approachments (sic) and benchmarks oflevel of service are with regard to what these particular bodies may have expected. However, at the same time I think with respect to the data and analysis and some of the underpinnings and a lot of the studies that have been done for various impact fees such as government buildings where they Page 55 May 21, 2007 do an office space analysis, which I think you would like to hear today. I think it's very important for you to understand how that interfaces with the impact fee and that certain things are taken into consideration. I think it lends a lot of credence to what transpires with respect to their analysis in going forward with their process. More importantly, No.3, determine whether the alternative approaches for level-of-service standards can withstand impact fee legal scrutiny. I think this is a very important factor for you to understand when we take a look at that with regard to Category B facilities. Category B facilities up until and still are effectively right now part of the capital improvements element as previously recommended by our legal counsel. In order for us to get the Category B facilities out of the capital improvements element, it was requested of legal counsel to evaluate whether or not the Annual Update and Inventory Report could provide the legal justification for the Category B facilities in order to take them out of the CIE and out -- outside the scope of state scrutiny and if so what would be the legal basis. And the legal basis would have to be that the AUIR would have to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners based on a legally defensible standard. And that legally defensible standard ties into the impact fee ordinances that exist today. I think that bears emphasis. And the fourth criteria has provided detailed analysis and recommendation upon level of service to be utilized for the 2007 AUIR. I understand that there's an expectation of staff to go out and undertake some different studies with respect to response time. I think EMS is going to do that as part of a detailed -- detailed study. In the past it was done with respect to law enforcement. And as Ms. Patterson indicated, some of that data was corrupt from the perspective that it wasn't legally defensible. The last thing we want to do as a staff, you as obviously as an advisory body and also the Board of County Commissioners is -- is to Page 56 May 21,2007 look at alternative standards that will not pass legal scrutiny in terms of providing us the ability to defend our impact fee ordinances. If we do come up with alternatives, Mr. -- like Mr. Page may do as part of his -- of his study, then -- then the question would become do we want to look at response time, for example, versus population base. And if so, which way would we go? And that's -- and that's a viable option. The same thing may happen with respect to -- to law enforcement. So those -- those are very viable issues, very viable concerns. I understand that from your perspective that some of you expected some more detail. I think a lot of that detail is out there and can be provided to you as part of data analysis with the 2007 AUIR. And I think we can use it as a prong process and move from there. And that's just what I'd like to add. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, I read your first page. And I also read the minutes from the meeting in which you responded to the commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners. And it said, you asked for specific level of services to be looked upon at from the standpoint of what is the rational nexus for the existing ones. Two, what are the alternatives that are available and what is the basis for those. Three, will they pass the litmus test for rational nexus for impact fees. And -- and then actually coming back to this Board of County Commissioners as the manager alluded to in the next AUIR with those alternatives and those recommendations that come forward from that analysis. Now, that's a little bit different than the wording that you have in your one through four because it's actually indicating that you're going to provide those analysis, alternatives. And I haven't seen those. And that's my concern about today. MR. COHEN: Well, sir-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't doubt that population may be the foregone conclusion. And if it is, I don't need a meeting today to tell Page 57 May 21,2007 me what we've already beat up upon for years now. If we're going to do population, we're going to do population. So if you're not going to present alternatives, just to tell us that population is the answer is a waste of my time. MR. COHEN: Well, Commissioner, I would respectfully disagree that -- that -- that the language you read right there basically means exactly what I just read in the four -- the four prongs that I discussed right there. In terms of dealing with alternatives, obviously, one that we identified was in the area of EMS. A possible alternative exists within law enforcement with respect to response time. Other than that, with regard to possibly changing level of service within respective categories, which is also an alternative that this body can look at in the context of a population-based structure, and that's something that from your own perspective you should be looking at in terms of each AUIR. I think it's very important to take a look at what's actually out there. If -- if I was defunct in my duties or Mr. Bosi was as well too in looking at from the perspective of a statewide analysis of what's out there and what's legally defensible, not only that, what our legal counsel and our legal -- and our planning consultant would find to be appropriate, then -- then I would understand that. I don't think we were defunct in our duties whatsoever with respect to taking an analysis and looking at the data there. For example, our library people have done a detailed analysis in the past of a lot of things that are transpiring. I don't think at the level of detail that you want. You want additional data and analysis. And they're going to provide that to you as part of the 2007 AUIR. I think it's also important probably in a lot of different areas that you get a lot of the underpinnings and a lot of the data analysis how you understand how different departments and different divisions function, anywhere from parks, public utilities. I think a lot of the information that you don't see is what -- what are the nuts and bolts Page 58 May 21,2007 behind the scenes. You know, what do the work sheets, what do the data sheets look like that's being done. And I think probably maybe you need to see that. And that's -- that's all I'd like to add. MR. BA YTOS: Call for a vote on the motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was the longest discussion I think a motion ever had. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Mr. -- Mr. Chair, I just wanted to correct for the record and maybe I didn't hear it correctly, but it was a motion to discontinue the meeting. I think it should be adjourn the meeting rather than discontinue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say discontinue or adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Adjourn. Motion was made to adjourn the meeting. And then there's been a vote -- a motion to -- call -- call for the motion. I think we got to do it by each committee separately. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As far as the planning commissioners, there's eight of us here. Those that wish to see this meeting adjourned signify by raising your hands and saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Those in favor of continuing the meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. From the planning commission's perspective, the meeting would be adjourned seven to one. Those in the productivity committee. Page 59 May 21, 2007 MR. SW AJA: In favor of adjournment, is that what we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Favor of adjournment. MR. SW AJA: (Indicating.) MR. BA YTOS: (Indicating.) MR. HARRISON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three in favor. Those opposed to adjournment? MS. VASEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One. Okay. This meeting is adjourned then at this point. Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:33 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN. These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN 1. FORD, RPR. Page 60