Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/16/2007 AUIR October 16, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL AUIR MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 16, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at the Horseshoe Drive Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CCPC CHAIRMAN: PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE: Mark P. Strain Tor Kolflat Brad Schiffer (absent for roll call) Donna Reed Caron Bob Murray Robert Vigliotti Lindy Adelstein (absent) Paul Midney (absent) Russell Tuff (absent) Janet Vasey Brad Boaz Joseph Swaja Steve Harrison Georgia Hiller ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director Michael Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning, everyone. MR. SW AJA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exciting. This is like watching paint dry. So if you'll all rise, we'll say the Pledge of Allegiance first. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll probably use the same process that we did yesterday for roll call, and that simply was, please state your name and the committee you're with and we'll start with Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Tor Kolflat, Collier County Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob Vigliotti, Collier County Planning Commissioner. MR. SW AJA: Joe Swaja, Productivity Committee. MR. HARRISON: Steve Harrison, Productivity Committee. MR. BOAZ: Brad Boaz, Productivity Committee. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, Productivity Committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark Strain, Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER CARON: Donna Caron, Planning Commission. MS. HILLER: Georgia Hiller, Productivity Committee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And Bob Murray, Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show the Planning Commission has a -- barely majority. We have five of us here today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Brad Schiffer is here, but apparently is not aware. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A reminder that when we speak, we need to speak at a tone -- I mean at a level that is slow enough so that it can be recorded properly. Please do not talk over one another. Again, you need to be recognized in order to speak, please. And before we get going in today's meeting, it occurred to me Page 2 October 16, 2007 and a few others, that the elements we're talking about today, we may not have all the paperwork for one in particular and an important element, and that's the EMS. As you may have read in the document, there was a report that was due in September, and then I think October, and it's not in the report. EMS has repeatedly told us how vital this report was to understanding what they're trying to do in regards to the ALS units and everything else. Well, I know we could sit through an hour-or-two-or three discussion today on the EMS facilities and what they mayor may (sic) propose. In the end we're probably all going to want to see that report and base some of our conclusions on that report, so when it comes in, we'd have to have another meeting, and we'd have to spend another two or three hours going over the same thing we probably would go over today. So I'd like Mr. Bosi to talk to us about the possibility of how we should proceed with EMS and what the most reasonable solution is, and if there's a need to reschedule and reconvene strictly for EMS at some point down the road when that report is in our hands, we've had time to read it, and we can take a look at it then. Thank you. (Commissioner Schiffer entered the hearing room.) MR. BOSI: Good morning. Mike Bosi, for the record. Thank you, Chairman Strain. I just spoke with Jeff Page, head of Emergency Medical Services, and the draft master plan, as promised within your workbook, is not available today, so I understand that that complicates the issue because that was a key piece to the component. I mean, we've been saying all along it's a key piece of the component to understanding the level of service and contribution to the ALS engines within the system, which has a direct effect in bearing upon deficit, cost, and everything within the system. That draft plan obviously, is soon to be produced. I would suggest -- and one thing I would say as a caveat, within this AUIR, Page 3 October 16, 2007 EMS proposed no growth -- no new growth units. What we have right now, 26.5 units available is what EMS is going to stand by for this year based upon the lack of -- the lack of the master plan and the lack of any conclusion for a level of service standard and the issues surrounding that. With that understanding that there are no new growth units proposed within this AUIR, I would suggest, ifboth of these bodies desire to have the master plan before you, you would move forward with any recommendations upon revising a level of service for the component. I would suggest that comprehensive planning -- once that master plan is in, comprehensive planning can definitely disseminate that information to both of the advisory boards and I could -- we could coordinate with each of the -- each of the advisory boards to appear on your -- one of your regularly scheduled meetings, find one that has an agenda where it's pretty light where you could fit a two-hour -- probably a two- to two-and-a-half hour discussion within your agenda to address this specific issue related to the EMS master plan. We have until the -- until next year's AUIR, where they'll be proposing, would be a reactionary to the growth that's being proposed. That's the next time or the next critical time where a decision for a level of service standards would have to be made. So we do have some time before that -- that occasion would arise. So we could coordinate, if that's the discretion of both of the boards. Comprehensive planning, when that master plan becomes available will coordinate with each of the chairmen, with each of the staff liaison for each of the boards to find what's the most appropriate meeting you would like to hear the EMS portion and hear the discussion in terms of the master plan and the potential level of service changes for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any -- anybody want to weigh in on this? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: So what you're saying, Mike, is Page 4 October 16, 2007 that the draft will not even be available for the meetings that we have booked for later this month? MR. BOSI: I am -- COMMISSIONER CARON: We have four AUIR meetings at least penciled in. MR. BOSI: The last of the scheduled dates was the 29th of October. I am -- I'm not sure if that's going to be done. When I spoke with Jeff Page he said that the consultants will be here and are available today to discuss some of the more critical components but he did not indicate that that draft plan has been finalized. So as to whether that's going to be available on the 29th, I would -- I'm somewhat hesitant to offer a firm commitment based upon the commitment that I had provided within the workbooks that a master plan was going to being forthcoming, and I wasn't able to follow through with that. So I'm very hesitant to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Once this plan comes out, was the intention of compo planning to more or less rewrite the EMS section of this AUIR and then either modify or suggest modifications to the standards where necessary? MR. BOAZ: That wasn't the intention of comprehensive planning. The intention of comprehensive planning was to provide the -- both of the advisory boards the master plan, provide the recommendations that were within that master plan and coordinate and facilitate the discussions related to what those recommendations were on top of what other recommendations that each of the advisory boards may have arrived upon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my question was, right now we show a required inventory and we show a deficit need, but we don't show how many proposed new units. What I was suggesting is, were you intending to tell us how many proposed new units based on the master plan would then be recommended so we would have something to study? Page 5 October 16, 2007 MR. BOSI: No. For this year's AUIR -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: -- the intention was to propose no growth -- no new growth units until there was a finalization between what should be the appropriate level of service for the -- for the EMS component. Because right now, you know, the current deficit is being expressed at 6.8, but that's at one unit per 15,000 of peak population. We -- until we have certainty towards what our level of service recommendations are going to be going forward in the future, it wasn't our intent to update it and be ready to propose growth units within this AUIR. For this AUIR's purpose, EMS was going to stand pat with what's available. MR. COHEN: Chairman Strain-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. COHEN: -- maybe I can help out a little bit. I think what the intent is, obliviously we anticipated that this particular EMS study was going to be completed, you know, prior to this year's AUIR. It's not. Obviously we don't want you acting on an item where you don't have full disclosure, full information where you can make an informed decision. What I would anticipate transpiring is that both Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee would fully vet all the issues within the -- the upcoming plan when it's in its final form, make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as separate entities, we would then take it under consideration, fully vet that item, and then make recommendations that would come out of that, which would form the basis for next year's AUIR, that way we would have the foundation based on the advice of both of the advisory boards as well as the commission with respect to moving forward with a policy decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we don't have a definitive time though when this master plan will be done basically? Page 6 October 16, 2007 MR. COHEN: No, sir. But as soon as we get it, we're going to go ahead and schedule it at one of your meetings where it's obviously not on a meeting that's really lengthy in terms of items. Same as with the Productivity Committee as well, too. And we'll work with you on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the -- Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: I'm a little bit concerned. This is the second year that we've taken no action. They had $20 million they showed last year as being required. Twenty million is sort of hanging out there this year. It's the biggest single element that we've got of all the facilities. There is a draft report. It apparently had some problems. I don't know how serious they are. But it seems like maybe we could get Jeff to come in and talk to us about it, how quickly they would have a usable draft. I mean, we've used drafts before on impact fees to review and make -- you know, make recommendations. Maybe we could still go forward on the 26th or the 29th if there was something available, because I think it's pretty important -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I-- MS. VASEY: -- to resolve this issue. It's the one major item we have on the -- in the whole AUIR, and I think we ought to try to make every effort to get it done on schedule. And then if we can't, there is a fall-back position, but I'd like to see us try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then for the point of today's meeting, is the suggestion to delay the EMS until the last possible date that we currently have scheduled under the hope that we will have the master plan in some format in front of us so we could discuss that? Then failing that, then fall back to the plan that Mike Bosi suggested in going back to the committees individually at that point? Does that seem like a -- I mean, I -- we've all got to be in this so someone tell me what you all think, so -- MS. VASEY: I'd kind of like to speak to Jeff. Page 7 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today? MS. VASEY: Yeah -- what it looks like in terms of fixing whatever it is that's not right and how soon they might have a draft, and then we can, you know, go from there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike. At least we'll have Jeff come in. And he needs to, more or less, focus on addressing this master plan and the timing of that. And I don't know if we want -- there's not a lot of point in getting into every one of these financial issues with him until we have a master plan. I'd rather not spend two hours listening to a presentation that's going to be outdated. MR. BOSI: Before EMS appears on the agenda, I'll have further conversation with Jeff and let him know of the wishes of the advisory board and where they need to -- where he needs to focus his discussion today surrounding the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I think that will work. Okay. With that, the first item on -- we're into category B. First item on category B for today's discussion is jails. CHIEF SMITH: Good morning. For the record, Greg Smith, Chief of Administration for the Sheriffs Office. And we have worked again with county staff here on their submission of the AUIR. And you have that report in front of you, and I'll stand for questions or clarifications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you must have been in the audience yesterday. CHIEF SMITH: No, sir. But to borrow the southern vernacular, this ain't my first rodeo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we normally work through these page by page. Why don't we start with the very first page, which is the AUIR summary form. It's on page 99. Mr. Murray? Page 8 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This question is by Russell Tuff, who was not able to attend today but asked that this be asked of you. The need for jails has decreased from prior year to the current year. This coming year a need is showing for more. The sheriffs office is instituting a new program through ICE which will remove illegal immigrants from our system. The office states that the -- that illegal immigrants cost the office large amounts of money. If this new program gets launched, will there be a need for more jail cells? CHIEF SMITH: It's kind of a compound question, and I hate to bore the group with some of the details to frame it, but let me do that, if I may. First of all, absolutely we're going to launch the program. That's not a question. There's a need, a recognized need, to do something on a federal, on a state, on a local level. And we have partnered very successfully with ICE on previous ventures to remove criminal aliens from our community. We now have taken that to the next level and have embarked on a program where we have certified local law enforcement officers to act with full standing regarding the enforcement capabilities of Immigration/Custom Enforcement law. The overarching goal is to remove this portion of the criminal element from our community, and we've identified that that's the costing us about $9 million a year. So the goal is to remove them. Obviously if we get them out of here, our need for jail capacity, we hope, will decrease from that regard at least; however, initially, at least, it's going to require some commitments of capital up front. It's going to -- it required us, once we entered into this partnership, to dedicate 50 beds to utilization for customs enforcement, for Immigration/Customs Enforcement, and those people who we identified for removal will be housed in that area. We think there will be a couple things that will happen as a result Page 9 October 16, 2007 of this. First of all, we'll be able to identify those people who are frequent fliers, if you would, to our facilities, and we'll be relieved of that by their deportation or removal. Secondly, we think that there will be a trickle-down effect that people will not find Collier County as a place to come and blend in and hide if you're in the country illegally. And we think that that's going to have a dramatic decrease in what we have to do with regard to that segment of the population. And so we hope that the answer is, yes, it should decrease. We hope it decreases that segment. But having said that, you know, jail population is dependent upon a whole lot of things, predominantly enforcement strategy. And through my experience, there's always been another segment that's popped up that seems ready and willing to fill the void. So I wouldn't say that we probably don't have a need to plan more jail space because we're launching into it. I mean, you know, federal legislation could change. You know, philosophies could change. So all of that would have an impact on the jail population. But that's as simple an answer as I can give you to that question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page 99. Any other questions? Janet? MR. HARRISON: Steve Harrison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, I'm sorry, MR. HARRISON: Chief Smith, a couple of years ago we were launching an expedited hearing process in conjunction with hiring more judges to clear dockets faster. Is that kicking in and saving us the number of beds that we need to provide? CHIEF SMITH: You'll see that there's been a decrease in utilization. That's a direct result of where we use the rocket-docket initiative to speed those people through the system. We track on a Page 10 October 16, 2007 daily, monthly, and yearly basis the amount of those people who are in jail at -- at what we call benchmark dates like -- you know, I think the first one is like one year. You know, we don't want you to be in the jail especially awaiting trial for more than one year, because obviously if you're charged with a serious enough crime, we want you to get through the judicial system so that we can pass you off to the state, and that's going to save us locally. So that's -- what you see in that decrease of utilization is a direct result of everyone working together within the judiciary to move those people through the system faster. MR. HARRISON: Are there more savings to come, yet to come? CHIEF SMITH: You know, I want to answer optimistically and say, yes, I think so. I think there's some more things that can be done. I think we're looking at those. I think when you look at the utilization history, you know, you're able to see some spikes and some lulls. And almost in every case where you see a lull in the need for more jail beds it's because we've instituted some new partnership or program. This allowed us to be very judicious in the use of our jail cells. That's what we've tried to do is utilize all these programs to forestall the need to build more jail beds. And that's also reflected -- if you look in there and you see what the incarceration is statewide and what the incarceration is on the federal level and then you look at Collier County, you know, it's remarkable that we have a low crime rate, a decreasing crime rate, and at the same time, we're able to make better utilization of our jail beds. Usually, you know, that's a converse relationship. MR. HARRISON: Right. CHIEF SMITH: You know, when the crime rate goes down, usually it's because your jail cells are going up in need. And so we've -- we've just been able to institute a lot of that stuff to forestall it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Janet? MS. VASEY: Greg, when you say you have to dedicate 50 beds to the customs operation, is that 50 that we would have already been Page 11 October 16,2007 holding these illegals in or is that 50 new that are used for something? CHIEF SMITH: Well, right now it's kind ofa wash, because if you're able to go in and identify over 200 people that are in the jail illegally, you just get them earmarked and identified and you move them from the 50 cells over here and to these 50 cells over here. So it's nothing that's required, you know, 50 more jail beds immediately. But when we start going into the community and identifying the criminal element that usually would have been allowed to post bond and go back out, now we'll be placing INS detainers -- excuse me -- ICE detainers on them and be able to keep them in custody so -- until their deportation hearing. MS. VASEY: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: So there will be a little bit of a spike there at least initially. MS. VASEY: The new expansion that you're planning in Immokalee -- we talked about this a little last year -- the dollar value is based on, you know, the calculation here of unit cost per number of beds, but you thought it would probably cost less than that. Do you have any prediction as to, you know, what it might cost for that 64-bed expansion? CHIEF SMITH: I do not. Probably the best person to ask that would be Skip Camp or some of the people over in facilities that work with those numbers every day. I just know that, you know, we did some preplanning to add that additional dormitory on when we did the construction so -- and the land's already acquired, so I think that there are going to be some cost savings in going ahead and adding that pot, but I really don't have a basis to estimate what it would cost. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Georgia? MS. HILLER: Thank you. Chief Smith, has any consideration been given to the possibility of developing a separate facility for, I would say, a low security, you know, minimum security facility for Page 12 October 16, 2007 the more non-threatening offenders like people who are being incarcerated over weekends for DUIs or people that haven't paid child support to potentially reduce the overall costs? Because it seems somewhat of a waste to put them in a higher security facility. CHIEF SMITH: When we design jails, we do a -- we perform what you call a jail program analysis, and you go in and classify where you have offender population groups, and you see just exactly what drives the need for the expansion. So the answer is yes, we consider that, but we've found that it's even more economically feasible to identify those offenders that are in for, say, failure to pay child support or first-time DUIs or those less serious offenses and put them on the weekend work program where they're not utilizing jail space at all but reporting on Saturday and Sunday on their days off, and we take them out in the community, and I'm sure you've seen them out there picking up litter and doing other public service projects. We think that that's even a better utilization because then you don't have to feed them, you don't have to house them, you don't have to have them interacting with the rest of the population. So we try to -- we're trying to expand those programs, and we've been very successful at that. Building a stand-alone facility just for minimal offenders is pretty pricey because you do have to replicate certain, you know, core functions. So we really haven't done that at this point. We've analyzed it; we've looked at it. We consider it every time we add jail space, how much should be minimum, how much should be maximum. But you try to centralize them all around the core of the facility, like laundry, kitchen, administrative, so that you don't have to duplicate all that. MS. HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're still on page 99. Joe. MR. SW AJA: Joe Swaja, for the record. Page 13 October 16, 2007 First of all, thank you for the great job you and your sheriffs department do every day in Collier County. You guys are pretty good. CHIEF SMITH: Thank you, Joe. MR. SW AJA: Building on Georgia's comment, are we looking at options besides building new jail buildings like -- since we live in the Paradise Coast and this is a beautiful climate, like maybe a tent city somewhere out in the jungle, to put some people to enjoy our climate in a less expensive manner than what they enjoy in the palace over here in Collier County complex? CHIEF SMITH: Yeah. We -- we've also considered that. We currently have almost 80 beds in inventory that are in a tent-like structure. But the problem when you go into tents -- and if you just want a program, you know, just tents is, you have to understand that I also have to place staff there to watch them, and it's pretty hard for me to retain staff if I have to send them out there into the tent environment. That doesn't make it a bad idea because we'd still be able to accomplish that as well. But what we also would have to consider is, you know, hurricanes, and what would happen in that regard. And the overarching concern is that we've come up with so many diversions to using our jail space that we do have. And, again, I direct you back to what's happening at the federal level and the state level regarding how many people they keep in jail, you know, that we really have taken out a lot of these people that they normally have in their populations and then have to house in tents. For instance, you know, Sheriff Arpaio is a great example because right now there's an email flying around out there telling about all of this stuff that he's done that we've done here for years. He just has a better press agent than we do. But the people that he's keeping in his tents -- because I've been to his facility and I've toured it -- we don't even have in our system. Page 14 October 16, 2007 We've diverted them through the weekend work program and we've diverted them through first-time diversion programs with the state attorney and those people, so we've done that. Another thing with tents is, most of the people that we keep in our jail system are pretrial detainees. We don't have a whole lot of sentenced inmates, proportionately. And pretrial detainees are innocent until proven guilty. And eventually we will, but their standing today is that they're innocent until they're proven guilty, and so they retain all their rights. We have to also understand that, you know, managing them is different than, say, if they were a fully sentenced inmate because then they have less standing. And so all those things are things we consider. But, yes, when we can stick them in something that looks and smells like a tent, we do it, and we have and we will continue to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 99? Go ahead, Brad. MR. BOAZ: One last question. At the bottom of the page there's a reference to the jail master plan and a revised level of service of 3.8 beds. I just wanted to clarify if there's any intent to change the level of service going forward. CHIEF SMITH: I think that the jail master plan that is still yet to be adopted indicates that -- their recommendation for a 3.8 percent LOS -- excuse me, not percent, but 3.8 LOS. I found that a little problematic personally because what they use to base that on was the numbers from our peak season, and then they added in a peaking factor, and I just think that's counting it twice. And so I think that, you know, at least from our perspective, you know, I mean, it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to stand up here and say, well, the report supports 3.8, but that's not the case, at least in our minds. I think we need to go back and ask that consultant to adjust out the peaking factor and find, you know, the relevance given the fact that we arrived at that using the peak Page 15 October 16, 2007 population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chief, since we're talking about levels of service, I notice that your actual level of service for the year varies from the level of service standards we have. In '05, your actual, of incarceration, was 2.89, and in '06 it was 2.97. And I also notice that if we were to take your level of service, instead of3.2, and use 3.0, you would be able to defer the need for new beds until 2012 to '13. I actually redid your table and recomputed it. And the reason I'm suggesting this is we've got a surplus that we have -- I mean a deficit we have to deal with, and there's two ways of doing that, I would think, is bringing more revenues or possibly lower the expenses or thus the level of service. And by dropping level of service to 3.0, I think we could defer some of your expenses, and then using your new jail master plan as justification, you could request an increase in impact fees if we could find a way to decrease the pool of impact fees from other possible departments, such as we talked about yesterday. What are your thoughts on that? CHIEF SMITH: Well, I think that you're on safe ground anytime that your LOS is lower than your actual utilization, which is what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. CHIEF SMITH: I -- and from what little I know about impact fees -- and I defer to Amy on all that -- is -- as most of us in the room do -- but, you know, you just want to be careful about not getting into a deficit situation, then having to fund that out of something before you can attack it with the impact fees. But the best thing that I can do is just present what the numbers are and tell you how we arrive at them, and then it's up to you and the board as what you set the LOS at. It's never going to completely mirror -- and I don't think it ever should -- your utilization because then it's a moving target and you're adjusting it every year, and that's Page 16 October 16, 2007 just, you know, too much work for staff and it kind of creates the illusion that we're chasing, you know, something that we'll never catch because, trust me, with jail beds, you're never going to catch it. There's always -- you know, you're always going to be adding, just like any other piece of infrastructure. So I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're heading in the right direction with some of the programs I heard talked about here this morning, which is actually probably going to help, and we have a bigger possibility of that helping than hindering. That's why I thought if we got the level of service down to three -- but that still was higher than the existing in any prior year, it might be a practical way to approach some of the deficit. I did notice, too, that under your other revenues you've dropped from 1.9 million to 785,000 for other revenues. Do you know why that occurred? CHIEF SMITH: I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Contradiction of something you said earlier, I was just curious. I thought it was an interesting twist on words. You have people in jail that are illegally there. CHIEF SMITH: Yes, sir, who are in the country illegally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- I thought that was a unique way of stating it, so -- okay. Any other questions on page 99? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the benefit of Janet, because I forgot last time, on the back of page 99, a continuation of the footnotes, is page 100. Is there anything on page 100? MS. VASEY: Not from me, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move to 101. Any questions on page 1017 Ms. Caron? MR. SW AJA: I'm confused about the population numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I just recognized Donna first. MR. SW AJA: Sorry. Page 17 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Donna had just put her hand up first; then we'll get to you. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to question these population numbers. Are we using the revised numbers in this chart? Excuse me, Mike? MR. BOSI: Yes. These are the -- this is a permanent population with the peak season adjustment. COMMISSIONER CARON: With the peak season, okay. MR. BOSI: Based upon the October 1 permanent population numbers, which are in the back of your AUIR workbook with the 1.2 multiplier. COMMISSIONER CARON: But now are these figures the ones you were talking about using peak season plus a peaking factor? CHIEF SMITH: Those are the ones used in the consulting report. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just in the consulting. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, did you still have a question? MR. SW AJA: Answered the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on page 101. Any other questions? Janet? MS. VASEY: Yes. You say on the first footnote that the population in June was 1245 inmates. Do you have the populations for July, August and September? CHIEF SMITH: I'm sure that we do not have them for September yet. Do you have any updates on that? We can give that to you. I can tell you it's holding steady at 1250. MS. VASEY: Okay. Because that has to do with Mark's question on utilization. So it did continue through the rest of the year at that level? CHIEF SMITH: Yeah. And the concerning thing from our perspective is -- excuse me -- this is the time of the year that we Page 18 October 16, 2007 usually see a lull, and what we've actually seen is it going up, so -- MS. VASEY: It looks like if -- I guess to follow on with Mark's comments from the earlier page, if you did project that utilization factor, that you would not have a deficit through the end of the -- the AUIR period; isn't that correct? CHIEF SMITH: Well, we don't know. I mean, utilization is whatever comes through the back door and stays there past 72 hours. So, you know, we can only track it, you know, historically. And by doing that, we can get our projections out. But, you know, for instance, just let me throw this out there. You know, the state now is struggling with their budget and meeting their budget shortfalls, and almost inevitably that translates into unfunded mandates on local jurisdictions. And I think that some of the things that we're seeing happen with regard to those cuts, what's being talked about is reducing the amount of probation and parole officers. We see, you know, a trend to try to have some local jurisdictions assume responsibility for those people sentenced to two years and under. We've seen the Department of Juvenile Justice taking some significant hits that probably are going to translate into a more active younger criminality locally. If those things happen and transpire, you know, I can't stand here today and tell you next year what our utilization's going to be because it could be radically different. So just something to keep in the back of your mind. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page 101. Any other questions? MS. HILLER: May I ask one question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, sorry, Georgia. Go ahead. MS. HILLER: Your population numbers exclude the illegal population? CHIEF SMITH: No. They include them. Page 19 October 16, 2007 MS. HILLER: They include the illegal? CHIEF SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Chief, are there holding cells in any of the other municipalities, like the Everglades City, Naples, and Marco Island? CHIEF SMITH: No. I understand that there's some holding cells in Marco Island. There are no holding cells in Everglades City. We routinely -- if we take someone into custody that there needs to be some follow-on questioning, from time to time they'll do that in the squad rooms, say, out in Golden Gate or North Naples. But pretty quickly they're transferred down to the main jail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I saw that you used countywide population, and that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that if there's any possibility of counting any other cells in other municipalities that we utilize them. Okay. Any questions on page 102? Only two lines, again, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and they got it right actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 103, any questions? Go ahead, Steve. MR. HARRISON: Chief Smith, our cost per inmate per day has been rising sharply, and as we get up in that last right-hand column, do we ever call one of the outside contract firms to see if they can do it less expensively? CHIEF SMITH: We outsource everything that we can possibly outsource in that regard. We've outsourced our medical service, we've outsourced our food service, we've outsourced our commissary delivery. We've shifted the funding of certain positions to the inmate welfare fund, which is a fund that's generated by revenue from selling sundry and candy items inside to the inmate population. That's something that's a burden that's not borne by the taxpayers. So we do look very aggressively at outsourcing. Page 20 October 16, 2007 The reason why you see your cost per day going up is because we've built a new facility that's not quite over capacity, and the best way to get your cost per inmate down is to have an overcrowded facility. So -- and that's -- when you look back at the chart, you know, back in the days when we were like at 50 and 60 dollars, it's because we had, you know, more than 300 over our capac -- over our rate of capacity. And so with the same amount of corrections staff and the same amount of kitchen and everything else, you've got those blend-ins that kind of look like economies of scale, but it really wasn't. So now we've built this brand new great, big facility, and you have to staff it as though it's going to be full occupancy every day. And so when you blend in those costs, then it looks like it's completely inflated and left with the impression that it's run-away, but it's really not. But it's something that is going -- if you take the whole budget and break it down by the utilization, that's the number that it comes up with, which is still fairly consistent with the national average, but it's high for the state. But it's an attributable fact that we have a jail that's not overcrowded yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? MR. BOAZ: There was a very large increase between 2004 and 2005. I just wondered if there were any specific factors that -- CHIEF SMITH: That's when we brought the new jail on-line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 103, any other questions? Chief, you just mentioned something I'd like to understand better. You talked about over capacity, and let's take an example as of 300-bed building. At what point are you over capacity, at 301 or 310 or -- CHIEF SMITH: You're considered over capacity at 301. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 301. CHIEF SMITH: But that in and of itself may not be a reason for alarm, because what the courts are more concerned with is the overall conditions of confinement, and that's a term of art. And what they Page 21 October 16, 2007 look at is, even though you may be overcrowded, say you have 200 more than what your capacity says you can hold, as long as it's still a clean environment, as long as it's still a safe environment, as long as inmates are getting the services that they're mandated, such as recreation and visitation, then the courts really don't inject themselves. But as the population does increase and go over capacity, it is more of a challenge to administer that type of facility. Increases in violence can and do occur, and sometimes you do have to trim back on programs. But as long as the overall conditions of confinement are good, there's no harm in running an overcrowded jail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What percentage of capacity do you feel that you can adequately run the jail before you reach that critical point where the courts would intervene? I mean, say you have a 300-bed unit. Can you go to 320, 350, 400? Can you go 200 above, 300, and still feel you're providing the level of service required by the courts to make sure you have a safe and clean environment? CHIEF SMITH: You could probably get away with a 20 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's -- the reason I asked that, Chief, that is a big buffer -- that's a big buffer to work with during the peak season when we have an influx and possibly more incarcerations, and maybe we don't have to build for that peak season as much if we knew that there was a capacity there that could be utilized during the crush periods of time, and that was the purpose of the question. CHIEF SMITH: And just let me -- let me take that one step further just to have this on record, that a lot of what you get from the courts, you know, in regard to, you know, forestalling any action-- and oh, by the way, you know, you talk about litigious, these inmates sit around all day and write writs and file suits and have fun doing so. I'm sure you're all familiar with the term jailhouse lawyer. And we have had some that are very talented, and it's only because we also have a very talented legal staff onboard with the Page 22 October 16, 2007 county and the sheriffs office that we've been able to get clear of some of that stuff. But part of what is built into any defense is that we have planned for additional cells, that we're in the process of adding on additional capacity, that we're not sitting by and just saying, well, we'll just deal with the overflow and try to make it okay. So I would say that we at least have to have some planning going on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. CHIEF SMITH: -- to take advantage of any kind of defense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. Good morning, Chief. CHIEF SMITH: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to the issue of using the example of 300 and then 20 percent, in answer to the other question about cost, costs should go down in economies of scale, so to speak, but it occurred to me, do you not run into an issue of safety and security if you have an overpopulation? Do you not put other employees in there to bolster up your operation, or do you leave your operation with standard roster? CHIEF SMITH: It all depends on what that population mix is. If it's misdemeanor, pretrial detainees, then you're probably going to watch them with the same amount of staff. But if what you see is your felony blocks getting full and getting over crowded, then absolutely you're going to augment that with additional staff. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And your numbers take into consideration those variations? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page -- whoa, Janet? 103 still. MS. VASEY: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on 104. Page 23 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody -- everyone done with 103? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Janet, 104. MS. VASEY: Okay, thanks. Have you done an analysis to determine at what point you have to start on a new jail, looking at how much time it takes for permitting and construction and all of that for your next jail, that you can back into when we have to -- when we have to deal with it, and that you're, you know, getting to the end of overcrowding? CHIEF SMITH: Yes. That's something that we do on a routine basis. Almost monthly we break those figures down and look at them, but it's also a huge component piece in the consultant report. The master plan for jails lists out when those benchmarks do occur and suggest when you should start the planning stage, the design phase, and when it should become, you know, brick and mortar on the ground. So, yes, it is in there. MS. VASEY: Do you know what that date is? CHIEF SMITH: I think we should have already started with the 64 beds, according to the report. MS. VASEY: Well, the 64-bed; I see that one is coming. I meant the next really big jail that would be like 400 capacity. CHIEF SMITH: Mike, we put that in here somewhere. MR. BOSI: That was contained -- the jail master plan was contained in the May 21st workshop and -- ifmy memory serves me. And you have to have the caveat, remember that their timing and their recommendations are based upon their recommendation of going to a 3.8 level of service standard. So they're planning function is accelerated based upon that recommendation. But the process of a new jail location should have -- according to the master plan, should begin within the 2007/2008 planning period because of the time frames associated with it. And you have to Page 24 October 16, 2007 consider, if acted upon their suggestion at 3.8 beds, we would be -- we would be -- right now we would be in a pronounced deficit based upon that -- based upon that revised upward number of 3.8. MS. VASEY: So assuming that we still want to stick to the 3.2 or, you know, somewhere around that level, we maybe have a year or two to figure it out and proceed. I don't think anybody's interested in the 3.8, including you. CHIEF SMITH: Well-- go ahead, Randy. MR. COHEN: One of the things I just asked Chief Smith on the side is, did you use the old numbers or the new numbers in the study as well, too, with respect to population, so that may skew the need as well. So obviously when the study goes through the process, that's something that they'll take a look at as well. CHIEF SMITH: That's an excellent point. And then also, when we look at the numbers and try to determine when to bring new jails on, at least internally, you know, we use actual utilization. We don't really, you know, schedule it on the LOS need. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. CHIEF SMITH: We actually do that by what our utilization has been. MS. VASEY: Okay. One last question. Regarding your beds, you take -- you take 42 beds out that are on the first floor for concrete beds and medical beds and holding cell beds when you're figuring our your capacity -- your total capacity right now is at 1,444. Don't you count those beds when you're -- people are in those beds when you have your count, aren't they, when you come up with your 1,245? CHIEF SMITH: Yeah, yeah. Let me explain that a little bit. The part of the state law that mandates that all the jail commanders, sheriffs, association of counties get together and come out with what they call the Florida Model Jail Standards, and that's basically the guidebook we have to run a jail by. And they tell you what you can count and what you can't count as far as what your factor capacity Page 25 October 16, 2007 beds are. And they say, in that document, that you cannot count these types of beds towards your rated capacity. The answer to your question is, yes, we do utilize them every day. Yes, we do have inmates in them. Yes, it does help us when we talk about our overall population. But when we're planning jails and when we're sitting here doing LOS, we just have to understand that that isn't something that we can count towards achieving beds under an LOS. MS. VASEY: But you wouldn't necessarily have to break open a new tent, you know, for maybe the first 16, or maybe the first 32; the 16 on the concrete and the 16 in the cell beds or something, because you actually do have a place at least for them temporarily? CHIEF SMITH: Well, the 16 beds that are on the concrete beds, those 16, those are just for when you're arrested, they stick you in the cell until they transfer up to the main housing. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. CHIEF SMITH: So that's for a very transient population. Most times those beds are not utilized, you know, because you'll have your heavy peak booking times during the day, and ifno one's being booked, those cells are empty and you can't really put someone in a holding cell for their housing. The rules say you have to have them moved out within six hours. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay, thank you. CHIEF SMITH: Now, the beds that are in medical, those are occupied all the time but, again, they want you, you know, for the purpose of any exercise, to treat those as transit beds. They're just in there until-- you know, they're not infirmed to the point where they need separation and then they're placed back in the general population. And the same with the other 16 holding cell beds. So, yeah, we utilize them, we have people in them, but it's really not something we can count as part of our rated capacity. MS. VASEY: Thanks. Page 26 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just wanted to make a comment with respect to preparation for the next major jail, and it has to do with our conversation yesterday on parks. One of the things that's throwing the park numbers way out of whack is this 625 acres that we are being given by the state for the offer of vehicle people. And it's my contention that a -- there aren't that many offer of vehicle people and that we should be utilizing those 625 acres in a, perhaps, more creative way, one of which, I think, would be to use some land -- I don't know how many acres you would need for ajail-- 10 maybe, you know, if that, for that purpose, and I just wanted to throw that out and get it on the record, and hopefully people will start talking about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 104? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 105 is a map. I hope you don't have any questions on 105. 106? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 107? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings us to the end of jails. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have 107. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The populations that you use in your comparative analysis chart, what numbers are those? Because, in essence, between 2005 and the numbers we're using for 2007 is a 100,000 jump. So I think probably one of the most important numbers in the study is that 3.6, but if it's based on a population -- MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't understand the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is, there's a Page 27 October 16, 2007 number 317 thou. for the population to derive at 3.6, but that number really isn't comparable to what we're using today, correct? MR. BOSI: That was based upon the population methodology utilized in 2005. So, yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if we put in the way of our methodology today, that 3.6 would be a lot lower, wouldn't it? MR. BOSI: Absolutely, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could we -- do you know what the method for 2005 would be the way we're doing it today? MR. BOSI: Well, basically you went from a 1 -- from an 11.6 percent population increase -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I know how we got there, but do you know the number, the actual number? I mean -- MR. BOSI: It would basically be revised down 8 percent because the old weighted methodology utilized an 11.6 percent markup for our seasonal population. Our new methodology utilizes a 1. -- or 20 percent markup for our peak scenario. I mean, that's just off the cuff. You could revise that down by 8 percent and you would get closer towards how the current methodology is utilized. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You done, Brad? CHIEF SMITH: I think that's going to bring you really close back to 3.2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And I mean, I'm just -- in other words, the way it's positioned, it's not that handy. If we had it with the right population, we could make a better judgment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve, and then Brad again. MR. HARRISON: Perhaps before we leave this segment we should revisit your idea yesterday about raising the impact fee for jails. If you look on page 99, the projected revenues, we have no new Page 28 October 16, 2007 debt here, and if the growth happened, we have 11 million expected of impact fees and not at the current unit cost for 163 more beds. So if we were able to make the kind of adjustments you were speculating about yesterday, we could be funding to that 3- or 400-bed level and with commensurate reduction on the ad valorem requirements to keep this going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly where I was thinking of heading. MR. HARRISON: So ifit was -- you know, if we could increase by half again as much whatever the per unit impact fee is, we'd be much farther along toward funding the next expansion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course, that will be subject to an impact fee study, which has got to be done on everything else, but I think that's the direction we should be -- MR. COHEN: Rather than bringing Amy on up, I spoke with her earlier and she said that they're about maybe six or seven months on out in terms of coming before them the Productivity Committee and the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. Brad? MS. VASEY: Is this a full update? MR. COHEN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have-- MR. BOAZ: Yeah. I would like to see the comparative analysis on the 107 basically reflect the 2006 and portion of2007. It talks about the trend, the upward trend in our incarceration rate, and as had been indicated, that has not been true for the period from 2005 through 2007. It's actually more stabilized again. MR. BOSI: This was taken from the May 21 st workshop level service comparison study. You're asking, is the request specifically to revise this level of service comparison? MR. BOAZ: Yes, because I don't think it's consistent with the other data that we have in here. Page 29 October 16, 2007 MR. BOSI: That was -- okay. The only issue is, that was taken from the jail master plan study and that was based upon the methodology of that consultant. I can try to take it back and adjust it towards the current methodology for our population and try to provide you what those numbers would be expressed at. That would be the most that staff could do with that, and I'm not sure how far we could take that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is -- really, this is a pasted page out of a previous study. I think that's what Mike's trying to get to. It's not one that they did specifically for today's meeting, so that it's not something that -- I don't know if it's part of the AUIR process other than the reference for informational background information. They'd have to recreate the table from scratch to start all over, I think is what they're saying, to get the population correct. MR. BOAZ: Okay. But we do have the population numbers and we also have the incarceration rates on page 103, don't we? So we have that information available? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean -- MR. BOSI: And I do believe that the information that you're looking for is really contained in the actual numbers because all that is trying to give you a snapshot of what the actual numbers were for 2005, what the incarceration rate was. MR. BOAZ: Right, but I think-- MR. BOSI: Page 103 actually provides what the incarceration rates were for 2006 and partially for 2007. I can -- I could provide the breakdown of what that equates to based upon our population numbers for those specific years, if that would provide a better basis for an evaluation for the Productivity Committee. MR. BOAZ: Well, I think this just seems to support the increase to 3.8, which I think we've agreed, based on the other information in here, is not an accurate conclusion. MR. BOSI: And I would agree with that. And back to Mark's Page 30 October 16, 2007 comment, this is really a static page that was taken from the master plan for a comparison analysis purpose only. This was -- that was the only purpose of this, to give you what the level of service standards were. Through the discussion, we've fully vetted that 3.8 is -- was based upon a prior methodology and something that the sheriffs -- the sheriffs department has not -- is not willing to embrace that level of service suggestion and is asking for a revision to that from the consultant. CHIEF SMITH: Well, let me clarify what the sheriffs office was suggesting. We're suggesting, is you want to make the LOS for jails 3.8, fine, but we can live with less. MR. BOAZ: And I guess if this is going out on to the board or anyone else, I wonder why it's not updated to reflect that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, the way I saw the report that you're referring to, it was a previously done report by another consultant. They used it as a backup data reference for us to read to get a flavor of -- MR. BOAZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it, and it wasn't something that had been recently modified or updated because they didn't need it. It was more or less for our experience. MR. BOAZ: I did -- I did hear that in the verbal discussion today, but that was not the impression I got when I read the document. And the document, standing on its own, I don't think, reads that way. That was my point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You may -- MR. BOAZ: There are references to that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- want to clarify it. MR. BOAZ: -- but it's not accurate. MR. BOSI: And what I can do, Brad, is for the BCC workbook, I can provide a -- more of a descriptive introduction as to what this Page 31 October 16, 2007 section is and the limitations of the information that are contained within this section. MR. BOAZ: That would be very helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would probably solve -- and I note Mr. Murray, then Brad Schiffer, then Joe. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I don't recall whether it was Brad or Steve that raised the issue about no additional debt. But I noted in 2005, the debt service payments were 9,770,534, and today it's 9,761,007. Is there any rolling debt? Are we retiring and replacing, or is this just payment down? We haven't taken on any new debt. I just want to have that on the record; is that true? CHIEF SMITH: You'd have to ask county staff that, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I what, sir? CHIEF SMITH: You'd have to ask county staff that. We wouldn't know that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you wouldn't know that? MR. BOSI: There have been no expansions within the past two years in the AUIR. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BOSI: There has been no additional county debt. This is still past debt for past expansion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. That's just all I wanted to clarify for the record, in fact, we are retiring the debt. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, did you still have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. My question was still back. Is the population on 107, is that the actual population? Because in the appendix where you give population, everything is still an estimate. Do we know exactly how many people were here in past years? MR. BOSI: The population in 107 was generated by the jail master plan off of -- off of a methodology that's different than the Page 32 October 16, 2007 methodology contained within the packet of the population sheets for -- at the back of this AUIR workbook. As Commissioner -- or Chairman Strain had indicated, this is a static -- this was a static comparison from our 21 st workshop. This wasn't intended to be updated for the purpose of this AUIR. This was just to be -- to provide a comparative analysis that was -- that was provided by the jail master plan that I thought the more relevant -- the more relevant statistics for this was just the comparison to what the Florida averages were and what the -- and what the national averages were. For the actual incarceration rate average for Collier County, the best way to do that -- and I guess that's staffs fault for not providing a breakdown. As to -- for 2006 we averaged 11,198 inmates within our system. That should have been divided by our population to provide you what the actual utilization in -- as Chief Smith said, what the actual utilization rate on this system was at the time, and that would be the more relevant information for this discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question kind of goes, in the back we have an appendix that lists the population projections. How come the ones from 2000 forward are still called estimates? Are they good numbers or are they numbers that you're working -- I mean, don't we know what the population is, you know, historically? MR. BOSI: We don't know in the sense that we haven't had the decennial census go out and actually door by door count and do that verifying process that goes on every 10 years. They are still -- and that's a caveat. I mean, with no absolute certainty with BEBR say that 2004, your population was 309,000 people. They still want to put that caveat with the term of estimate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the 2000 was a census number, is it? MR. BOSI: Every 10 years is the decennial census. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's still an estimate. I Page 33 October 16, 2007 mean, do we have -- the base number in this report should be a census-driven number? MR. COHEN: The 2000 number is a census-driven number. Anything forward from that is an estimate from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. And I think the problem that happens in a community like this that has both the seasonal population, a very transient population, and as the sheriff -- the sheriffs department is a good example of it -- a lot of illegal immigrants actually capturing the essence of what the actual population is really difficult to do on a yearly basis. So what will probably happen in 2010 when we do the decennial census is that we're going to probably find a number that's a lot different than what's actually there, and it will also depend on the vacancy rate that we have right now in our households and what type of absorption we have in the meantime, because when they take that count is really going to depend and determine a lot of things about our population. If absorption occurs at a quicker rate, obviously, you know -- we have a season -- we have a vacancy rate, you know, attributed to Collier County. If you were to take that right now, it's going to be extremely high. If it was two years ago, it would have been extremely low, so just like anything else, population numbers have a tendency to be reliable to a certain extent. Right now we're in a situation where there's a high degree of uncertainty and unreliability that's out there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I bet -- I hope compo planning thinks twice before they throw more support documents in that are current because it does raise a lot of questions, and legitimate questions, too. Joe? MR. SW AJA: As a general principle, I suggest that the numbers that we put on these tables and charts ought to be either the current Page 34 October 16, 2007 methodology, 1.2 for peaking and all that, or they should not be included at all if we can't adjust them, and when we do use them inaccurately, we at least put a statement by the table or by the chart that says, this is an estimate or this is some other methodology so that there's a caveat attached to it and we don't make bad decisions off of raw numbers and bad numbers. I think it misleads some of us in terms of, like the 3.8, you'd jump to one conclusion; if it's 3.2, it's another conclusion. That's a lot of money, and we ought to be careful how they use the numbers. And that's not to be critical. It's just to be a positive improvement in the future that we do that so people will know that. Because we've had that with every section we've gone through here, the numbers haven't been matching. And every one of these has a different set of population numbers, and I'm totally confused as to what the population of Collier County is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? MR. BOAZ: Yeah. I'd just like to clarify that table on 107 so if we do go back and look at that master study again, that table represents permanent population so it does not have the 120 percent factor. So that 3.6 would be with the 120 percent -- would be the 3.0 that Mr. Strain discussed at the beginning of this. And that conclusion that we're rising to a 3.8 level is -- would be wrong based on that because it's based on that 20 percent difference. And using the level of service, it should reflect that 20 percent. MR. BOSI: Once again, that was for comparative analysis. What the intention of comprehensive planning staffs inclusion of that was, was for the boards to be able to see what the national and the state average was for the actual utilization rate of Collier County's system. 103 provides -- provides that information, and that is -- that is the responsibility of myself for not clarifying the individual purpose or the specific purpose of inclusion of what those numbers were for, and Page 35 October 16, 2007 those were for -- just for comparative analysis of systems other than the Collier system, and I apologize for that. MR. BOAZ: That's fine for this document. My comment was towards the updated master study when we come back and relook at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any discussions further on jails from the panel? Georgia? Georgia, then Mr. Vigliotti. MS. HILLER: Can you help me out, because maybe this has been discussed and I just didn't understand. But when I read -- going back to page 99, the final footnote with the three asterisks, it addresses, a future jail center, phase one, would provide 400 beds, cost 46.7 million, land cost not included but, you know, Donna has come up with a solution for the land cost -- and is scheduled to be completed by 1/1/2011. How does that statement factor into the numbers above? Because I see where you address the 64-bed need, but where is this 46.7 million, or is that not supposed to be factored in this? And then -- and coupled with that, you know, there's the debt service that's potentially associated with it. What am I missing? CHIEF SMITH: You'd have to refer that to county staff for your answer. MS. HILLER: I seem to-- MR. COHEN: You want me to go ahead and take a shot at this one while Mike has that look like he's looking at a deer in the headlights? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whoever put that paragraph together ought to take a shot at it. MR. COHEN: I didn't write it, but what's transpiring is two things; one, we had a change in population methodology, which obviously pushed down the Immokalee need as well because we've gone to that 1.2, which includes our seasonal population. Page 36 October 16, 2007 We've got a jail master plan out there that's based on the different population methodology. That hasn't been adopted yet by the Board of County Commissioners, correct? So what's going to happen is undoubtedly we're going to ask that that consultant -- and I believe Chief Smith and I will talk about that in going back and revisiting some of the issues in there because obviously, in speaking with him based on the need, if you go to that chart on page 101, when you look at the number of surplus/deficiencies -- and you talked earlier about getting to that 300-bed number. That doesn't transpire until fiscal year 2016/17, or maybe 2017/2018. So there's going to be ongoing discussions with respect to the AUIR and also their master plan in trying to come up with a realistic date for when that jail is actually needed. And I think that's what needs to transpire and that's why it's not listed. MS. HILLER: So basically -- so if I understand what you're saying is, is that completion date of 20 11 is not correct at this point? MR. COHEN: I would assume at this time that that is a correct statement, but again, I think we're going to have to fully vet the county's jail's master plan, and again visit all the issues and then come up with what I would consider a realistic date. And this is something that their consultant probably should go back and take a look at, because I think they used the old population methodology. MR. BOSI: If I could jump in for one second, that is just to provide you the information that was contained -- and the footnotes indicates it. That's the information in the schedule that was contained in the jail master plan, and that was just to provide -- provide both of the advisory boards what the -- what the professional assessment from that jail master plan was indicating in terms of scheduling. This isn't -- it didn't -- it doesn't dictate or doesn't reflect the actual schedule of capital improvements that are being proposed within the AUIR that's before you. The capital improvement for that Page 37 October 16, 2007 is a 64-bed expansion within Immokalee that's the sole capital improvement project within this AUIR. MS. HILLER: But potentially we could be facing the need for this other one, in which case the deficit that Mr. Harrison was addressing is going to be substantially greater than what we're presented with here right now. MR. BOSI: That would be only if the Board of County Commissioners would accept a 3.8 level of service standard for jails. MS. HILLER: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Oh, Mr. Vigliotti, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a general question. How is the economic downturn and the rate of unemployment rising going to affect jails on the short-term and possibly long term? CHIEF SMITH: One more time. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Unemployment is going up in the county, the economic downturn is causing a problem, a lot of people are out of work. How is that going to affect the jails, or will it? CHIEF SMITH: It may have some effect. I don't think we've been in it long enough to really tell what that effect might be. And I think that that's something that we probably need to keep an eye on, because, you know, people who are out of work tend to gravitate towards criminal enterprise. But it's really too early to tell. And we don't really see that reflected in the numbers yet. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's my concern, right. All right. Thank you. CHIEF SMITH: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Georgia? MS. HILLER: Taking off on what Robert just mentioned, there could be an offset to that in that if we have an illegal population that is no longer employable, they might migrate to an area where there is more employment so you might see a decrease in the immigrants -- in Page 38 October 16, 2007 the nonlegal population which might offset what Robert is talking about. So there might be a net zero effect. CHIEF SMITH: I suppose that's possible, yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everything is pretty hypothetical in regards to what could happen. MS. HILLER: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. Are there any other questions on the jail section from the panels? MR. SW AJA: Solution to illegal immigration is a big recession, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me, sir? MR. SW AJA: The conclusion -- the solution to illegal immigration is a big recession. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is a big recession? MR. SW AJA: Then they won't come here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any-- MR. SW AJA: That will solve the problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wishing to speak on this issue? Just raise your hand if you would like. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess then we're at the end of jails, and for the Planning Commission's behalf, I know, again, the Productivity Committee will take it back and discuss it, I'm assuming, with your larger panel, if that's what you choose to do. I know we have to take a position on these. Is anybody from the Planning Commission ready to make a recommendation or discussion? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would move that the Planning Commission accept the report with the modifications that have been introduced and corrections to be made and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, could you clarify what you mean Page 39 October 16, 2007 by recommendations that have been -- I'm not sure what you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There have been -- there have been suggestions made by both the Productivity Committee and by the Planning Commission members to modify some of the approaches that comprehensive planning would take when it presents to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's -- ifthere's a second, there needs to be discussion because I have no idea what you're referring to. So let's go for a second. Anybody want to make a second on that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bob, the problem is, I didn't hear any specifics coming from -- I mean, I heard a lot of discussion, but I didn't hear anybody say anything specific. If you could-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There were no stipulations, I agree, but -- and I'll leave it then just as a recommendation to forward with approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Everybody's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there's been a recommendation to forward with approval. And before we go to Randy, is there a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion dies for lack ofa second. Randy, did you have a comment? MR. COHEN: Yeah. I just wanted to clarify. On page 107, there was significant talk with respect to modifying that table, and I would suggest that from the current comments made by Mr. Bosi, that we'll either modify that table accordingly or have the specific footnote or notations that will give the Board of County Commissioners the proper information, the context in which to consider that table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I'd like to venture a motion then with some clarity in regards to where we could go with this. I would suggest that we recommend approval for the jail Page 40 October 16, 2007 subelement, but that we also recommend a reduction in level of service to 3.0, and the basis for that is that at this time we've been informed that there is a 20 percent capacity overage that could be used if needed, and there's the 42 beds that aren't counted that are actually in use. Well, that gives a total of 1,775 potential beds should there be any shortfall during peak season, which I think we're adequately covered based on historical, so that's why I would recommend that the 3.0 be used, which would help lower the revenues needed to maintain, and that also we look at recommending an impact fee increase, if it can be justified by the upcoming study for this particular item, on the presumption that the impact fee total threshold for Collier County as a whole does not increase. And the reason I'm saying that is, we need to go back in and revisit parks if I'm possibly looking at a decrease from that recommendation. So now that's -- that is the specific motion I'd like to put on the floor if there is a second. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second made by Commissioner Caron. Now, is there any discussion? Is there any things that were missed that we may want to add in? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. And I'm comfortable with that -- excuse me -- because the way our population's really set up is, it's only two months, three months that we have that population that we're designing from, so it's conservative with the fact that the majority of the year we're at our lower population in that design. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From the Planning Commission side of the table, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 41 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Janet? MS. VASEY: I'd like to have our group talk a little bit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. VASEY: We might do a subcommittee vote if you want or we can do it. What I would propose on our side is that we recommend approval with the understanding that the cost ofthe 64-bed expansion is probably overstated and maybe we can get something before we have to go to the full Productivity Commission -- Committee on what that cost would be. Then also looking at capacity utilization may not actually need to deficit 61 beds identified during the AUIR period. We need to start thinking about the next major jail based on a realistic date as to when the new jail is needed, you know, something along those lines, and then I would also recommend a full update of the jail impact fee to determine if the fees are set at an appropriate level. Is there any interest in those kinds of issues? MR. SW AJA: I'd want to add the one that Mark had, which is lowering the level of service to 3.0, unless that can be shown otherwise with concrete, realistic, accurate data. MS. VASEY: Could we have that considered during the impact fee review? That would be a natural thing to look at and actually have the study address that level. And I could put it in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe Schmitt had a comment in that regard. Maybe-- Page 42 October 16, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I have some confusion here because you're saying reduce the standard to 3.0. In an attempt to increase the impact fees, that will probably have the reverse effect. You've reduced the level of service. You're most likely going to reduce the impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Depends on what the impact fee was set at. We've found from some of the other impact fees that was testified to yesterday was that they were set at a different rate purposely to have a buffer there between what was really needed versus where they could have -- how they could be utilized. I don't know. Is Amy here to -- MR. SCHMITT: I've got Amy here -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now we're -- MR. SCHMITT: I have Steve here as well, who did the study, so CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go into that though, Joe, let's let the -- MR. SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Productivity Committee -- I thought you had something to contribute to their discussion. MR. BOAZ: Janet, for purposes of this discussion, I would keep the 3.2 as approved in this document, but we should look at level of service when we go forward and look at the impact fees, and that master study should be updated with accurate population numbers and also reflect the actual incarceration rates. MR. SW AJA: I can live with that. MS. VASEY: Okay. Are you going -- Chief, are you going to be looking at the master plan? You said it hadn't been approved yet. Are you planning to do something to approve it in the future? CHIEF SMITH: It will be presented shortly to the Public Safety Coordinating Council, who is that body formed by statute to review all issues pertaining to jail expansions in the county, and that's chaired by Page 43 October 16, 2007 Commissioner Coyle. Once it's been approved at that body, then it will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval and adoption. And at some point I'd like to make a clarifying remark, if! could. MS. VASEY: Okay, sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Chief. CHIEF SMITH: It's in relation to building a methodology or a strategy that banks on the fact that we're always going to be 20 percent above population or above what the j ail is designed to carry, and I just feel the need to make the statement on the record that that isn't something that we support. I answered a question as to what could we possibly do. We could possibly do that, but we certainly don't support adopting a methodology where we're always going to have inmates sleeping on the floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that wasn't the intent of the methodology. What it was is a comment that ifthe historic rates increase because of any peaks, we would have some cover so that -- so that by the time we got to the next AUIR, if we had to make an adjustment, we could do it. That was the philosophy that I was expressmg, so -- CHIEF SMITH: I understood it to be that, but I would have just felt more comfortable if it had been left unsaid. Some inmate comes back and sues and said that Chief Smith stood at the dais and said that we can always live at 20 percent over, I just need that cushion, and I'm sure my legal team would appreciate me making that comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understood. MS. VASEY: That wasn't actually in ours. We're going to the let the study take a look at that, that impact fee study, look at everything. Is that -- would you all want to vote on that or you just want to take that -- MR. SW AJA: I'm comfortable voting with it here. Taking it back to the big committee, they can never have the benefit of all these Page 44 October 16, 2007 discussions, and asking them to vote on something they have little or no knowledge of is kind of a waste. MS. VASEY: Okay. All in favor? MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. HILLER: Aye. MR. SW AJA: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. BOAZ: Aye. MS. VASEY: Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Okay. Unanimous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're finished with jails then, and we ought to take a break and come back here at 10 after 10 and go onto law enforcement. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everyone would please return to their seats, we'll resume the meeting. Before we go on into law enforcement, there needs to be a clarification on the motion made by the Planning Commission onjails. Mr. Schmitt, we appreciate your information you supplied. I talked with the impact fee gentleman, Mr. Tindale, and Mr. Smith's comments were accurate, that if we lower the level of service, it will be difficult to then suggest to raising impact fee. More accurately stated, we probably should recommend that the level of service remain the same, but in exchange we request an increase in impact fees but subject to the same ceiling that was described in the previous motion, and that ceiling being that overall impact fees in the county do not rise as a result of this request, that they seek reductions elsewhere so that the package stays the same as far as the total goes. And so I would like to ask this committee to reconsider the previous motion and have it replaced with this motion that I just made. Page 45 October 16, 2007 So I'll make that as a motion if anybody would second it. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron would second it. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody opposes. I'm assuming staff understands the clarity of that motion so when it goes to the board, it goes in the right format? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. Chief, we're now into law enforcement. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. Again, for the record, Chief Greg Smith, chief of administration for the Sheriffs Office. And you have in front of you the law enforcement portion of the AUIR that encompasses most of the law enforcement lands and buildings occupied by the sheriffs office. And just as a reminder, the buildings are owned by the county. Sheriffs cannot own real property, so we are dependent upon the county to provide that once we certify a need. And I'll stand for questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start with the summary page, page 109. Are there any questions from the panel on 109? Page 46 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I kind of do, Mark. Just for -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is the only -- or the first time we're actually essentially buying people. Prior to this we've been buying land and buying buildings and stuff, right, or is this -- CHIEF SMITH: There's always been a portion of the impact fee that generates capital equipment that's utilized by the sheriffs deputies. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is this -- this is not providing anything to do with their salaries or -- in other words, we rate it 1.9. Is that the equipment to support 1.96? MR. BOSI: 1.96 is your officers per population. That's been the standard within law enforcement during the AUIR purpose since the inception of the AUIR. What they correlate that to is once the specific number of officers gets beyond a threshold, then that correspondingly relates to the need for the capital improvement to house the additional officers. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is to equip, and the denominator is just people? MR. BOSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 109? Janet, I know you've got to have some questions, then Joe. MS. VASEY: Yes, please. Chief, on this one, I don't know that I noticed it so much last year, but this year it seems like the costs of the capital per police officer and the magnitude of the capital costs -- total capital costs in the AUIR period are driving up the number of officers that we're showing. It's -- you don't really -- you wouldn't really need -- well, I guess maybe I should ask, do you really need, in the AUIR period, 274 more officers? CHIEF SMITH: We need more. I don't know that the number Page 47 October 16, 2007 would be 274 more, but we absolutely need more. Everything that we've looked at, all the need generators, and show us that, you know, we right now enjoy the benefits of some programs and methodologies regarding patrol strategies that have paid off and have decreased crime. But at some point we're going to have to try to maintain that in a growing environment, and that's going to be pretty tough. You know, I -- when I have conversations with my fellow chiefs who manage the sectors involving investigation, patrol, and corrections, they tell me that we're pretty much pushing the level of effectiveness, and at some point we are going to have to start looking at adding in more. MS. VASEY: The new buildings that are coming on-line in '08 and '09 relate to the emergency services center and the -- let's see, the fleet facilities is already in. No, that one's coming in too. And those aren't really going to necessitate major personnel associated -- new personnel associated with them, are they? CHIEF SMITH: No. The building won't mean more personnel are needed. We need the buildings because there's more personnel. There's -- right now we don't have enough space for the deputies that we have. The emergency services complex, for instance, we're only one tent in that structure. The whole building's not for the Sheriffs Office. We will house the communications e-911 center in that building as well as the East Naples substation. And currently we are shoehorned into East Naples Fire Station there in front of Naples Manor, and that's our East Naples substation, which is woefully inadequate, I might add, to service the needs of East Naples. So one of the components of the emergency services complex is going to be moving most of the East Naples substation into that facility. MS. VASEY: Okay. But when you calculate this number of officers that are needed, you take the cost of the buildings and you Page 48 October 16, 2007 divide it by the capital cost per police officer, the $159,000, and that's how you get the number of people that are identified here. And I just -- I can't see how that number is realistic. It just seems like a -- it's a 40 percent increase in your population in your officers over a five-year period, and it just seems like -- not that you're asking for the wrong thing, but just that the methodology here is very flawed. CHIEF SMITH: The methodology that was utilized -- and this is just my understanding because, again, you know, our involvement isn't at that level. That comes from the county staff. But my understanding is that the 1.96 was a result of the consultant who performed the study to have the impact fee. And we've always -- when we've looked at it, you know, from our side of the house, we've never been comfortable with the 1.96 number, but we also understood that the 1.96 number was just to derive a timetable with which to add facilities predominantly. And since most of our deputies we prefer to be on patrol in a car rather than sitting at a desk, we're okay with that. You know, we've always been able to live with the 1.96, but we're also concerned, you know, that we don't want someone thinking that that reflects what the need is, because the two are very different. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve and then Joe. MR. HARRISON: In talking about the jail, you made the distinction of core functions and things that are more variable costs. Just for clarification, does the 1.96 -- these are certified officers, field officers, or are there administrators and staff people in there as well? CHIEF SMITH: I think that it encompasses all law enforcement officers, so it would be some who also have administrative duties, but that doesn't relieve them of their duties to be a law enforcement officer. There's -- there are also investigators that are included in that number as well. MR. HARRISON: But are HR and finance people in there as Page 49 October 16, 2007 well -- CHIEF SMITH: No, they're not. MR. HARRISON: -- the core functions? CHIEF SMITH: No, they're not. MR. HARRISON: All right. So the capital numbers, we can assume, are just for the field certified people -- CHIEF SMITH: Right. MR. HARRISON: -- not for the core functions that we hope to get leverage on. CHIEF SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? MR. SW AJA: I almost hate to ask this question. What numbers would the population 1.96 officers, what was that based on, which population calculation? And second question, second part of the question, if you're not comfortable with 1.96, what number are you comfortable with? CHIEF SMITH: We're more comfortable with the national average. MR. SW AJA: Which is? CHIEF SMITH: 2.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, you're waiting on the population answer, correct? MR. SW AJA: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, were you able to find it? MR. SW AJA: Move on and come back to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Were you able to find that population answer? CHIEF SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't looking for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. You might want to restate your question, or whoever it was. Why don't we move on to Steve while we're looking -- staff is looking that up. MR. HARRISON: Chief, in the last two years we've talked Page 50 October 16, 2007 about the department's policies on the police cars. Does everybody need a vehicle, for example, or could we, you know, double shift in individual vehicles? Because we've projected the need for the fleet vehicles. Have we made any changes in our policies on who needs cars and how they're going to be used? CHIEF SMITH: We do a yearly review of the fleet assignments and who's driving what, but we aren't adjusting any policies to go to two officers per car or we're not going to adjust a policy currently that requires one car to be hot-seated by deputies around the clock because it's just not economically advantageous. MR. HARRISON: So you've studied the numbers, and this is the cheapest way to go? CHIEF SMITH: That's correct. It's two things. First of all, the way that we do cars is -- it gives you greater life for the car, which is very important because, you know, when we had to go back and trim out $6 million out of our proposed budget this year, we are going to have to make sure that the life expectancy of those cars are pushed out another one-and-a-half to two years. We wouldn't have been able to do that if we were hot-seating cars. Secondly, it gives the -- a greater visibility in the community that we think has had a direct impact on keeping crime low, and the numbers of reports of citations of police interactions that are generated by members to and from work in those units more than justify the need, we think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did anybody happen to find a response to Joe's question about population? Mike. MR. BOSI: On page 121 of your level of service work, or your AUIR workbook, the third paragraph down indicates where the 1.96 number came from. In 2005 it was the first time that law enforcement was separated from general government buildings as a segment of the AUIR. Prior to that we collected impact fees for general government buildings that covered jails, law enforcement, all other general Page 51 October 16, 2007 government buildings. We -- the Board of County Commissioners accepted an impact fee study in 2005, and then the level of service identified within that impact fee study was 1.96 officers per 1,000. And within that first AUIR where law enforcement was segmented into its own component, the Board of County Commissioners adopted that as the standard, the 1.96 officers per 1,000. MR. SW AJA: Help me understand, if that number's correct, and that's made off of 1.2 for the peak factor, right, or the 1.33 -- which one did we use there? MR. BOSI: That would have to -- you'd have to go back and look at the impact fee study from 2005, what's the methodology and the population methodology that was used to establish that number, and then that would provide the answer for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SW AJA: When we translate that, given that 1.96 is right, which I'm not confident in, we translate that into number of officers, 274.5, and that directly translates to all that square footage we're going to add, all those officers? MR. BOSI: If you look at the summary page, the actual number of available inventory right now is 672.5. The required inventory at the end of the five-year capital program is 860. That's roughly about 191.5 required to be added to the system. The system is proposing to add 274.5 additional officers, and that is corresponding to the square footage contained within the improvement within the five-year window, being the sheriffs airport operations, the fleet facility, and the emergency service center. What has happened -- and it's almost impossible to have your square footage meet exactly what you need for that given year. So what happens is, you have somewhat of a surplus, an 84-officer surplus at the end of this five-year window based upon the capital improvement programs contained within this -- within this CIP. But Page 52 October 16,2007 the actual officers demanded by the population is 191.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad, did you have a follow-up? MR. BOAZ: Yeah, just to clarify. I think for purposes of this, the numbers that use the 860, it's reflected on page 111, and that's based on population in the unincorporated area, and I believe that's unincorporated adjusted for the 120 percent factor. MR. BOSI: Correct. MR. BOAZ: Okay. So that does include the 120 percent weighted factor. And then based on actual permanent population, that would be close to that 2.4 that you're talking about? CHIEF SMITH: Yeah. And the way that we look at it is -- and just to build on what Mike said -- it is not that you need to add in 84 officers because you have the square foot to do it. We look at it as, okay, this gives us a window where we could add an additional 84 officers before we ever have to start thinking about new facilities. So we may have it -- you know, I confess. We may have it backwards, but it seems to me like that's the better way, rather than have the building drive how many officers you go out and hire. MR. SW AJA: Yeah, it's kind of like new thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page 109. Is there any other questions on the summary page? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Who -- is someone here able to talk about the revenues on here, or is -- or can you do that, Chief? CHIEF SMITH: County staff should really be the one to discuss any of the revenues. MS. VASEY: I would like to talk about some of these things in here for -- and in particular, the loan from the general fund of $8 million. Is there -- can somebody talk about that? MR. BOSI: I can attempt to address your question. If it's something that's beyond my level of expertise, I may have to defer to and try to obtain Susan Usher's impact or input from the budget office. MS. VASEY: Ifprobably would be a good idea to have Susan Page 53 October 16,2007 come at some point because this is the same question I have on several different facilities. Where is the money going to come from to pay off this loan? It's another one of those situations where we're -- where the account is -- the facility is borrowing money from the general fund, all of their impact fees are already recorded as revenue, their normal ad valorem budgets are already recorded as revenue. So where do they get the money to pay that off? MR. BOSI: It's going to have to come -- if it's not available through impact fees, it has to -- there's only one other alternative for that, and that's the general revenue fund. MS. VASEY: Well, we're also constrained on general revenue increases through the tax reform legislation, so I would really at some point like to talk to somebody about the actual viability of this. It's eight million here, but I think I figured out that it was like 25 million if you add up all the different facilities, and I think that's a substantial issue for cost -- for financial feasibility where all this money's going to come from. MR. BOSI: We will -- we will definitely attempt to get Susan to come over here so she can specifically address the board. MS. VASEY: Okay. And like I say, several other facilities have the same issue, and maybe she can address all of those. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 109? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN : We'll move on to page 110, which is the back of 109. It's not much for us to talk about. Page Ill? Question on page Ill? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 112 and 113, charts and maps? MR. SW AJA: There's two lines, Brad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? Oh, yeah. Page 54 October 16, 2007 Page 114, law enforcement buildings. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that you've stated that you don't own the buildings. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I think that this chart needs to be a little bit modified to express that fact because it does introduce, again, the thought that you own the buildings. I don't think you made this chart up, did you? CHIEF SMITH: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, is that something that you need to correct then and get properly corrected? MR. BOSI: I'm sorry. I was -- I missed-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 114, Mr. Murray has pointed out that under status there's a series of owned-referenced buildings, and the chief had previously mentioned they don't own any buildings. They only lease them. Does that need to have an adjustment made to it? MR. BOSI: I guess clarified, the county -- we can just place it in county-owned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's important. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 115? Are there any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Chief, where's the sheriffs administration building going to be or proposed to be? CHIEF SMITH: It's an addition onto building J, the current building J of the main campus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, the -- under government Page 55 October 16, 2007 buildings last year we have the Sheriffs Office CID building. Is that -- where -- that is still somewhere. I mean, you guys -- oh, it was transferred over on the prior page, okay. Forget the question. Any questions on 115? Any others? Ms. Vasey, go ahead. MS. VASEY: Yes. Orangetree in the last AUIR was in FY -'08 and it's moved to FY-'16, eight years later. Is that -- and I thought there was some talk about that being a high priority. Could you talk about what happened? CHIEF SMITH: I think there was some slippage due to funding, is what we've been told by county staff, that they don't have the funds to build Orangetree, and there seems to be some concerns regarding the availability of potable water. So those are some issues that they're now telling us that we probably won't see an Orangetree substation for quite some time. Naturally that concerns us because that's the fastest growing area within the county, but that's not to say that we didn't take action on our own. We were able to form a partnership with the school board who donated some space next to the middle school, and we were able to acquire a modular unit that we were able to move out on site and at least set up some kind of operation, because we understood the need. Naturally we'd like at some point for the county to build a permanent sheriffs presence out there in the Estates, but we just couldn't wait, so we did it on our own. MS. VASEY: And how many people are you able to handle out there? I guess it doesn't matter too much because they're in their cars a lot. CHIEF SMITH: The staff currently assigned out there is what you're referencing? MS. VASEY: Yes. CHIEF SMITH: I think we have close to 30. That is pretty close. MS. VASEY: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Big modular, huh? Page 56 October 16, 2007 CHIEF SMITH: Well, like I said, you know, most of the time they're out in the cars, but they do have to have a place to base from, they have to have a place to come back, write reports, take care of things like, you know, administrative paperwork, submitting timecards, that kind of thing. But I think that we were -- we were pretty much pushed by the community to have a presence out there, and rightfully so. MR. SW AJA: Could you repeat the reasons why we can't build it? CHIEF SMITH: I will repeat to you the reasons, what I was told by county staff. First of all, there's no funding to build it. Second of all, that there is an issue regarding the potable water that's available. I think that most things in the area are serviced by Orangetree Utility, which is a private utility, and they are at capacity. So that's an issue. So I think a lot of it is tied to the construction of the regional water treatment center out there and the ability to handle any more capacity on potable water and sewerage. And Joe, you may be able to talk to that. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. For the record, Joe Schmitt. The Orangetree is a complicated issue, and we're currently under a lawsuit involving that. But basically there are some competing demands for that utility in regards to what their providing. I know they're in the process of seeking -- or submitting a request to expand capacity, but there really is some problems with sewage treatment as well for that facility. In regards to the building of the new facility, as the chief mentioned, it's really -- I would have to turn that over to Skip Camp, and it's a facilities issue and it's a funding issue. I mean, that's the bottom line on that. I think the manager is looking for alternative sites as well where he can locate ajail, an additional facility in the county, at least the one Page 57 October 16, 2007 that meets the requirements for both a county Sheriffs Office and that we can certainly fund and afford for an expansion proj ect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? MR. SW AJA: I think this is an area where we need to look at the overall facilities and have somebody set priorities about what's more important to build, the sheriffs substation in an area that doesn't have the coverage it deserves versus other buildings that we had talked about in our last -- past day. It's got to be a list to build -- I mean, I just can't believe that a sheriffs substation goes way down on the list CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. MR. SCHMITT: -- compared to building a park, for example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly agree with you. Any other comments on page 115? Go ahead, Georgia? MS. HILLER: I'm not sure exactly what, you know, you need specifically in that type of building. But is there not the possibility of leasing something out there? Is there nothing available in this market that, you know, could temporarily maybe satisfy what Joe is pointing out is, you know, a real need? CHIEF SMITH: We looked into that possibility. And the big thing with leased space is the amount of parking spaces they'll give you along with your lease, and that becomes problematic pretty quickly when you try to set up a storefront situation. I think that the solution that we're in right now, although it just is never meant to be a permanent solution, it's just temporary, but it does suit our needs, and we are present, we are in the community. So I think that that probably -- we're probably better there right now than any leased space. But, quite frankly, out there right now there's just two little strip malls and another one that's currently under development, but neither one of those would probably be suitable. MS. HILLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve? Page 58 October 16, 2007 MS. HARRISON: Chief, I gather the airport center is under construction now, 207/208? CHIEF SMITH: That is correct. MR. HARRISON: I just wanted to repeat our oft-stated questions. This is basically for interdiction of drug traffickers by water or looking at illegal immigrants coming ashore. This is a very expensive operation both in terms of operating costs and capital costs compared to policing our streets, and taking Mr. Swaja's comments on priorities, this one seems to be out of place. CHIEF SMITH: Which one are you referencing? MR. HARRISON: Airport operations, 18 million more dollars for hangars where we've got, what, four aircraft and six pilots and stuff like that going on out there. CHIEF SMITH: Well, it's a lot more than that. Some of it I can share with you, some, because of operational security, I can't. But I will tell you that there's going to be a whole lot more housed there than just airplanes and boats. It's going to be the entire special operations unit, which is about 100 men strong. It's going to have some other elements related to domestic security housed within, and in recent meetings with the county manager, there's even some talk of going ahead and finishing out the shelled-out third floor so that we can move additional sheriffs out of the Horseshoe building, because I think the strategy is at some point that we would vacate the building on Horseshoe and let the county assume that. MR. HARRISON: But as domestic security, do we have an federal grants helping us with this? CHIEF SMITH: Absolutely. But you usually don't get federal grants for the brick and mortar, typically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. lIS, if that wrapped up the questions on page lIS, we'll move on to 116. Brad, I knew you were going to ask a question on 116. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, again, population. Mike, Page 59 October 16, 2007 how did you -- what are these numbers we're seeing for population on that chart? And they're referencing the year-old population study. Isn't there a way we can update these things at the time of publication? MR. BOSI: Once again, this was information that was contained in your May 21 st for comparative analysis. I guess there can be the endeavor to undertake it to update it with the new methodology in terms of how that's going to reflect the numbers on 116, going back and kind of changing the past with our new methodology, if you've seen the value in that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm not -- yeah. I mean, the whole thing is based upon population being the denominator. So that means there's a numerator and a denominator. If the denominator we can't trust, then the equation doesn't become all that handy. But anyway, the information because -- I mean, it's just, we have to approximate what we think it would be from this point on, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tindale? MR. TINDALE: A couple comments. The impact fee study -- and again, I've not been involved in any master planning study. The impact fee study takes what we call a functional population. You go into some communities and you have a huge number of people who move into the community during the day, and in some communities we have a lot of people who move out of the community during the day. And for law enforcement, the AUIR numbers are not numbers that we use to calculate our functional population and the sheriffs needs. But we -- what we have to do is we have to do the study, we calculate all the employment that comes in versus the few people that go out, the daily population, the weighted seasonal population, then we come up with a reasonable number that we think we have to calculate law enforcement, what's being provided, and the standard that's being provided. Then we have to back solve when we get through and calculate a Page 60 October 16, 2007 number that goes into a report that goes to DCA. And I just want to be sure you understand that there's a lot going on in terms of the needs of the sheriffs, the calculation, the asset per officer, et cetera, versus what they need in terms of total people they serve on a 24-hour basis, which we call a functional population in these calculations. And to try to, you know, type something up, I guess, that says to be consistent statewide and to use BEBR in the peak season what you do for most of your facilities, and then put a footnote in here about how we really deal with functional population when we do analysis of needs and impact fees, would be an extraordinary task. But as we do the impact fees and the calculations and work with the sheriff, we bring you a set of numbers that vary significantly -- not tremendously different than this, but are different than this, and they're very logical and I think it works very well. And I think we need to be very careful about what we're trying to do in the AUIR report that goes to the DCA and these references back and forth to functional population. Any area that we want to be careful with that would be in the sheriffs, because the sheriffs departments clearly have different demands in terms of how your population moves around during a 24-hour period than most of the other types of facilities we do studies for. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that this number is the functional population number? MR. TINDALE: Well, I've got the -- the number we gave you, for an example, we come up with 2.13 people on the average during the day when, whatever method the old method, the weighted, was 1.96. We're like 20 percent higher because you have a lot more people who live outside the county that come in here during the day that have nothing to do with maybe some other general planning. These are employees and they're working and not going to parks, those types of concepts. So from a planning and an impact fee perspective, we were using Page 61 October 16, 2007 2.13 and back solving at 1.96, and that's -- I think that's about a 20 percent -- only 15 or 18 percent difference between the two numbers. But we do have a solid number, we have a solid methodology to estimate the number of people that the sheriff has to service each day. It affects the impact fees, it affects, you know, projected revenues. That's just one comment. Of all the ones you're dealing with, trying to get a handle on level of service and population, the sheriff is the one that's probably the most difficult in terms of making footnotes. The other general comment I'll make in terms of financing in the budget, in '05 you had no impact fees, so 100 percent of everything you did was with general funds, et cetera, and this is one of those departments that you go through a transition, and that's where you're -- you're in the middle of a transition with your revenue sources. You can't blame the sheriffs department. They come in and we say, go to an impact fee, do a revenue projection, and let's just put in your budget impact fees. Well, there have been no impact fees in the past. They're not about to drop all your local funding to build your facilities and go to impact fees. So you've gone from 100 percent of your funding without any impact fees, '05 when we did the study, and '06, I think you dropped down to -- about 75 percent of your revenues were not impact fees and now you're at about 50 percent. So as time transitions on -- I mean, look at right now with the permitting. The fear of the permitting and what we would do. We'll have to consider that. But as time goes along, what you will see is that there'll be less reliance potentially in the capital for budget for general fund, et cetera, and more and more impact fees. You have some service areas that have zero financing other than impact fees. This service is going from 100 non-impact fees to 75 percent, to 50. And over the next five or six years, you should see a continuation of a transition if things work out in terms of the revenues, Page 62 October 16, 2007 that the impact fees will become a larger part of the budget, but they're in this transition process, and that's very difficult to put in a five-year plan or 10-year plan wherein you're in this process of just adopting impact fees two years ago. So the whole budgeting process in terms of bonds and debts and revenues and impact fees clearly are in their transition fees. And I know the budget people can answer questions, snapshot this year of what's being projected over the five-year period, but you should see -- and I think the goal is, become less tax dependent, more impact-fee dependent, but you're going to do that very carefully over the next five years for the sheriff. So for all the ones you're dealing with, both in terms of population and budgeting, you've got one, a different methodology needed in terms of the functional population that we're servicing, and two, you've got a transition going on because you've only adopted these two or three years ago. So I just let you know, when you're looking at these numbers, that we're trying then to sit down and kind of back solve numbers to go here and generate a report for DCA. MR. SW AJA: That was very helpful. MS. HILLER: Yeah, very helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Georgia, go ahead. MS. HILLER: Based on your review of the numbers that we've seen today, is it your opinion that the impact fees that are currently being levied for the benefit of the sheriff are understated? MR. TINDALE: Well, no, they're in a transition. And, for example -- I give you one example. It's the City of Plant City I did in 1990, and they had no assets, and they put a bond out and started retiring the bond. And they had a very low impact fee and they used impact fees to retire it. Well, they finally got the asset owned. By now you have some bonds. When you've got bond in debt, you really haven't owned the Page 63 October 16, 2007 building yet. They transitioned from one of the lowest impact fees in 1990 in the state to -- I think theirs are higher than yours because they've got a nice facility and they've got some assets for their officers that they now own. And they went through a -- that's a, what, an 18-year period of transitioning from no assets and using general fund to now going to impact fees and creating the assets and having fees that are reasonably -- not reasonably high. I think they're probably higher -- probably they are higher than yours because they moved and they own those assets. And you're just in the middle of that, that process, in terms of the sheriff, in terms of leased, owned, using debt, and then using impact fees to pay the debt, get it paid off, and then the fees changing. MS. HILLER: But aren't we moving forward in a little bit of a dangerous situation because, you know, development has slowed considerably? So your projected shift from ad valorem dollars to impact fees, but we're not seeing the growth that would generate those fees. So I'm not quite sure how, you know, what you're proposing is going to play out over the next five years. MR. TINDALE: Well, to be honest with you, two or three years ago I thought the sheriff was probably being overreactive not to become dependent upon impact fees. Two years ago I just thought that would -- that just didn't make sense, and now it's very obvious that it was a good decision. So I think they've got a good mix here. They've got impact fees and the tax. The taxes don't go down that much when growth slows. So they've got that base still sitting there guaranteed. Now, if growth picks up and occurs, then they can -- they'll have the fees and they can then adjust their budget. So I think they've done a good job of the reliance and the transition from where they were to where they are. Once they get caught up and get these assets on the books and they own them, then they can feel much more comfortable about relying on the impact fees, Page 64 October 16,2007 you know, in the future, and I think that transition will continue over the next few years. MS. HILLER: One question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. HILLER: Yesterday you told us, you know, how much the sheriffs impact fee is versus parks. Can you repeat that number; like what is the park impact fee relative to a house -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I had asked staff for a rough idea of what the impact fee levels were, and I believe they said $3,000 approximately for residential for parks -- for both parks; 240 for jails and I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 130 for law enforcement. MR. TINDALE: Okay. Multiple reasons for that. Number one, the two assets you own in the community that are the most capital intensive is transportation and parks. If you look at any lO-year period in your investment capital and operating, transportation and parks, anywhere from 40 to 60 percent of all money is in capital, transportation and parks. Largest asset, largest asset per person, most expensive capital asset you have. Those two always will be four to five times the asset per person than all the other ones. Fire, EMS, law enforcement, is very operating intensive, very expensive. Just think of the number of people per square foot in a park that you operate and the people per square foot in a fire station. So you're always going to have the capital part, and that's what impact fees are in your budgeting purposes. You're always going to have much less capital needs, much larger impacting operating budget. The worst thing you can do is pump in a bunch of capital into a fire/EMS and not be able to staff it. The capital portion of those facilities is nowhere near the issue of transportation and parks. That's just good -- well, it's not good Page 65 October 16,2007 planning, but it's just facts. Been that way for -- there was studies done in the '60s, '70s, and '80s that show a huge percentage of budgets in transportation and parks as capital. Very small percent of budgets is capital for fire, EMS, et cetera. Even schools are capital intensive but very expensive in the operating costs. So you're going to have the fees lower for fire, EMS, and parks because they are just absolutely in terms of capital value per your total population. They're one-tenth the asset per person in this community as transportation and parks, so the capital's going to be one-tenth. Just a fact of life, and you're not going to get fees to pay for capital that you don't generate that demand or you don't create that asset. And what happens in the example in law enforcement, it is so -- so operating intensive that capital gets ignored even though it's not -- you know, the significant value of the law enforcement's capital is inconsequential compared to transportation, but because it is, it doesn't get paid attention to. So what we do is we go and do a study on -- and an operation that's very low in capital intensity, but there's none there to begin with so the fees are $150, not 400, and it takes them years to get to the 400, but they will never be at the 3,000. They'll be -- you'll move from the 150, which about half of that's reduced because of credits. You move to 3- or $400 impact fees for sheriff, but you'll never move to the 4,000. It will be the 400. So the transition's going to be gradual. And according to what actually happens in growth, you'll move the fees up. But you're going to go from one-tenth to one-eighth of those fees, when you get them to where they need to be, and then you're going to have a lot of operating costs to support that increase, you know, asset. So every time you spend a few bucks to build a place for a police officer, you got a lot of operating costs that you're still going to have to fund in your operating budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Georgia? Page 66 October 16,2007 MS. HILLER: Addressing what you said, looking at page 109 you're looking at total expenditures of 65 million. What portion of that 65 million relates to capital expenditures? There's a footnote down here, for example, that, you know, the 17 million relates to debt service for the fleet airport operations building and so forth. I mean, is there a possibility that the impact fee -- you know, I agree with you that what you say makes perfect sense. I mean, obviously the sheriff is more people heavy as opposed to buildings heavy. But in the next five years it seems like there's a need for some major capital expenditures. MR. TINDALE: Well, you've got two numbers. You've got to be careful of the expenditures. One, you've got debt, which is, you're paying on an asset that you already have on the ground. Well, you pay for an asset you have on the ground, when we do impact fees, because you have debt on it, I can't put it in the impact fee yet because people who are already here haven't paid for it. So this is the reason this is a little bit more complicated than all the rest of them. You have this case going on to where you're trying to create this capital asset you kind of ignored for a while, and from a budgetary perspective, you've got debt to pay for the existing item on the ground that I can't charge impact fees for or -- and you have debt for new construction you need to build mixed in with these expenditures in terms of the actual new assets coming on the ground. MS. HILLER: So that the -- what we have was not being funded by impact fees, the debt that was incurred wasn't being funded by impact fees from 2005? I mean, I don't know how old this stuff is. MR. TINDALE: Well, and Amy can talk about what we're -- I think what we're trying to do, and what they're doing is they're going into debt, and they're almost making a loan and then using impact fee revenues to actually retire it. MS. HILLER: Right. Page 67 October 16, 2007 MR. TINDALE: And that's legal. You can do that. But what I can't do is you can go into debt, owe it, and it doesn't help me get the fees up because you don't own it yet. As soon as debt's retired, the asset goes up. It's kind of a circle you go through to where as soon as you pay down the debt, the fees go up, you pay it down faster. You pay it down, the asset goes up and we pay it faster. And we get more into the impact fee revenues, but you've got a combination of existing debt, loans is what I call it. It's an -- it's an interest fee. Somebody -- some tax base is paying debt and the impact fees are paying it back, and the impact fees right now aren't being charged interest on that. I believe right now it's kind of being looked at as an interest-free payment. But that's the sequence that's going on now. And you're basically going through a transition from a nonasset-based, lease-based underfunded capital to using debt and impact fees to transition to the point where their assets are brought up where they should be in terms of their officers and their support. And that's the reason it probably looks a little more complicated than some of the other facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 116 ofMr. Tindale? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mr. Tindale. The replacement value, is that allowed to be paid for by impact fees? MR. TINDALE: What we do is to take your current asset that you own and divide that by your population, and we calculate an impact fee. Once we calculate that impact fee, I can -- we can -- you can spend that impact fee on anything that has to do with new capital, whether it's a new building or whether it's debt. You can do either one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. TINDALE: And what they're doing here, I believe, is paying debt. In most cases here, the impact fees is paying for a loan. It's not because you've got this deficit. It's not being -- it's not -- we Page 68 October 16, 2007 don't have enough impact fees to pay for the loan and build a new facility . So you've got to -- principally what you're doing is building assets and using impact fees as the actual retirement of the debt as fast as you can. And the faster you grow, the quicker you can pay that off. If you grow a little slower, the revenues aren't there. So it's kind oflumpy in terms of what's happening now. And historically, these impact fees would be projected to be out there and this debt would be paid off much faster and the fees would go up much faster. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 116? Janet? MS. VASEY: I have a question on the -- on 2007, the certified law enforcement officers, the number is 648. And just note that '06 is 672. Now, if you go back to page Ill, we start the '07 year with officers available of 672 instead of the 648. Could you explain -- it looks like we look the '05 number instead of the '07 number -- instead of the '06 -- the '06 number instead of the '07 number. Sorry. What I'm saying is on Ill, instead of 672, it should be 648 looking at the data on 116. CHIEF SMITH: Yeah. That's what it seems to me as well, and the only differentiation that I can make is possibly one is expressed in fiscal year and one is expressed in calendar year, but I don't know that that's the case. MS. VASEY: The difference is from the drill dropping out, the 24 drill officers. CHIEF SMITH: Right. MS. VASEY: So I understand the difference, but it just seems like we've started at the wrong start point of the AUIR period, which then would affect the number of officers by 24. If that -- I won't go any further with that. If that is the case, could you just adjust these for Page 69 October 16, 2007 the BCC? MR. BOSI: I will definitely update it with the 672.5 number in the corresponding calculation, that that would get to officers per thousand. MS. VASEY: Okay. I would think that it would fix, in Ill, changing the 672 to 648. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, you might want to check, Mike, to make sure the table on 116 wasn't one in progress, because the 207 (sic) isn't complete. The year is not over. I'm not sure if they're going to hire any more people, but it may have impact on how many officers you have in 207 (sic). Or is that just a pure calculation? MR. BOSI: That's potentially a true and real issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: And we report this by budgeted billets, not feet on the ground, so that wouldn't change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VASEY: Okay. Like I say, I don't really need an answer now, but if that is the case, could you just change that for the BCC? MR. BOSI: And if that is the case and if we do not have 272.5 available right now and we only have 648, that's going to change the expression of officers needed within the -- within the five-year program. It will have an effect upon that as well. I just wanted to point that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 117? (No response.) CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Page 118? And Chief, I got to make a confession. That auto dial that I have in Golden Gate Estates that keeps calling in calls for service, I never thought they would generate the only increase in kind to 104 percent, but that's got to be it. Is that reading it right under the Estates? We've -- CHIEF SMITH: That is reading it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Page 70 October 16, 2007 CHIEF SMITH: What happens when you stand up a substation in an area that previously did not have law enforcement is you generate a lot of calls for those deputies who are on patrol now in those sectors. And so you see a dramatic escalation in that. It's not that crime went up; it's that crime went on every day out there unreported and undealt with. And now that we have assets in place to do that, you know, we report the numbers and that's where they fall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since you've got negatives in all the rest of the county, could you move all the deputies to Golden Gate Estates, please? I'll even give you a street address to move to them to, if you'd like. CHIEF SMITH: That's exactly what we did, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Any questions on page 118? Brad? MR. BOAZ: Yeah. Is there any specific reason you're aware of that we seem to -- 2005 seemed to be a peak in every area as far as the number of calls? CHIEF SMITH: You know, we really can't. It's just the calls that came in that year. MR. BOAZ: We were very vigilant or-- CHIEF SMITH: Well, you had a hurricane that you had to contend with in 2005. I'm sure that was a tremendous call generator, and you know, I didn't go back and call the history, but that could be one reason as well. Thank you, Randy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll move on to page 119. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 120? Brad? MR. BOAZ: Can I ask just a quick question on 119; what is the part one crimes; could you just explain what that is? CHIEF SMITH: A part one crime is those crimes that are utilized by the FBI to determine what your crime rate is. And what Page 71 October 16, 2007 part one crimes are your more serious felonies along with property crimes, and that's what a part one crime is. Burglary to both a -- either a car or your house is a part one crime, along with robbery, rape, homicide. Those are your part one crimes. MR. BOAZ: I'm very encouraged by those going down. CHIEF SMITH: And almost, without exception, all of our -- predominantly all of our part one crimes are related to part one crimes or larcenies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 120? 121? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 122? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Question. Units of development, housing units. How did we come up with them? How accurate are they? Do they include Marco and the city? MR. BOSI: Units of development, if -- that is strictly from the 2004 Henderson & Young failed impact fee for our law enforcement, and this was provided as a -- this was part of the May 21 st level of service standard workbook. This is -- was part of the comparative analysis. At that period of time the question was whether there could be a different methodology utilized other than population. This was put in there strictly for the purposes of the benefit of the Planning Commission and Productivity Committee to let them -- or become apprised that in 2004 we tried to base an impact fee study for law enforcement based upon calls for service. That impact fee study was -- we were advised not to adopt that impact fee study because it was found not to be legally defensible. This was put in there to utilize to provide to both of these bodies at the time of that May 21 st level of service workshop that we had, indeed, attempted to try to utilize our impact fees and our level of service standard based upon something other than population; and based upon our outside legal counsel, we were advised to -- not to go that route. Page 72 October 16, 2007 The units of development contained within that -- within that impacted fee study were -- from my recollection, were individual -- were individual households. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This was in 2004? MR. BOSI: 2004, and this study was never officially adopted by the Board of County Commissioners because of the advice of the outside legal counsel because of the defendability of the data contained within the impact fee study. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 123? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last page is 124, and that wraps up all the pages of the law enforcement discussion. Any questions on the overall package from anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, are there any questions from any members of the public? If so, just raise your hand. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No questions from the public, no further questions from the panels. Does the Planning Commission -- well, first of all, does the -- you guys want to have any discussion to our benefit? MS. VASEY: It would be my recommendation to just recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was thinking, too. MS. VASEY: I don't really have any major issues on this. Does anyone else? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation from the Planning Commission members; Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I make a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? Page 73 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti, second by Commissioner Caron. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries by how many of us there are here. Two, four -- six to zero. Okay, thank you. Pardon me? MR. SW AJA: We going to vote? MS. VASEY: If you want to. All those in favor of-- recommend to approve, say aye. MS. HILLER: Aye. MR. SW AJA: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. BOAZ: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Those opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Okay, unanimous. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chief. CHIEF SMITH: Thank you. I just want to take a moment to recognize county staff for their production of the report and I'd also like to thank the planning council and the Productivity Committee for Page 74 October 16,2007 this year's process, I think it was probably one of the better ones we've ever done, so thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. It's getting better on our side every year, too, from you guys, so it works real well. Thank you. MS. VASEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: I know libraries are next, but since we're not actually going to take EMS up as a full review right now and Jeffs here, could we talk to him and then we'll release him? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it looks like there may be more to Jeffs presentation than originally anticipated. He has his consultants here today. MS. VASEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They have a summary report that they can go over with us in anticipation of having less maybe when they come back because the consultants won't be here again on the next time we meet. And the next time we meet, the full report now should be available, so we may have a little bit longer presentation. So that's up to the discretion of the board. It's up to you all. MS. HILLER: If they have consultants here, maybe we should let them go forward so they're not required to wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, are you prepared to -- could you finish up in -- by noontime with your presentation now? MR. PAGE: Well, I don't actually have the consultants in the room, but -- they're across the street, but I could certainly have them here in five minutes. I mean, they're on standby. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But are you -- I don't know how long you were planning to take. Based on your -- MR. PAGE: It would be done before noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good idea then. We can get you done and your consultants, and does -- any objection from the library staff? Page 75 October 16, 2007 MS. MATTHES: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll just take a five-minute break. Let's come back here at like 10 after 11. That's three minutes actually. (A brief recess was had.) (Mr. Boaz left the hearing room and Michele Harrison is present. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody could resume their seats. By the way, we had a -- if everybody will come to order. We had a change-out of participants. Steve has left, Steve Harrison -- no, Steve is here. I'm sorry. I looked at Michele Harrison's name and I thought, uh-oh. Brad has left and Michele's replaced him on the Productivity Committee. And by the way, the record earlier, when we took roll, Brad wasn't here. So he's -- the roll missed him, we just want to make sure all those comments about population were attributed to Brad Schiffer, so -- And with that, Chief, we'll start with your -- just so everybody knows, we're not going to be taking action on this. This is purely an introduction at this point. Action on this matter will probably occur in our futurely (sic) scheduled meeting, which will be, I believe, the 28th or 29th, so -- MR. PAGE: Good morning. It's Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services. What going to do today, I'm going to pass out-- our consultants are here from Emergency Services Consultants, Inc. Phil Cowie is the senior vice-president. I'm going to pass out this executive summary that the consultants have prepared, which is really a synopsis of what -- the main report that you'll be seeing before your next meeting. It has all the content and the backup information for what's provided today. So if Phil will come on up, I'm going to pass these out. It will give you something to read after the presentation, but basically this is Page 76 October 16, 2007 what he'll be reviewing. MR. COWIE: Good morning. MR. SW AJA: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MR. COWIE: Appreciate the opportunity to work for Collier County on behalf of the county in trying to look for ways to improve and sustain the Emergency Medical Services. Basically I think what we picture our role here today is to explain a little bit on the findings of our master planning study in relation to the methodology for adding units to the EMS system in the future as population increases and growth occurs. The master plan project that we took on has a number of different phases. We evaluate the existing operation. We look at growth and population and service demand projections, and then we accommodate an effort to match the future resources of the system to the population and growth and demand that we see as it's going to occur over the next 15 or 20 years. Essentially, though, rather than cover everything that's in the report; the actual report is I think 240 pages or something along that line. What we wanted to do today was just focus primarily on this issue of calculating the need for additional units in the future and the methodology for doing that. One of the things that we were asked to do in the report was really to just take a look at the existing methodology that the AUIR has been using to add growth units, which has been, in the past, a ratio, a simple population ratio, of 15,000 population per EMS unit, and that basically was, as we understand it -- the history of that was that it was derived from a study that was done back in the 1980s on just basically one single zone within the EMS system that was considered to be basically operating with a relatively efficient and satisfactory response time performance and look at the population that was within that zone being served by that EMS unit, and the number Page 77 October 16, 2007 came up to about 15,000, and that number has been used ever since. So we took a look at that methodology, and the problem, basically we pinned down four different issues that we had concern with there in comparison to the methodology that's typically used for EMS master planning. One is that we felt, when you're doing the EMS master planning, that you must account for projected changes in demographic figures. In other words, it's not just pure population. It's changes in the demographics of the population and how that's going to occur. EMS is not used -- is not utilized by the population evenly across all demographic ranges. There are certain demographic factors that will initiate a higher rate of EMS usage than others. Best example I can give is if you're over 75, you can anticipate probably using EMS more frequently or more likely than if you're, say, 40 to 45 years old. So there are demographic issues that play into the use of EMS. And so to simply apply a static population figure without regards to demographics was a concern. The second issue is the definition of geographic scale in this particular system. In other words, you have a very, very large geography to cover in Collier County, and simply applying just a population figure without looking at the way that the population is spreading out fails to look at the effect that this geography has on travel time, which then obviously has an effect on response time. We also felt that the existing system failed to account for simultaneous calls. That is, as workload increases, there's a higher likelihood of concurrent calls, that is, calls happening simultaneously. In fact, our study of this system demonstrated that at certain peak time periods you can have up to 18 current calls currently in your system. And that's not a simple linear projection. In other words, as workload increases, the call concurrency can increase at an even greater rate. And concurrency affects response time simply because there are less units available geographically to spread around the October 16,2007 county to accommodate the workload. So we were concerned about the lack of consideration under the old formula for concurrency. And the last item was, just in the last few years there's been the implementation of the Advanced Life Support Engine Program with some of the fire districts, and what we wanted to look at was basically how that ALS Engine Program is being used now, as well as to look at how it might be or what the potential for that system was in the future under various models of how it might operate and what contribution that system could have to the overall EMS master plan. So, in essence, our report takes in those four factors that I just outlined in projecting the number of units that would be necessary to accommodate the future population. We do this primarily through the use of demographic projections made by the BEBR population project, and the BEBR studies have demographic breakdowns and projections of demographic breakdowns and age groups within their projected population. So we utilized that population to do our workload projections. And in also looking at the geographic travel times, we modeled that using GIS. We projected the simultaneous concurrency of calls based on the projected call volume that, again, was based off the BEBR analysis. And then we also looked at the ability of the ALS engine companies to help cover those concurrent calls. In other words, to reduce the impact of call concurrency because ALS engines might be available, at least on some percentage of the calls, to assist in call concurrency and reduce the impact of call concurrency on overall response time. Now, based on that, we issued, within the master plan, a recommended growth unit population trigger, if you will. We basically simply said that the static number that was used on an annual basis is not -- is not applicable or not the best applicability of the population projections with demographic issues. In other words, unfortunately when you're doing the service Page 79 October 16, 2007 demand projections based on issues having to do with demographics, those change from year to year. As the population ages, people move from one age group into the next age group and the next age group, so that demographic portion of our calculations is not static. It continues to change as the demographics of your population change within your community. So it was our recommendation that a population trigger number which previously had been 15,000 that triggered the addition of a new unit not be a static number but actually change from year to year based on the projections of the demographics that BEBR comes out with. So we have done that and basically produced a chart for the report that identifies the population trigger point for the various years from 2007 out to 2030. That's the green column in the executive summary that I think you were provided. And you can see that that population number that triggers the addition of an EMS unit is not static and actually changes from year to year based on the formulas that were put together from the BEBR population and age group breakdown. We also have a resulting population per unit figure that basically says that if you added the units as shown in the chart -- and this is all based on population projections. But assuming population grew at the rate that the planning department identifies and assuming that we were to add the units at the rate that the formula identifies, you would have a resulting population per unit figure that is shown in the fourth column of that table. So for purposes of this particular group, I think those are the -- that's the most pertinent and important part of the findings of our study is trying to help identify new formulation or new methodology for the trigger number, if you will, that triggers the addition of an EMS unit in the future that is sensitive not only to the geography of the county, but also sensitive to the demographic changes that are going to take place Page 80 October 16, 2007 in the county over the next 25 to 30 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I bet you'd like some questions, huh? Or you'll maybe not like any, but I'm sure we're going to have some. Any questions from -- go ahead, Steve. MR. HARRISON: Steve Harrison. I have two questions. One has to do with technology. Twenty years ago EMS might have been an ambulance-type service. Now you have like almost rolling hospitals in these vehicles. Is that -- is that a factor that is to be cranked into this analysis? That's the first question. Secondly, we're all aware that emergency rooms are swamped across the country. Are you finding that, you know, more and more of your calls are de facto emergency services where the people don't go down to the hospital? MR. PAGE: Certainly we do have occasion -- I'm sorry. Again, Jeff Page. Certainly we do have occasions where people are utilizing ambulances as a means to get into the emergency room and seen quicker. We have implemented an actual signature page though that addresses the fact that -- it actually tells the patient, you know, should your insurance not accept this as a legitimately covered transport, you're going to be responsible for the full bill, and that has generated or kind of a correction to that. Now, there are a number of occasions where we arrive to the hospital, the beds are not available, and that does delay that unit getting back out. But the hospitals have worked with us very well in addressing that. It's not as big an issue as it was, say, even a year ago. The last -- in 2005 it was a big, big problem. 2006, not as much. And last year it was not really not bad at all, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief -- or go ahead, Michele, and then Janet. MS. HARRISON: Thank you. Michele Harrison. I'm looking at your weighted population numbers compared with our report here in Page 81 October 16,2007 our AUIR books, and I'm showing a difference of well over a 100,000 in population numbers. Can that be addressed? As an example, in 2015, your weighted population projection is 536,000, whereas in our report it's 440,000. MR. BOSI: Let me interject. At the back of your AUIR worksheet, your Collier County peak season population estimates and projections for 2015 projects 534,674. That might have been the permanent population number that you're referring to. MS. HARRISON: So these numbers are based on peak for all your calculations? MR. BOSI: Those numbers indicated that they're a weighted number, meaning they take into account the seasonal. The peak number that we have within the AUIR book is a reflection of our seasonal population. MS. HARRISON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think, Janet, you had the next question? MS. VASEY: To follow up on Michele's, the numbers still are not exactly right. Were you just using earlier data? MR. PAGE: I think when this was prepared, they were working off the weighted population. MS. VASEY: But since you're doing it based on changes each year, it probably is not a big difference, I wouldn't think. MR. PAGE: I don't believe so, but, again, when you get the final report, you'll have this. This is pretty much -- we saw this yesterday, late afternoon, and we did review some of the information, but I think there was some confusion about whether it would be weighted or peak because at that time I think we were under the impression it would be weighted, and it was weighted last year, so -- MS. VASEY: Okay. My first question has to do with what is your start point. I can see where in '08 you're saying that you want to add one, but are we starting from the 3 -- the 33.3 that we have now Page 82 October 16,2007 on page 150 of the AUIR? I mean, that -- or, no, the 20 -- I guess we would be starting with the 26.5. That's the start of -- or the end of FY-'07. MR. PAGE: Correct. MS. VASEY: Okay. So we're not talking anything about the 6.8 that's showing up on the AUIR. MR. PAGE: Not the deficit, no. MS. VASEY: Okay, good. You mentioned that you looked at the ALS contributions. And are you going to count any of the ALS units? MR. PAGE: Okay. I'm going to address that. Can I put this in? We prepared this PowerPoint presentation and that actually -- we're going to be able to show you how they were factored in. For the most part, because they're not part of our inventory, we don't own them, we don't count them as part of our inventory, but the way that we did add them in was taking a look at how they assist us in the response times. In other words, if they arrived on scene, we're finally able to capture that information to count that as the first arriving unit, where before we were just looking at our own response times. So as soon as Mike brings this up -- and there we are. Basically this starts off and it shows the different agencies that we report to; the State Department of Health; the medical director certainly has an impact on how we perform our medical protocols; the EMS Advisory Council; and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners. This goes into our mission statement. And I'm not going to bore with you most of this, but then we get into the current inventory. The current deficit, we recognize that 6.8 units, if we were to maintain that one to 15,000, I think based on what the consultants had to say, there is a better alternative. Again, that's from the current -- what you have before you. This just basically shows our leased stations versus owned Page 83 October 16, 2007 stations. And this gets into the response time. The -- currently the goal is eight minutes or less travel time; 90 percent of the time. For FY-'06 it was accomplished 81 -- 81 percent ofthe time, and for the first 10 months of FY-'07, that was 84 percent of the time just with EMS. And this basically shows you the different zones. The areas where you see the bar graphs that are smaller, those are, for the most part, rural areas. There are some areas there that, because of concurrent calls, happening one on top of the other, they were also impacted. That got us below the percentage that we wanted. This basically just shows -- is a map showing the respective zones that were on that bar graph. Now, the fractal analysis for the 11 months of FY-'07, if we included the ALS engines, we show an improvement of 88 percent countywide, which is pretty close to what that target is of 90 percent. So if we -- and this is where we're including the ALS engines. If you include their ALS response and put ALS engines and EMS together, combined, we hit 88 percent. This basically is a map showing the different areas where there's ALS engines that are committed 24/7. They're in that rose color. So pretty much the urban area is covered; the rural is not. Clearly there is a benefit to the ALS Engine Program. Some of the caveats to keep in mind is it's not countywide. We recognize that. There's not to say that we may not have a few more of the other agencies joining on board this next year. I'm anticipating Golden Gate and possibly Big Corkscrew Island. If that happens, that will be a benefit. We have to keep in mind that the agreements can be cancelled. It's happened in the past where we've had North Naples and the City of Naples both back out within the same year due to staffing limitations. ALS engines cannot transport patients. And when there's a fire, we know that these units are committed to the fire and they won't be Page 84 October 16,2007 available for ALS calls. Generally we know from history -- and this has been for the last 10 years -- 55 to 60 percent of the calls result in a transport. So primarily when we respond, there's a great number of calls that do not result in a transport, and that's really why -- one of the bases we went to ALS engines in the first place, was that we recognized we needed more ALS response or advanced life support response vehicles and less transports. And that just gives you a breakdown over the last few years. You've got to keep in mind that a lot of these calls are along I - 7 5, and because of the longer response time, that does affect that countywide response. Okay. This -- I'm going to actually enlarge this one a little bit. Okay. This is an important slide. It has the travel time for both EMS and fire combined. Now, you can see countywide we're hitting it about 88 percent of the time. In the urban area, 91 percent of the time we're making that eight-minute travel time. Now, this is for a full year in FY-'07. What we have to point out is, is that in the rural area, we're only hitting that eight minutes of travel time 72 percent of the time. Now, you'll notice that there's a smaller number of calls. That's why it doesn't have a terrific impact countywide, because basically what you're doing is you're throwing most of your growth units into the urban area, and that's where the ALS engines are also, and less to the rural area. And you can see that 984 of those rural calls were actually on I-75, and that's the impact they had there. Good news items. Let me bring this back down to size. These are showing the cardiac resuscitation rates of patients in defib and pulseless D tach that arrive at the hospital with a pulse. As you can see, our target area is 35 percent, and over the last year we've done very well to get above that. Page 85 October 16, 2007 What's probably more important than this slide though is the actual number of people that survive the hospital and actually walk out. Let me see if I can increase this some. So this is post-hospital survivals where people are -- actually have survived the postcardiac arrest and have actually left the hospital, and we're very proud of that number. Again, about a -- 5 to 6 percent is the national average. Okay. These are the challenges as we see them. You know, the biggest one is this. We're trying to operate currently at a one to 15,000 population while only collecting impact fees at a rate of one to 34,000. That's due to the leasing that we've addressed in the past. Another issue is continuing to define the ALS Engine Program response protocols. I've got good news there. I think we've pretty much accomplished that. That should be in place within the next month. And then we need to address the response time, urban versus rural. Some time ago both the advisory council and the Board of County Commissioners addressed this issue by saying that we should have countywide response protocol to where we're able to accomplish that -- that travel time, 8 percent -- or I'm sorry -- minutes, eight minutes 90 percent of the time. Right now we're pretty much operating on two different levels. This current response time, urban versus rural, eight minutes or less 91 percent of the time in the urban area. Currently we're only hitting it 72 percent of the time in the rural. The options are to keep the same level of service that we have right now, one to 15,000. We realize that would require the seven growth units over the next five years and a revenue shortfall of 20 million. Now, the only way to really do that is you take it from the general fund, and although that would be a short-term solution, it doesn't really fix the problem, because as the population increases, that demand for new units will be created and a shortfall will, once Page 86 October 16, 2007 again, start to build up until your impact fees can get back up there. And you have to address the fact that there's just some areas where, like in the City of Naples, you can't really afford to buy property. You're going to have to either lease it from a fire district or whatever. Now, this was before we got the information from the consultants as far as what their executive summary would say. But one of the options was, was to keep the current level of service standard as what's in place right now where we're operating at deficit, and that was one to 16,000 per capita and just accept the fact that you're going to have an eight-minute urban response and basically a 12-minute rural response. And this does take into account the ALS engines. That would bring down the shortfall to 11 million. Or this is the worst-case scenario where you just say, okay, accept the fact that, you know, the capital-- or the impact fees are at one to 34,000, and you just lower your level of service to meet that demand, and then there's no financial issue. The downside of this, of course, is the patient treatment outcomes would probably suffer. And when we had seen the first draft or some of the preliminary information from the consultants, you could consider, you know, changing the response zones to which you have a varying response to which we've talked about, an eight-minute response in the urban areas and 12-minute response time for rural to address that issue. Some of the other recommendations that you can look at that are done in different areas of the nation is you accept response time standards based on the critical nature of the call to where not every call is an emergency. You accept the fact that in some cases you're going to be arriving 20 minutes on a nonemergency-type call. Not to say these calls aren't emergencies. Certainly when the patient or the patients' families calling into 911, they feel it's an emergency, but you're basically putting them into one of these categories and accepting a less -- a lesser level of response than you've Page 87 October 16, 2007 provided in the past. It's not really something that we would recommend, but that's basically where it's done in other areas because -- and in some cases, these are volunteer agencies, things of that nature, where they're not able to fully staff them all the time. So basically that -- that's where we were with this presentation as far as some of the options that we have, and it all goes back to whether you want to adopt a level less than we currently have. And I actually reviewed this with the EMS Advisory Council, and they opted to go to this level of service here to where recognizing -- and they were very specific in their wording. They did not want to lesser -- to lessen the level of service that we currently have, the one to 15,000, but they also recognized the financial constraints with that. And they're -- based on what they had, which they did have this executive summary from the consultants, their recommendation was to go to this level here as an alternative, basically, splitting the baby here, so -- Okay. Questions on any of this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Steve, and Janet, then Brad. MR. HARRISON: Just following up on Mrs. Vasey's question about the starting point. I'm trying to reel in our conversation a year ago about some units that you had in reserve that were not active. It was like 10 or 12 units. Am I recalling that incorrectly or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's surplus units, I think, we discussed at the time. MR. HARRISON: They may be functionally obsolete or gone, we don't know, but -- MR. PAGE: No, I've got -- currently I have five units that are in reserve for trucks that break down, things of that nature. What we have done in the past is, during -- and we still do -- during peak periods of time we will put up additional units to -- as the call demand is there, we will put up additional units. We do have Page 88 October 16, 2007 special events that take place on any given day where the public is paying for this unit to be there for a given period of time. Currently right now, the Harley Davidson tract out in the Estates area, they actually pay us to have a unit out there five to six days a week, eight hours a day. That's the half unit that you see up there. That unit's staffed all the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Janet. MS. VASEY: Yes. My question really is about the ALS units and why we can't count some of those towards our -- towards our number of units. I understand that they're not always available, but fires, I don't know, used to be about 10 percent ofthe calls and medical was 90, so most of the time you'd get them. You wouldn't be able to count them -- maybe some of the ones that were duplicative to exactly where you are and the exact times and weren't really helping. But they were looking at your data that shows what response times were, how they improved between the county and the ALS times and not. There were about seven units, I guess, that had major contributions to improving the response times, and it would seem like at least those units should be counted because they're having a major impact on your response, which is good. So isn't there some way that some of these units can be counted since they're -- maybe you can't count 100 percent, but they're out there, they're doing the job. It just seems like there should be some methodology to be able to count them as units, not just response times. MR. PAGE: Well, I think we are capturing them as units, if you want to call it that, by counting them as part of our response time. In other words, if we're saying we're making it 91 percent of the time in the urban area with their units included, then obviously there's not a need for any additional units, where before, if we were only making is 84 percent of the time, we would say, look, we're operating at a deficit. We need more. So I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think I have a way to Page 89 October 16, 2007 capture them as part of my inventory as far as a number to plug in here. But if we're able to recognize their response contribution and, therefore, say, now we need to adjust this level of service from one to 15,000 because of this impact -- because as I told you before at the last AUIR meeting a year ago, we didn't know where we were until we actually were able to include them. And I'm basically saying we're pretty darn close, if we include their response time, to where we need to be. If it's 90 percent urban and 12 percent rural, if that's where we need to go, then we're there. We're right there. Now, I wanted to show you this. This is what the fire chiefs who are currently in the ALS engine agreement have agreed to, and basically this is different -- and I'll tell you, there was a lot of resistance to this. Even with my own staff where you have occasions where just the fire -- the ALS engine, fire engine, is going by itself and not the ambulance, and in some cases only the ambulance goes, the transport unit, and not the fire truck. And this is what -- there's about 23, I think, occasions through this whole protocol where you've got one unit either responding by itself or in some cases you have units that are going -- one's going hot with lights and sirens; the other unit's going cold on the chance that it could be cancelled prior to arrival. But the medical director's reviewed all this. He's signed off. The chiefs of the respective agencies in the ALS program have signed off, and we're just -- right now we're going to tweak it a little bit with how operationally that will work, because there's some issues with the computer-aided dispatch program with the Sheriffs Office. They can't tell you which units should respond with lights and sirens and which ones should go cold, so that's -- some of this is an educational issue within operations. But this should be in place, I would presume to be, by next month, and so we won't have those competing units for the same station going to the same call unless it's Page 90 October 16,2007 really necessary or called for. So that was one of the things that certainly consultants picked up on. We've been working with the fire chiefs to get that down and this looks like the fix. MS. VASEY: Well, what about a situation -- you mentioned that you might be getting Big Corkscrew to come in. That would be, say, a unit out there that you'd never had before adding to the system. Why wouldn't something like that count? MR. PAGE: It would, it would. In other words, the next AUIR -- I mean, if our numbers are elevated, you have to take a look at that and consider it. That's kind of the beauty of this program is it really doesn't have a fixed number that's not adjusted for the last 15 years. This takes more into the account the population demographics, things of that nature. It's not necessarily looking at a fixed number of calls. But I think each year when we come back to you, we have to see -- if we see that we're performing better than whatever that standard is, if it's -- if it's urban eight minutes travel time and a rural of 12, if it's the standard and we're above that, then maybe next year we don't ask for another unit. I mean, you've just got to see what kind of impacts that these units make. I'll also tell you -- now, there's still four of the growth units that were approved in FY-'06, those stations have not been completed. Those units are on the road, but they're not where they're supposed to be. Once those units are where they're supposed to be, we could see an adjustment is, again, necessary because we're able to meet that response time. So I think we have to play this year by year, and it's just one of those things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, did you want to contribute? MR. BOSI: And the only thing I wanted to add to it is the only reason why they wouldn't contribute to the unit, but Jeff is saying that they're factoring it into the response time, it kind of goes back to the Page 91 October 16, 2007 impact fee discussion Mr. Oliver (sic) had when he said, even if you had a building, but if you still owed debt on that building, you couldn't include that within your inventory charts and charge against your impact fees. You know, these ALS engines are owned by the independent fire districts. That's a separate governmental entity. And to be able to include the assets of another governmental entity to the assets of EMS could -- is similar to the lines of why we don't add the lease stations into it with the impact fees. But I guess your point is, though, because this is a category B and because this is strictly a local decision, it isn't subject to the state concurrency regulations. We can make it -- we can make the decision as a local governmental entity to say, as part of our monitoring of the EMS service, we could conclude that we want to inventory the ALS engines, and that's just something -- I guess something that would be able to be considered by the advisory boards as maybe an action that you just want to consider. But that's why we wouldn't -- we wouldn't classify them as part of our inventory, but we want to recognize the contribution that the ALS engines have provided. And when Jeff put up that one unit per 16,240 people per station, what that is basically saying is right now, based upon the population numbers that we have in this AUIR with the 26.25 units, that roughly translates out to one unit per 16,240. That's going to give you a 90 percent response time, or 91 percent response time in the urbanized area, and it's going to -- it's going to grant you a 72 percent response time in the rural area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? Or did you finish, Janet? MS. VASEY: Well, I guess I'm following what you're saying and I guess a lot of it would probably depend on what the 240-page document really says. Will we be having that in the next month -- in the next couple of weeks or -- MR. PAGE: Let me bring up Phil. Page 92 October 16, 2007 MR. COWIE: I just wanted to add to this discussion just very briefly. There is a pretty exhaustive section in our study about the value and the impact of the ALS engines in the response, but I want to point out that it -- really, when we do EMS master planning, we're looking at a number of components. It's such a complicated service that you have to look at it from geographic travel time, you also have to look at it from system capacity. And the ALS engine companies impact one more than they do the other. The best explanation is, the ALS engine companies can have a significant impact on the response time issue and the performance of your response time measurement simply because they can be used to stop the ALS clock, if you will, a little faster on -- or particularly on cases where you have multiple calls. We have a chart, and I was just looking through this as an example. And we charted the number of times that the ALS engines within certain zones arrived prior to the EMS unit. And on the very first call, the difference is very insignificant. One may arrive earlier than the other, about the even amount oftime. But the amount oftime that either of those units arrives first is pretty -- is pretty minimal. But when you get into the third and fourth call of concurrency, that's when the transport unit is coming from a much greater distance and that local ALS engine is having an impact. A particular chart I happen to be looking at here, on the fourth call, the fourth concurrent call, the fire department typically is arriving somewhere around five to five and a half minutes before the EMS unit. That's obviously a significant impact. So I think the best way to describe it is, the ALS engines have the greatest impact on the issue of response time, particularly at periods of peak demand; however, there's a capacity issue, and that is that we already know that up to 60 and, perhaps, during some hours 65 percent of these patients have to be taken to the hospital, and that's a Page 93 October 16, 2007 function the engine can't provide. So I want to caution that as you consider counting the ALS engines, it's important that you count them for what they -- for what they can do but not inadvertently count them for what they can't do. Because as the call volume goes up, the number of patients to be transported to the hospital continues to go up, and regardless of how many engines are inserted into the system, that number will continue to go up, and you'll have to have that many ambulances to take the patients to the hospital. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. MR. COWIE: So you have to view it both ways. Where we think the ALS engines will have the greatest impact is improving your response time performance, not necessarily in capacity, though there is some impact on capacity because there will be a certain number of calls if they use the new methodology in which the ALS engine can cancel the ambulance and return it into the system capacity. But you have to be cautious because if you've had 48 ALS engines spread around the county, somebody's still got to take the patient to the hospital. So I just wanted to point that out, and that's kind of explained a little bit more in depth in the study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Jeff, just for us and clarity of serving citizens, wouldn't it be better to pull I - 7 5 and make that a separate data set on its own? I mean, I think the advantage to that is that that's kind of an anomaly situation and it's kind of blurring the rural number right now. MR. SUMMERS: Good day. I'm Dan Summers, director of the Bureau of Emergency Services. Granted, you bring up a very good point, and we're working very hard. You probably saw in the report a number of asterisks about what's going on with I-75. And I know Ochopee and Capri are going to present to you hopefully later on this afternoon. Page 94 October 16,2007 Let me just tell you that we are looking at that very, very hard. We heard some new DOT numbers today that we just got ahold of in terms of capacity, and it's not unusual to say that you've basically got 60,000 customers traveling through I-75 affecting parts ofOchopee Fire District and Golden Gate. So it is an anomaly. We recognize it. And we're asking for some time to take a look at that, kind of really figure out what those impacts are, and really address some of the issues out there on 75. It's an impact for EMS transport units, it's an impact for MedFlight. It's an impact for the Ochopee district in terms of resource draw. So I will tell you that it is high priority on my list to sit down and look at that. And no doubt, I think we're going to need to bring some discussion back with you on that overall impact ofI-75. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think I'm actually -- I'm concerned about I - 7 5 a little bit. I'm more concerned about the rural area and getting I-75's numbers out of it so we can see what the rural's doing without -- because, for example, all the accidents could be happening on Pine Ridge and they're getting there very fast and the rural numbers could actually be worse. MR. SUMMERS: We agree with you. I think the whole -- we've got to capture that. We've got to get our arms around those impacts and we are looking at that real hard right now to take a look. I don't have an instant answer for you, but I will tell you that we're studying it, because it really is a big burden on these districts right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it should be easy to isolate it. I mean, the address is the same. MR. SUMMERS: It's pretty easy to isolate. Coming up with a solution to address that isolation's going to be tough. We're going to have to look at a lot of options. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. That was it, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions at this time? Go ahead, Steve. Page 95 October 16, 2007 MR. HARRISON: With the slowing of the construction activity, is that component of the demand decreasing? Are you getting fewer calls to go to construction sites? MR. PAGE: I would say so. I mean, I listen to calls all day long. I will tell you, the thing that concerns me the most is, there are so many vehicle rollovers every day. I don't think anybody has any idea. But I'm not talking two to three that I listen to, and normally that's from seven in the morning till six or so. But -- and generally they're on I -75. It seems like someone gets off the road a little bit, it hits the grass and it just flips. But in getting back to your question, I want you to be clear that I-75, those number of calls are in the rural area. They're not along Pine Ridge or any area like that. I mean, they're further out, let's say, east of 951. I'd say another 20 miles out. But it -- the number of car accidents that we respond to that are significant injuries is really -- I mean, it boggles my mind. I mean, it's one of the things I worry about when my wife's out on the road or taking a trip every time I hear one, and it's because some of the types of calls that we have are so significant and result in trauma alerts. It's unbelievable to me, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: When can we expect this report that you're having worked on? MR. PAGE: They're going to need it a day before, okay? We'll have it to you before your next meeting. I would say hopefully within a day before so you'll have time to read it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be helpful, okay. Okay. Are there any other questions at this time? Because this will have to be continued until the 29th. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll finish this Page 96 October 16,2007 one up, then we will take a break and -- yes, Ms. Vasey. MS. VASEY: Just one thing. Our next -- we had an option of the 26th and the 29th. Could we try for the 26th or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- if you think they can make it on the 26th. MS. VASEY: Because I think we'll probably wrap everything else up, wouldn't we, today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I thought we might have wrapped up yesterday, but I'm not sure we'll get there today. What do you think, Chief, could you do the 26th? MR. PAGE: Even ifI have to write it myself, we'll have it to you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Let's move it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I guess we'll move it-- we'll see you on the 26th then. That means you'd have to get the report to us before the 26th. MR. PAGE: I understand. We'll make it happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take a break. Is one o'clock reasonable? I mean, it's five minutes shorter than yesterday. Do you think we can make it? No, it's not reasonable, Steve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don't got to Michelbob's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's do five after one then. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a housekeeping matter for the Planning Commission, just to remind everybody, Thursday of this week, our regular meeting, is going to be held here in this room and it will be at 9:00 instead of 8:30, and the reason for that is it was previously scheduled in the other building, but this entire week the other building's being used by the Value Adjustment Board. So we will be meeting here Thursday at 9:00. So don't go to the other place. And with that, we'll go into libraries. It's all yours. MS. TOWNSEND: Good afternoon. I'm Amanda Townsend, Page 97 October 16, 2007 operations analyst with the public services division. The library AUIR for 2007 covers two areas of level of service standards, the first being square foot of library buildings per capita, which has remained static for several years now at .33 square feet per capita, and the second being the number of items per capita. That, we are looking at right now, at 1.87 items in all formats per capita. This is a change from what you saw in last year's AUIR, at which time we were looking at books only per capita. And as part of the level of service workshop that we went through in the spring and the board gave us direction on in June, we have changed to measuring all items per capita as opposed to only books per capita. I want to stress that this is not a change in the level of service. We have always kept in the inventory those 1.75 books, and approximately .12 items in other formats, that would be audiovisual, DVDs, CDs, et cetera. And so whereas our old level of service standard measured only the books, only apples, if you will, we're now measuring books and audiovisual, apples and oranges. So the number is different, but the level of service remains the same, and I just wanted to stress that. Looking at other changes between last year's and this year's AUIR. The unit cost per square foot that you'll see for library buildings in last year's AUIR was $341 per square foot. The indexed per square foot amount in the -- in accordance with the impact fee indexing would be $376 per square foot. The unit costs that we are using in the 2007 AUIR is $421 per square foot, and that number comes as a calculation and is based on the actual total project cost of two recently let construction contracts, those being the addition to the Golden Gate community library and the south county regional library. So those are -- that square footage cost is now based on what we know to be actual project total cost divided by square footage. The unit cost for items in all formats remains what you saw last year, Page 98 October 16, 2007 and that is $25 per item. The work program that you see for libraries over the course of five years will be, as far as library buildings goes, the addition to the Golden Gate library, the construction of the south county regional library , and the addition at the Marco library. Do note that the Golden Gate and the south regional libraries' construction contracts have already been let. Those are somewhat of a foregone conclusion. And the Marco addition is intended to be funded wholly by donations and grants. The five-year program for materials, I'd like to call your attention to. Last year we came to you and were at a deficit in materials and projected that we could get ourselves out of that deficit with ad valorem funded acquisitions of replacement books, at about 4,500 books a year over a course of about four years. I'm happy to say we've done much better than anticipated. That deficit is not nearly as severe as what we thought in part because of changes in population statistics, in part because I think the acquisition program has been ramped up, so we still show a small deficit in items or books, but we expect that we will able to overcome that deficit much faster than we predicted to you last year, so glad to say that. And beyond those replacement books, you'll see that our acquisition program with library and materials will just run straight with population and we'll be doing acquisition in time with the population growth. Your packet also includes excerpts from the level of service workshop that addressed level of service standards and operating statistics, and we can take those on a page-by-page basis. One last thing that I wanted to address before we got too much farther -- because I know Ms. Vasey will be asking about the summary sheet for library buildings, so I'll just go ahead and get started with it now, and if we do -- we may need Susan Usher's help later, but just to start with it, and that is that you'll see the last line under the revenues portion is a loan from the general fund to assist with commercial paper Page 99 October 16, 2007 loan debt service. That's a little less than $3 million over the five-year period. Of course, as we get into the meat of the work program for library buildings, you'll see that we are going to be satisfying our level of service standard very, very far out into the future so beyond this five-year window, we will be assessing library impact fees on those .33 square feet per capita; however, we won't be building new libraries. So over the time in the out years, we'll be able to apply those impact fees to pay back that loan to the general fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, good. We'll start like we have with the rest, and we'll start with page 126. And Steve? MR. HARRISON: We'll break the pattern here with Ms. Vasey going first. But I'm under the impression the county has recently hired a value engineering consultant. Have you had them look at any of these new buildings? MS. TOWNSEND: No. They have not looked at those new buildings I think because the construction contracts have been let at this time. It may be -- it may be a little late in the game. Generally-- and I can -- I did sit on a value and engineering study on another park -- on a park project actually with that new firm that actually was done after a construction contract was let. It makes it very difficult because MR. HARRISON: Four hundred and twenty-one a foot seems a little pricey, I think, to most of us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? MR. SCHMITT: For the record -- and that's something that really needs to be directed to Skip Camp. I can have the -- if you want to talk specifically about cost of construction, I can -- we can try and get Skip or someone to come down and talk about that because this is probably something -- other than information Marla may have, it probably is beyond the expertise of at least the library staff. MR. HARRISON: Are these costs plus contracts or fixed Page 100 October 16, 2007 priced? MS. RAMSEY: These are fixed priced, yeah, low bid. MR. HARRISON: It doesn't do you any good. MS. RAMSEY: They're low bid price, and there was some value engineering that had been looked at for like products. As you know, that's not necessarily a value engineer aspect, but they have looked at it for different types of furnishings and things like that, but not as far as constructibility is concerned, and not by the consultant. That was just recently put on contract by the Board of County Commissioners. I think it came in after that, the contract with them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and my question was, did that include land, these numbers, the square foot costs? MS. TOWNSEND: They do not include land, however, they do include design and permitting, et cetera. It's not simply construction cost. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. How much of that's furnishings; do you think? MS. RAMSEY: Depends on the -- it depends on the facility itself. But like we'll take the south regional library, we have a guideline at the moment right now that's somewhere around $700,000 is furnishings of that total amount, which includes all the shelves and everything that's associated with that and the lightings, et cetera. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: And, you know, computers and all the things that you need for the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The equipment and everything else is in that budget? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, that's everything included in there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the people just walk in -- take a key, walk in and -- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, Page 10 1 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- put books on the shelves. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're still on page 126. Janet? MS. VASEY: Yes. There's a -- there are a couple lines here under revenue called ad valorem Golden Gate and ad valorem South Regional. Is that money -- apparently it's not a loan because it doesn't say loan, but where is that money coming from? MS. TOWNSEND: The best of my understanding is that there was a set-aside for a revenue source called excess fees, and we'll need Susan Usher to explain further what that is, but there was some money that was set aside and, you know, sort of squirreled away -- may have come from some of the government buildings funding that comes from ad valorem. So it was anticipated, and it's my understanding that that is not intended to be a loan, but that is intended to be ad valorem funding, for those projects. MS. VASEY: Okay. I would like to at some point talk to Susan about all of these and just kind of go over the numbers and the length of the contract and what the annual costs are and how long you're going to -- how long and how many times we're going to use the impact fees. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that Susan -- is that the lady that just walked in? MS. TOWNSEND: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Someone walked in with a bunch of books. Okay. Michele? MS. HARRISON: Yeah, I would just like a clarification please on that unit cost of 421. Your asterisk down at the bottom said it's actual construction estimates, but did I hear you say that it included Page 102 October 16, 2007 fixtures inside as well and furniture? MS. TOWNSEND: It includes design, permitting, construction, and all fixtures and all the fixtures that are -- and all fixtures and equipment that are needed to bring the library on-line. MS. HARRISON: And would you happen to know what the breakout is? MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, for the record. I don't have that with me. MS. HARRISON: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: I mean -- and off the top of my head, I really can't give you a lot. I mean, there's anywhere from 3- or 400,000 for, you know, construction elements as well as furnishings. And well, yeah, Skip just walked in the room, and so I could turn it over to him and let him fumble through this if he wants to. MR. SCHMITT: He's totally unprepared, but we're going to put him on the hot seat anyway. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management director. IfI understand the question, it's what's involved with the square foot cost of the library? MS. HARRISON: Yes, thank you. MR. CAMP: One of the things that's important to remember is that it's -- we don't typically talk about construction costs. We talk about project costs, and that's a big difference because a project cost has the design, the impact fees contingencies, the equipment, and also our construction is not like commercial construction. Our construction includes what's needed in that building for the next 50 or 60 years, for instance. So there are things where typically they might be considered tenant improvements, where that's all included in our costs. And like I said, it has to do with impact fees and design fees, construction management fees, all those kinds of things. So we talk about project costs, which are often almost double the cost of the actual construction Page 103 October 16, 2007 when you add all of the things into it. MS. HARRISON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on page 126? Did you have any more, Janet? MS. VASEY: Before Skip gets away, I had a question on the jail that -- could I ask him that, or would you rather I hold it till later? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, jail's already -- we can go back. That's not a problem. MS. VASEY: Okay. We've had several discussions over the years on the Immokalee expansion of, I think it's 64 beds, and they were estimating the cost of 4.2 million or so to do that, but at several points Chief Smith has said that there was a whole lot of prep work done when they did the original construction and that there wasn't going to be a lot of work required to do the additional part. And I was wondering if you had a realistic estimate of what it was going to actually cost, not the kinds of contrived costs that we get through the AUIR methodology. MR. CAMP: Chief Smith is an armed individual, so I don't want to contradict anything he says, but I tell you that we have new current estimates that -- we just finished the jail master plan this summer, and we have very good -- we hope are accurate -- costs estimates for the expansion of the Immokalee jail. And one of the things that he may not have taken into consideration is, originally the building was built for an extra 64-bed addition to it, but what has happened since that time, because of the inmate population, they have gone ahead and they have, what I'll call double-bunked. Now, this is a dormitory-type prison so they don't have cells. But they have doubled the amount of beds in it, what that means is they've doubled the amount of stress on the kitchen and laundry and those support services. So originally all that was taken care of. All they had to do was Page 104 October 16, 2007 actually build a dormitory because the support services was there -- were there. But now that they've doubled it, they're going to have to go in and do things to the kitchen and the laundry facilities that he may not have remembered, but that's included in this new estimate. MS. VASEY: Okay. MR. CAMP: And that's a big thing. MS. VASEY: Okay. You think a realistic estimate is close to the 4.2 million? MR. CAMP: Absolutely. Was it 4.2 or 4.6? I have the numbers here. I just reviewed them this morning. MS. VASEY: Oh, yeah. You came out with 4.6, but I think in our book it was estimated at -- MR. BOSI: 4.503. MR. CAMP: Yeah. And again, this was a recent update that we just got, and I'll be happy to share. MS. VASEY: Yes. MR. CAMP: The reason we haven't gone out of our way to share this yet -- because we haven't shared it with the board yet. We have a master plan for the buildings coming out, and we were going to do a workshop with the commission with the master plan of the building and a master plan of the correctional facilities at one time. But that is public information. I'd be happy to share it. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thanks again. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. We're back into the libraries. Libraries and jails, they must have something in common. Page 126; do we have any more information on 126, or any questions. I mean -- I'm sorry. You mentioned the Marco Island library. Is that in the City of Marco Island? MS. TOWNSEND: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do the cities cooperate at all with the coverage of the library as far as costs go or anything like Page 105 October 16, 2007 that? MS. MATTHES: In our case, no. All our libraries are county-funded libraries. In the case of the Marco addition, the Marco City Council has voted to give the Friends of the Library $200,000 toward that addition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the total price ofthe addition? MS. MATTHES: That's the good question; 1.7, 1.8,2 million. We're not really sure. We went out for bid once and couldn't afford it, so we had the board reject the bids, and we've done some more fundraising in the meantime, and we're waiting to hear about a grant also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the case of the library that's in the City of Naples, does the City of Naples participate in any kind of financial help? MS. MATTHES: Not financially, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any indirect way that they contribute? I mean -- MS. MATTHES: Well, their citizens pay taxes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the county as well as the city? I don't know how -- I've never lived in the city, so I'm not sure how tax structure works. MS. MATTHES: I'm not sure either. MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, for the record. The general fund 001 is paid by all Collier County, including those in municipalities, and the library is funded out of the 001 fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Okay. Page 127, Janet's recommended action, page 128, population tables, and page 129 ends the library facilities, buildings at least, and then next on page 130, and I know it was covered in the presentation so we'll move right into that. Any questions on page 130 for library materials? Page 106 October 16,2007 Brad, is that hand up or you just reading -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was scratching my head, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's okay. That counts. Page 131? MS. HILLER: Can I ask a question about library materials? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Georgia. MS. HILLER: One thing I have seen is more and more stand-alone computers in libraries for the public to use. Is that anticipated in your budget? Are you planning on, you know, putting additional -- in equipment like that? Because I mean, they're a fantastic resource tool. Like, for example, the one at Orange Blossom has two desktops that you can use in the reference section. And you know, you've got all sorts of, you know, research tools on those units. MS. MATTHES: Certainly we're always trying to add more computers. We've recently gone through a network upgrade. And until that is completely finished we don't have the band width capacity to add any additional computers anywhere, and that's been in process for about a month. And we're still working out a few of the kinks on that. With the South Regional construction and the Golden Gate construction, in particular, we have planned more computers into those two buildings than we currently have at any other library location. So, yes, we are adding more computers for public use. MS. HILLER: What's the maximum number of units you're planning now for those two new libraries? MS. MATTHES: Golden Gate is about 20 public Internet computers. MS. HILLER: Capacity. MS. MATTHES: And I think about a similar number for South Regional. I'm not really sure. I haven't seen that recently. We have a couple other areas in South Regional that I haven't really counted the Page 107 October 16, 2007 number of computers that will go there. We have a separate teen area that will have some additional computers and a separate children's area that will also have some. So it could be 20 -- 20 plus. MS. HILLER: That's great. Thank you. MS. MATTHES: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page 130 with those questions, and going to 131. Any comments on 131? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 132 is a single-line chart. Can't make it any simpler. Page 133 is a map system, and then page 134 we have our inventory sheet. Any questions on those pages? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Relative to the East Naples branch, the 6,600 square feet, given the situation we're in economically, I know that the intent was, especially in satisfaction of some community needs, to keep that open after the South Regional is opened. Do you still plan on doing that, or is that something you might consider having to close? MS. MATTHES: That's still the recommendation of the Library Advisory Board to keep East Naples open for at least a year after South Regional opens to evaluate how the use of the East Naples library is. Certainly that's dependent upon budget available and will likely be a decision of the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And would you then transfer -- if you are going to keep it open, you're going to take away some items, I suspect. Would you transfer some of the equipment over to the new library such as computers? MS. MATTHES: If East Naples stays open, we definitely will take part of their book collection as a starter collection because the East Naples branch is so overcrowded with shelves and books right now that it's really hard to find what you're needing. So, yeah, we will take some of those books to the South Regional, and we'll do probably Page 108 October 16, 2007 the same thing of -- with some other overcrowd libraries and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good, good savings. MS. MATTHES: -- and make it easier to find things everywhere. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page 134? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 135? Page 136? 1377 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got a lot of tables starting on page 138. 139? 140? And 141? Terri, I bet you like the speed at which this is going. 142? 143? 144? 145? 146? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last two pages is a continued table of 147 and 148, and that wraps up the document. Are there any other questions on any of the remaining parts of the document? Well, that was simple. Are there any questions from members of the public? No, so -- MS. HILLER: Can I raise one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Georgia. MR. SCHMITT: Georgia, can you speak into your microphone, please? MS. HILLER: Yeah, 143, page 143, you've got registered borrowers, cardholders. It's interesting to look at the trend. Can you explain, you know, in fiscal '02, there were 190 -- almost, you know, 200,000, and it seems to be on a downward trend. Can you explain what's happening there? MS. MATTHES: The number of cardholders is also just a picture in time. In fiscal '02, we opened the headquarters library, and we had a huge influx of new cardholders. First week we signed up Page 109 October 16, 2007 more than 5,000 new library cardholders. Our cards expire -- at that time they expired after five years, now they expire after three years. It helps us keep a better address base of our users. We also provide statistics to the state library, and if we do not weed out our borrower database every three years, we're in noncompliance with their regulations. MS. HILLER: I see. MS. MATTHES: So we do try to weed those out if -- the expired ones and the ones that we know are no longer active. So it's -- it looks like it makes no sense and it just buries so much. MS. HILLER: How much is a juvenile card right now? MS. MATTHES: Excuse me? MS. HILLER: How much is a juvenile card at -- MS. MATTHES: There is no charge for any library card as long as you're a resident of Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: I just had one sort of after the fact. On the Marco Island one, you showed in there $1.7 million of donations in your revenue chart. Are you expecting to actually get the full amount of money through donations, or do you think you'll have to go to any ad valorem? MS. MATTHES: No. We will either get the money through donations or a grant or two, or we will not build. MS. VASEY: Okay. And I guess the reason I wanted to check on that is last year we asked the government buildings people to reduce their program because their -- they were well beyond their five years in level of service standard, and I noticed you're a little -- you're a couple years over your standard, but as long as you're not planning to use any additional ad valorem money, I don't see that necessarily as a problem, but I would recommend that you try to stay within the donation. Page 110 October 16, 2007 MS. MATTHES: I think we have about one -- .1 million in donations now, and of that, $500,000 is from one donor whose money will revert back to him if we don't build within a certain time period. We also have some pledges of some other funds and a state construction grant that I've applied for too that we should be hearing about shortly. MS. VASEY: Okay. And I think Joe Swaja has his checkbook with him today, too. MS. MATTHES: Great. MR. SW AJA: I've already paid. MR. SCHMITT: The ballast is ringing, yeah. MR. SW AJA: Why isn't that process -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, did you -- MR. SW AJA: -- used more often in libraries? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, next. MR. SWAJA: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. MR. SW AJA: The process of donating by communities to add facilities at the libraries, why isn't that adopted more in other communities? MS. MATTHES: We're certainly willing to take those donations at any time. We've not had many large donations like this. We had a $100,000 donation from the Sugdens. We've had some other 25-, $50,000 donations, but haven't typically gotten those kinds of donations. We still have some naming rights available for South Regional Library if anybody would like to make contributions. MR. SW AJA: Janet will take care of that. MS. VASEY: I live in the north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just told also that Susan Usher is here, and since we've more or less asked most of our questions from the documents, maybe she could come up and address Ms. Vasey's concerns. Page 111 October 16, 2007 MS. USHER: Good afternoon. I'm Susan Usher. I'm from the-- MR. SCHMITT: Sue, speak into the microphone, please. MS. USHER: Good afternoon. I'm Susan Usher. I'm from the budget office. MR. SW AJA: You're here to help us, right? MS. USHER: I'm here to help you to answer any questions, yes. MS. VASEY: Good. Thank you, Susan. Janet Vasey. Over here in the dark. I had -- there's several areas -- two of them we've covered already -- where we have loans coming in from the general fund. The first one that I'd like to mention is the library. There's a loan for the general fund of almost $3 million, and I wanted to know how we're planning to pay that back and where is the money coming from since, under the tax reform legislation, things look to be tighter in the future than they are right now. MS. USHER: The current policy of the board is one-third ofa mill gets set aside during the budget process, and that's to fund capital projects and to payoff debt that there is no other revenue source for. For instance, we -- you know, the county complex has quite a few number of buildings down there, and they were built long before we had impact fees. Well, that debt needs to be paid every year for the next 30 years, so that one-third of a mill helps payoff that old debt. That third of a mill also helps fund capital projects for, like, facilities like huge maintenance type projects. It helps IT with our computer infrastructure, and then like miscellaneous things that other departments need. For instance, the one where we bought the bus for the emergency management people -- or it's not really a bus, but it's like an RV-type unit where they keep everything in there. So that one-third of a mill, that is what is earmarked for these loans, and these loans are for quite a few of these impact fees. Page 112 October 16, 2007 If the impact fee is not here and available to payoff debt, we cannot ignore the debt. We need to make that payment. So if there is no impact fee to make that debt service payment in that particular year, then we will go to the one-third of a mill money and take some of that money to payoff -- to pay that debt, that debt service payment for that one year. So that's where the money is coming from. Eventually we're hoping that our economy, our little housing economy, will change and that we'll start making money again and impact fees will become flush again, and at that point in time when the impact fees start having some revenue on hand where it's not going to -- you know, over and above debt service and over and above construction, then that -- those impact fees will pay back our one-third of a mill money, that little pocket of money, so -- MS. VASEY: So this is not where we've actually borrowed money from anybody else; this is just our own one-third mill general fund money. MS. USHER: Yes. MS. VASEY: And then the impact fees, they're generally being used right now for long-term debt that may go out, I guess, on the libraries, probably 15 years or more. MS. USHER: I believe for the two libraries we didn't do a bond. We got commercial paper, and I believe our intent was 20 years -- I believe 20 years we're going to amortize that. Commercial paper is done in five-year term segments, so we're just going to roll four years -- or for four periods, so we have 20 years, but we're going to amortize that debt over 20 years. MS. VASEY: Okay. So you're expecting then that the -- anything that's collected over and above what's needed for that commercial paper debt payment is what you're going to be paying the loan off? MS. USHER: Right. MS. VASEY: Okay. And you've done some kind of analysis Page 113 October 16,2007 that shows that there's, you know, going to be money for that? MS. USHER: Well, the loan's coming from the one-third of a mill, so yes, there's money sitting there. MS. VASEY: I meant from the impact fees to pay that off. MS. USHER: Well, if it takes 20 years, then the county will have to wait 20 years before they get reimbursed from what they've given to these impact fee funds as far as loans are concerned. MS. VASEY: And is this a new procedure; have we done this before? MS. USHER: It's been here for the last few years, yes. You-- when debt service is needed to -- when you need money to make a debt service payment, just because you don't have the money in the bank and the impact fee fund, you can't turn around and say, no money, sorry. We can't do that as a county. So plan B has always been looking at that one-third of a mill money to be plan B to help make those payments in case something were to happen with the impact fee funds. MS. VASEY: And then holding that facility responsible for making the payment back? MS. USHER: That impact fee fund, yeah, because if they had the money, they would have made that debt service payment. MS. VASEY: Right. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve? MR. HARRISON: Susan, I'm Steve Harrison. From our budget reviews, we are familiar that there's a give-back program of unspent monies each year. Is this fund, this third of a mill, have we been spending all of it or do we give back some unused portion each -- MS. USHER: No. We've been spending all of it. That gets budgeted during the budget process. Like I said, the first things that get paid out of that one-third of a mill are all our debt service payments. We do -- I mean, we have impact fee debt service and then we Page 114 October 16, 2007 have other debt service. We have quite a bit of debt service out there that impact fees can't pay for. Those bonds -- that money was borrowed so long ago that these impact fees weren't here at that time so that old debt gets paid out of the one-third mill, and then what's left over, that's when the departments negotiate and get that money. MR. HARRISON: Just curious if there's a cost savings here to not spend the monies at all. MS. USHER: You mean, do away with the one-third ofa mill? MR. HARRISON: No. But we don't have to go looking for projects to use every bit of it every year. MS. USHER: Well, I do believe that we have a huge infrastructure, not only down at the campus but here and everywhere. MR. HARRISON: No doubt. MS. USHER: And I know that facilities management has to maintain the buildings, and they're a primary user of that money. And now that we live in the electronic age, IT is a major user of that money also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Susan, I have a question, something you said earlier about the use of this money. It goes to pay back the impact fee account. Does that mean we're spending ahead with our impact fees? We're spending them before we receive them? I mean obviously I think that's what it does mean. MS. USHER: I mean, it would be nice if we could save up for a building and then say, okay, I've got $20 million. Let's go build that building. But I don't believe that we're doing it at this point in time right now, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I mean, we've -- the idea that growth pays for growth, it really doesn't all the time. It does eventually pay for that, but we actually supplement it in the beginning and then it pays it out after we get it back in. MS. USHER: I believe when all these products were being discussed and were being planned, growth was paying for growth. Page 115 October 16, 2007 And I don't think any of us anticipated such an economic downturn as it has been. Everybody knew it was coming sooner or later, but I don't think anybody knew that in 2007/2008, that we were going to see such a downturn in the housing and in the building industry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you. Is there any other questions? Michele? MS. HARRISON: My question kind ofleans towards a follow-up to your question as well. Weren't most of these capital projects that impact fees are supposed to be paying for figured on a much larger population number, estimated number? And if so, should some of these capital projects be cut back? MS. USHER: I think a lot of our projects that we're discussing right now are in progress. That means we do have laborers on site building stuff. So with population numbers decreasing this year, I don't know how to stop -- MS. HARRISON: I don't mean population numbers decreasing this year. I'm talking about the projections of where our population was going to be in, say, 20/20 were not accurate numbers. We've seen that in pretty much all of our paperwork here. The numbers were skewed or not correct. So they were based on phantom houses, et cetera, et cetera. There's a lot of different numbers that factored into it. But I think our projects were figured on going forward, were figured on the larger population numbers. So are we readjusting? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi. Let me address that. The Annual Update and Inventory Report is the one-year, the one-year -- that's the next five-year capital improvement project. So when we were utilizing the BEBR high numbers and the numbers that were projected for 2025, you're right, we're 300,000 -- 300,000 higher -- MS. HARRISON: Right, right. MR. BOSI: -- than what we're currently projecting. Where that end-up number ends up being at 2025, I have no idea where that's Page 116 October 16, 2007 going to be. Separate issue. But the five -- every year we add the fifth year. So as the conditions change, next year the numbers may be revised even lower. And as we come back, we may see projects that are in the year three, four, five in this year's AUIR start being pushed out even further into years, say, four, five or even out of the current five-year window. So in the respect that, yeah, a lot of these projects that you see coming -- that are coming right out of their ground today, being finalized today, might have been based upon population numbers that were higher than what we're actually reflecting. After we start a construction project, we're obviously not going to pull back. We will live with the surplus that we have for whatever category that may be and every year continually try to adjust the numbers to get more in line with reality. But it's always -- we're always trying to catch up a year behind. But that's the -- that's the kind of -- maybe not the correct word, but the wisdom of our Annual Update and Inventory Report is every five -- every year we're adding that fifth year, so we're looking to see how our conditions are changing, so we're looking to see where we need to either push out projects or where we need to accelerate projects, so -- MS. HARRISON: But that change just took -- from the high to medium, just look took place; is that correct? MR. BOSI: This past summer. And this is the first -- this is the first AUIR where you -- where you'll find the population methodology. And actually, I had just responded to an email from Brad Boaz related to -- he had a couple issues related to why there was inconsistencies with the population numbers for what we see within this AUIR, and some of the -- and some of the support documents, and I had indicated to him, every capital improvements element that this county has on the books, every AUIR, every master plan, every impact fee study, is based upon our old population methodology Page 117 October 16, 2007 number. So everything that you're seeing has a little -- is somewhat skewed because this is the first year that we are utilizing the new population methodology. Now, those discrepancies will become less and less as we move out and get a little bit further away and new plans, new master plans, new impact fee studies, are based upon our methodology that we're now going to use forward. But until that time, this place right now, we're in that transition year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow a little bit, Mike. You hardly take a breath in all that, and I know Terri's got to type as fast as you talk. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, Terri. And this being the transition year and it has really -- it has placed a great -- a tremendous amount of flux in places -- a high degree of stress upon the consistency from what we were doing last year to what we're doing this year. MS. HARRISON: So I guess a follow-up to that is, where do we meet with the impact fee and collection? Are we always going to be behind due to those changes in calculations? MR. BOSI: That's the thing about an impact fee collection. The impact fee collection is a snapshot of time when that study -- when that study was taken. And I'll defer to Mr. Tindale on this. But in 2005 when we did the law enforcement impact fee study, they had determined at that time we were providing 1.96 officers per 1,000 of population, and that's what that study was based upon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Mr. Tindale starts, Joe, did you want to comment? MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I was just going to say, Mike spent five minutes expressing the answer, Michele. You asked when do we adjust. This is the process of adjusting. Our AUIR is when we look at capital investments and we look at infrastructure needs and we make that adjustment. You all make that proposal to the board based on this process. Page 118 October 16, 2007 MS. HARRISON: But how do we affect what's already in the pipeline, I guess, is really what I'm trying to get at? MR. TINDALE: Let me break it down in two or three different questions. Number one, the impact fee rates versus just projecting revenues in the future. The impact fee rate is based on the population at the time this study's done. It's not based on any future projections. So future projections do not affect the impact fee rate. So the impact fee rate is correct, as correct as we can -- remember, we got the 2000 population, and we only have to estimate for four, five, six years. So the impact fee is fixed, it's done, it's calculated on a current estimated population. Now in the next question, what happens when projections change? Well, when projections change, two things change. If the population growth rate goes down, impact fee revenues go down, and you don't over and build (sic). Ifprojections are incorrect and you get a very high population growth, impact fee revenues go up and you build more. Now, that's the second -- that's the standard way of looking at it. Now, what's happened? Someone has decided to give you a loan and build something, the decision is made to loan you money and you build something. Well, it's lumpy. You can't build a -- 10 percent of a library. So you went out and you bill it to a couple libraries. Well, we got this projection of revenues or projection of population and this lumpy item comes up and all of a sudden you're exceeding your standard. That's what this graph shows. Well, all the projections do, they don't change the impact fee. They change how long that loan will last. So in theory, you built these libraries and it said, wow, you're going to be deficient in eight years with this loan and the impact fees can't pay it. Well, now the population projections come down. Well, now what you've overbuilt will last you 15 years. Maybe Page 119 October 16,2007 what's happened is you've got 15 years now before you have a level of service problem. The problem is, during that 15-year period, if your population is going down, the impact fee revenues are down, so you still don't pay it off. So I mean, it's balanced. It's a closed system. Nobody's been overcharged, the impact fee's correct. The revenue projections swing, and how much you've overbuilt and how long it lasts changes. But there's two different issues. The impact fees are correctly calculated. They were based on a snapshot in time, and all we're dealing with now is this loan we've got, how long does it exceed the standards? Is it a long time or a shorter time, and that has a lot to do with your growth rate. Two distinct, different issues. Correct impact fees, correct charges, variation of what this loan does to your program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: I have a question for Susan. On the libraries I can see where we eventually might have enough impact fees to payoff some of this loan, but if you'll take the example of the EMS, right now EMS is planning to borrow almost $6 million from the general fund. And each year EMS is planning to build a station. If they own it, it's 3.5 million. If they lease it, it's 2 million, and they only collect a million dollars a year in impact fees. How will they ever make that one up to pay off the loan? MS. USHER: Once those four station are up and running, once those four stations are paid for, it affects how much the impact fee will be charged to new buildings, new construction, and the impact fee will grow -- will increase. But you need to have -- you need to have the inventory on hand -- I believe when you do an impact fee rate study -- and Mr. Tindale probably can explain this a whole lot better than me. But somehow the inventory has to be here, it's based on the rate study, and that will increase the fee, which eventually they could pay for. MS. VASEY: Well-- I do want to hear you talk, Steve. But one thing I'd like you to address when you do, you have already explained Page 120 October 16, 2007 that philosophy of how you get more into your base as things are paid off, but that takes a long time. But this is never going to get better if we build one every year and it's always more. MR. TINDALE: This is clearly different. The EMS is clearly differently than the sheriff. If you have an impact fee rate per person and you adopt it and you use impact fees to payoff loans, your asset's not going up because the revenue you get per person is equal to what you're charging, more people come on-line, the assets come on at the same rate. The only way the impact fee goes up, is when you infuse the tax. Well, what the sheriffs doing is you're spending taxes to build capital. You're putting impact fees in and existing people are paying taxes, so each year -- excuse me -- the inventory value goes up faster because you're not only just using impact fees. So you're right, if EMS doesn't infuse some tax base or the county give it the information -- I mean the inventory, EMS is in a hole and they're not going to dig their way out of it. The sheriffs digging his way out of a hole with taxes. EMS at this point in time has no taxes going into the facilities. They're not going to dig theirself out of the impact fee hole. It will just stay level. I mean, ifthere's 34,000 people per equivalent unit, 10 years from now it will be 34,000 people per equivalent unit because the impact fee revenues will come on-line and the asset will come on-line, but so will people. So the only way EMS digs its way out of the hole is to infuse some other revenues into the program. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. Susan, we're coming back with the EMS on the 26th, is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, 26th. MS. VASEY: On the 26th. Perhaps you could take another look at the financing between now and then and see what might need to be done, because it is going to result in a different number of stations. Instead of this backlog we show here of6.8, they're now talking about Page 121 October 16, 2007 one per year, so it will drop down to four that they're looking to finance, which will obviously change the numbers. But maybe you could take a hard look at the loan structure at that time. MS. USHER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be helpful, Susan, if during that morning -- we're going to start -- we'll probably be in this room at 8:30. If you were available for the morning meeting -- because I'm sure there'll be questions based on whatever comes out to us at that point. It might be helpful and it would save having to find you, if that's okay, so -- MS. USHER: Okay. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you very much for coming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? MR. SW AJA: I have one concern. I haven't heard yet how anybody can shut things off when we're digging ourselves in a hole with building more and more things, and the revenue's not going to change dramatically over the short-term. When are we going to reach the point where we're not going to have enough money in the ad valorem taxes to cover this one-third and all the other things that we have and begin to shut things off? Now, in the business world, I have seen buildings shut offwhen walls are already up and roofing ain't there because there wasn't a demand for the product, and there's not going to be a demand for some of these products and the money to pay for it. When do we shut it off and how do we do it? I realize the government's different, that in government, expenses are difficult to control and revenue's easy, which is just the opposite of the business world. But at some point we've got to make rational decisions in the government world, too. We can't afford to do all these things that we've seen so far. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you, absolutely. Joe, and then Georgia. Page 122 October 16, 2007 MR. SCHMITT: I don't know if we're there yet. When you're looking at government buildings, we may be -- if you look at the library issue, and that's maybe what you're referring to -- but those are policy decisions that have been directed and that staff is carrying out. I -- MR. SW AJA: I recognize that. That's the fundamental difference between a person sitting as -- a person in a BCC position -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. SW AJA: -- with unlimited revenue coming in and you make a decision to increase your revenue with no restraint by the market -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SW AJA: -- which is just the opposite of the business world. MR. SCHMITT: But when we're looking at -- when we're looking at buildings needed to house the sheriff or the judges or administrative functions, I think -- and that's something you're going to get into next. I mean, you're going to see that we're playing catch-up. MR. SW AJA: I have no problem -- MR. SCHMITT: In some areas we may be. And I think we did this with Mr. DeLony -- or at least when utilities gave their presentation. It was clear based on the change in population that they now bumped out some of their capital improvements one and two years, and three years in some cases, based on utilities, specifically the north plant, so -- MR. SW AJA: I'm not trying to say we should shut everything off. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. SW AJA: There's obviously things we have to do. We have to build more capabilities for the sheriff, we need to have capability for the judges, we need an emergency operations center. No argument. But when you put that in the context of, do you need Page 123 October 16, 2007 another library, do you need another this, another that, something has to fall off the bottom of the list. MR. SCHMITT: I don't argue that. MR. SW AJA: So I'm not picking on just libraries. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. I mean, that's something that both these committees certainly can come up and make a conclusion and we'll send to the board. MR. SW AJA: The librarian is not going to make a call on an EMC (sic) call. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Georgia? MS. HILLER: This is a question directed to our impact fee expert, wherever he is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Susan. MR. SW AJA: Mr. Tindale again. MS. HILLER: Could you clarify for me what you started explaining before? And I think I've missed something, so if you could help me, I'd really appreciate it. Going back to the sheriff, we said that part of his budget was operational, part of his budget is capital. We also said that the capital was going to be funded from two sources, from ad valorem and from impact fees. And at that point is where I start to get a little fuzzy. You said that the sheriff was going to be able to keep himself out or dig himself out of a hole by reaching into ad valorem dollars to pay for the debt service on the capital improvements. MR. TINDALE: Or construction. MS. HILLER: Or construction. And then you said that afterwards he would reach into impact fees to make up the difference. MR. TINDALE: Well, the impact fees will go up because the asset -- the impact -- you've got an asset per person we're charging for. MS. HILLER: Right. MR. TINDALE: And the impact fees are based on the current ownership. Page 124 October 16, 2007 MS. HILLER: The impact fees are based on-- MR. TINDALE: Current-- MS. HILLER: -- ownership. MR. TINDALE: Current inventory. MS. HILLER: But here's the thing. I mean, an asset, like work in progress is an asset. You have ownership of that asset. The fact that it is coming out of the ground and it's not complete doesn't mean you don't have an asset. MR. TINDALE: Well, we -- if you have -- if you have cash in the bank to pay for construction, we include that as if it is already built in the impact fee calculation. MS. HILLER: And so what you're -- in the impact fee calculation you're considering it as already built? MR. TINDALE: Sure. If it's under construction, we'll put on the inventory when we do an inventory -- MS. HILLER: Then you don't need that impact fee. If you've got cash in the bank to pay for the asset, why do we need the impact fee? MR. TINDALE: Here's what happens. First of all, you usually don't put taxes and cash in unless your infrastructure is deficient, because if the infrastructure's not deficient, the impact fees will maintain it. So first of all, when you see a combination of impact fees and taxes, someone has decided that the current buildings where -- substations, there's deficiencies or you wouldn't be using taxes, and that's what they've -- you've decided policy-wise when you combine impact fees and continue to support the sheriff with taxes, you've decided that the current inventory that he has is deficient or you wouldn't be using taxes. MS. HILLER: Right. And that's where the growth pays for the growth. In other words, you've got -- MR. TINDALE: Well-- Page 125 October 16,2007 MS. HILLER: That's why I want to reconcile. Reconcile the statement growth paying for growth with what you're describing because I don't see -- MR. TINDALE: Well, growth is paying for one level of service, and taxes are starting to increase that level of service because -- MS. HILLER: Growth is paying. So the impact fee is paying-- MR. TINDALE: The impact fee's paying for the current standard, current level of service. MS. HILLER: Right. MR. TINDALE: And the impact fee, if you take in the future, if you use no taxes, that level of service -- MS. HILLER: And then as the population base increases, you've got -- MR. TINDALE: -- same level of service -- MS. HILLER: Same level -- MR. TINDALE: -- because the asset and the person -- the asset and person just match. So you've got half as many buildings today as you need and you double your population, when you get through you'll have half as many buildings as you'll need, so growth pays for half of what you'd like to have, and that's the way it maintains for that whole time period you double your population. Now, you decide, I don't like having just half the buildings I have. Okay. I need to double the number of buildings I'm off. Well, you use taxes. Well, existing people pay those taxes. So you take that tax, you collect the impact fee and the next year you've got the asset to maintain the current deficient standard, and the tax then improves the inventory. MS. HILLER: So-- MR. TINDALE: Well, that next year or two you take that increase in assets and the new people that's moved in during that time period or the next people have to pay a little larger fee, so you don't maintain for 50 years this poor impact fee with taxes. Eventually, as Page 126 October 16,2007 you -- as behind -- after the fact, as the taxes increase the level of service standard, new development pays a higher fee because they're receiving and have already achieved a higher standard. So it gets this kind of visual of a poor standard that would last forever, and over time, the existing people improving the standard and new development in the future paying more for the new standard. That's what you're doing with the sheriff. When you're doing a department or a service that does have -- that has no taxes and you're only charging impact fees, wherever you are today and the impact fee calculation is calculated right, if you double your population, that's where that standard's going to be in the future by law. You can't improve the level of service standard with the impact fee. You can with taxes. And once it's achieved, then the next set of developers can be required to start paying the new standard. So what's happening with your libraries, and he's got a good point, you've made a policy decision to put an asset in there with a loan. I think they're probably going to leave the impact fee constant, you know, because one, you don't own that, you're -- see, the policy is one they built -- they built the buildings, but they're setting a policy that they're not going to consider that building paid for. They're only going to charge a standard fee. So you're going to run out there 15 or 20 years before you build a new library building. I mean, that's the upshot of that policy decision to call it a loan. Now, if you didn't call it a loan, then you would have built a new building, popped the fee up, and now you'd be out doing, you know, very high quality of service. But I think what the county has said is, we're going to call that a loan and, therefore, yeah, it's lumpy and the service went up for a year or two. We decided to do it, but it's going to be 15 years before we put any more -- we're not calling that -- that tax is not being used, or that ad valorem tax is not being used as part of the inventory, so that Page 127 October 16,2007 standard is going to come right back down over time. So that's the difference between having a service you're providing that you're using taxes and saying that adds capital and it adds equity -- that's what you're doing with the sheriff, and I think people think that's the right thing to do, but what you're doing in the libraries is you're giving them a loan and you're saying that's not new equity. I'm not going to allow you to increase the impact fee. You know, it doesn't have the priority that the sheriff does. So I think you have set two different standards here. You've set a sheriffs standard where you're using taxes and saying it's cash and it creates the equity because you need to put it in there, and you've got a library where you're calling it a loan. It's a little lumpy, but over time you're going to be right back down to the same standard you were today when you -- so if you double population in the library system, it's going to be back to where you are today. That's not the case with the sheriff. You're actually improving the level of service because you're calling that tax and investment and not a loan. So the truth's somewhere in between. The question is, why did you make the loan to begin with? At least they called it a loan and they're going to have that quality of service back down to the current standard. MS. HILLER: Well, I see that because when we reviewed the budget, I mean, it's very clear that the library scenario seems to be the more prevalent scenario in terms of policy in this county. MR. TINDALE: Well, almost all your fire, EMS, libraries, have zero credits and zero taxes going in. The sheriffs is the one that you've got -- I think the sheriff and maybe administrative buildings had a little bit of crisis, and you put some money in there and called it an investment rather than a loan. But the only services I've seen where you're putting investment in and not calling it a loan, I think, is sheriff and maybe the buildings. Page 128 October 16, 2007 Other than that you're calling them loans -- MR. SW AJA: That makes sense because we started with the sheriff. MR. TINDALE: -- and the rest of them are calling them loans which are very -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? No, I just wanted to make sure the recorder heard your voice. MR. TINDALE: Go ahead, excuse me. MR. SW AJA: That makes sense since we didn't have the impact fee for the sheriffup until recently. MR. TINDALE: And you were -- MR. SW AJA: Playing catch-up. MR. TINDALE: And you were clearly paying -- playing catch-up on what I think you consider as a critical service. So from my perspective -- and I work all over the state -- the strategies that you're using are really legitimate strategies. You're calling things loans on the non -- quote, nonessential services, but you're still providing the issue of a lumpy, you know, process that's going on and issues with revenues, and on the critical services, such as maybe like the jails or sheriff, you're taking taxes and you're not calling it loans. You're making investments, and I think that's a very good strategy that's developed in terms of how you plan out your growth. MS. HILLER: Here's my concern. What I hear you saying, I mean, we've got two crises. We have an impact fee crisis and we have an ad valorem tax crisis right now. And what you're describing is taking in the debt scenario is a situation where the ad valorem is supposed to make up the deficiency where the impact fee is not rising as anticipated. Now you've got deficiencies in both and you run into a very real possibility of having a shortfall. MR. TINDALE: I think it's two years ago when the lib -- and this is my -- I'm giving an opinion here. And this is based on just Page 129 October 16, 2007 watching all the other government work you all have done, because I've watched you. I think if two years ago someone could have look in a crystal ball and saw what was getting ready to happen, they may not have made the loan to the libraries. You may not be under construction. But I mean, that's where are you today. You did call it a loan, which was really smart. You were very conservative in not giving libraries the money. You did it, it started, and now the revenues are down and now that loan is going to have a much longer life out there. One, the population is going to be slower, but the loan's going to have a much longer life to -- you know, before you have to reinvest, and because it -- because you're growing slower, that excess capacity's going to last longer and you're not going to need to build libraries, so it still balances. You know, it's an interesting way that it balances because rather than having a seven-year life on that loan, if you grow slower, your standard's going to be lasting for 15 or 18 years, and because the revenues are down, it's going to take you 15 or 18 years to pay for it. So it really still balances. It would have been a seven-year loan with good impact fees or 15-year loan with slow impact fee revenues, but the standard is just gradually being pulled down because it's a loan. MS. HILLER: However-- MR. TINDALE: But you only did that, as far as I know, in the library services. And in some places you do it -- your goal is to use impact fees to pay for it if you have yourself a short-term issue, you reach in the pot, and you loan it money and it pays it back. It's still a loan. That's a very conservative way to deal with all your facilities except your essential facilities. MS. HILLER: And with any debt, the longer you drag out the payment term, the more it costs. Page 130 October 16, 2007 MR. TINDALE: Well, in theory it does, and it's interesting because if you're a business, you'd be charging interest, and the county, I don't believe, is charging interest. So, yeah, it is a little more costly, but with the way construction was going and the rate construction was going up, these were really good loans. Because I can tell you, I would much rather borrow from the county, build something three years ago than not borrow from them and build it now, because the cost doubled. So those loans created assets that were very valuable during a time period that if they hadn't loaned it -- and again, they called it a loan. It wasn't -- it wasn't a policy, I'm going to throw more money into it. They didn't put the money into it. They're going to use either a short-term growth because you're growing faster or long-term growth to pay it back, so it's still a good -- I think it's a good business decision. It looks like it's not. But the reality, I think, calling it a loan and what they've done was a good business decision. MS. HILLER: May I ask just one last question, and this ties everything you said back to what Joe said. I mean, given that we're looking into the future, we see that the, you know, debt repayment term is going to be prolonged because impact fees are down and ad valorem taxes are down, is it prudent as we're going through this whole process to be adding all these additional projects when we already know that, you know, we've got an extended debt service horizon? MR. TINDALE: I think they're being very careful. For example, if you ask me in EMS, the answer is, I probably would continue to try to use this technique in the next year because they are -- they need some help. I would maybe make it a policy, not only make it a loan, but an investment, where in another service area I'd be more careful with it. So I think from this point forward, the next cycles, they will be very careful with the loan. MS. HILLER: Which service areas do you think would warrant Page 131 October 16,2007 being conservative in? MR. TINDALE: Well, that's a policy decision. MS. HILLER: Right. But I mean, you're experienced-- MR. TINDALE: All over the state that I see, public safety is always almost undebatable. I mean, everybody -- and, again, I'm an ex public works director, that used to have to put up with the fire and the police getting everything. You know, I have some bias towards, there is a limit to leaning on public safety, but I've never seen public safety, one, remember, is not that capital intensive, so it's a good-- you know, there's two reasons to deal with public safety, one is politically and everybody likes, it, and another reason, it doesn't take a lot of cash because they usually have deficiency because they don't need it to begin with and they get behind, and it doesn't take a great amount of cash loans or even investment to bring them up because they're not that capital intensive. So what I see all over the state is fire, law enforcement, and fire and fire rescue keep continuing to get infusion and you're responsive, and everybody pulls -- and transportation. Transportation's always a big issue. It really has an economic impact. I mean, not being able to move around and goods moving to people creates a major issue. Transportation and safety -- MR. SW AJA: Don't forget water and sewer. MR. TINDALE: Well, I always -- that's the other one I didn't have. Water and sewer just cranks their rates up and, you know, you can have 20 people die in a car, but let one person die from sewer backing up, and everybody's going to lose their job. So water and sewer, usually -- MS. HILLER: Make-- MR. TINDALE: -- is taken care of. But that's really safety. That's public health and welfare. So it's transportation, you know, fire and EMS, and the health programs are usually taken care of, and then what you've done is loan -- you've used the loan process for the Page 132 October 16,2007 nonessential programs which, again, I still say is a really good business decision because you're not infusing capital. You're basically loaning it and dealing with kind of the lumpy issues, and you'll probably be more -- may be more careful with that with what's going on as you move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve, you had a question earlier, did you? MR. HARRISON: For Amy Patterson, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HARRISON: Amy, it seems like we've got a couple things here to ask you for the next time we do an update on our runoff for the various impact fees, so if we haven't shifted by policy from using these loans from a short-term function to a long-term function, it seems like we ought to include them when we're looking at, you know, our sources and uses and when we run out of fees. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. MR. HARRISON: But more broadly than that -- and I know it's not particularly to your issue -- I don't think the Productivity Committee is comfortable saying the way out of the hole here is to raise impact fees further by exceeding it up front with loans from the general fund. MS. PATTERSON: Right. That would go to raise the impact fee. MR. HARRISON: I think our attitude is we need a cap on the total package of impact fees where if there's something that goes up, something's got to go down. MS. PATTERSON: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SW AJA: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? MR. SW AJA: Is there someone in the organization that's keeping track of all this to find out when we're going to eat up that Page 133 October 16, 2007 one-third mill that sits there and pays for all these loans? MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to turn to Susan. MS. USHER: Can you repeat that again? MR. SW AJA: You've got this one-third mill set aside for servicing of loans. Who's keeping track of the revenue coming in, that one-third mill and how we're using it up month by month or quarter by quarter? MS. USHER: That's done annually once a year during the budget process. MR. SW AJA: Once a year. MS. USHER: We get the taxable value, we calculate what one-third of the mill will raise out of the taxable value. That money is set aside. Old debt -- the old bond issues we have that impact fees can't touch, that's paid off first, then the monies left over is given to the departments -- MR. SW AJA: How much -- MS. USHER: -- to do major capital projects. MR. SW AJA: How much of that one-third have we used up so far? MS. USHER: Well, every year you use it all up. I mean, that's the appropriation that's given out every year. It's an annual process. I don't know what the dollar value is off the top of my head though. MS. VASEY: I think, perhaps, what he's asking is, of the one-third mill, how much of it is already tied up in debt? MR. SW AJA: Tied up in debt. MS. VASEY: That would be -- you know, couldn't be touched. MS. USHER: I'll be able to give you that answer at the next meeting. I don't have those work papers with me. I only brought the AUIR information. I didn't bring any of my budget books with me, but I have that information. MR. SW AJA: I think we ought to see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Susan. Do we have any Page 134 October 16, 2007 more questions of Susan today so if we don't she can head back to her office, or do you need her the rest of the afternoon here? MS. VASEY: I have another question on government buildings, which we're going to be going into. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next. Yeah, okay. As long as we're -- I didn't want her sitting here if we didn't need her, so -- okay. We've finished up the discussion on the library buildings and library materials. The Planning Commission needs to come to a conclusion on that. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission? Mr. Vigliotti? (Michele Harrison left the hearing room.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's start one at a time. So that motion to approve is for the first one, library buildings? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion on library materials? Bob, you're getting to be the nominee today. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I am. Page 13 5 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Commissioner Schiffer agam. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries on both items. And we need -- MS. VASEY: We'll do ours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? MS. VASEY: We'll do ours, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, go ahead. MS. VASEY: Motion to approve the libraries for Productivity Subcommittee. Any second? MR. SW AJA: I'll second it. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? Aye. MR. BOAZ: Aye. MS. VASEY: All those opposed? MR. HARRISON: Nay. Page 136 October 16, 2007 MS. VASEY: Okay. Georgia? Okay. Well, so far we've got two for, one against, and then Georgia is a not-sure yet. MS. HILLER: I'm not sure because what I would really like to see is Steve -- not Steve, but what Joe is asking for, and I'd also like to see the analysis of the impact fees as well as it relates to the debt service. I would feel more comfortable if we did that before we drew a final conclusion just because this area, like parks, may be an area where projects may be well deferred and those monies put to, you know, where they might be more needed like EMS and, you know, police and jails and areas like that. MS. VASEY: Well, I think on this one they've already awarded the contracts -- MS. HILLER: Have they? Everything -- oh, I'm sorry. Everything -- then it's my misunderstanding. Well, if it's awarded, then we don't have a choice. MS. VASEY: And there's nothing even programmed in the second five-year period which means -- which, to my way of thinking, would suggest that they might actually have the impact fee money to payoff some of the loans. So it's walking the line, but I think, you know, financially, it looks -- MS. HILLER: I think you're right. MS. VASEY: -- possible. MS. HILLER: I mean, it's my misunderstanding if, in fact, all those projects have been let then, it's too late. MR. HARRISON: Janet? MR. SW AJA: After her point I'd like to reconsider my vote. MS. VASEY: Okay. You want to try it again? Is there a motion on the libraries? MR. HARRISON: I'll make a motion. MS. VASEY: All right. MR. HARRISON: I'll make a motion. MR. SW AJA: Second it. Page 13 7 October 16, 2007 MR. HARRISON: What's your motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was clever. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Trusting group. MR. HARRISON: You made a motion that asked us if we would approve the proposal for libraries. MS. VASEY: Okay. MR. HARRISON: That's the motion. MS. VASEY: Okay. All right. Motion to approve the libraries. Second? I'll second it. All those in favor? Aye. Vasey, opposed. MR. HARRISON: No. MS. HILLER: Nay. MS. VASEY: You're a nay? MR. SWAJA: Like sign, nay. MS. VASEY: Okay. It's one for, three against. I guess we'll have to discuss it in full committee. What would you like from the libraries between now and our productivity meeting? MS. HILLER: I would like exactly what Joe has asked for. I think his question was really valid. I think we need to look at the debt service analysis and make sure that we understand exactly, you know, what we are approving. MS. VASEY: Okay. MS. HILLER: And I think maybe it's -- you know, maybe should qualify my no as being, I just don't feel I have enough information to say, yes, and there isn't anything else I would like to add to how all of this is, you know, working out. So it's kind ofa qualified no. MS. TOWNSEND: Let me ask for just a little bit of clarification. I think we're looking for two things. One is an analysis of the one-third mill that goes to pay down debt, both, and also part of this Page 13 8 October 16, 2007 loan from the general fund to pay down debt and to look at, over time, how that is broken down among the various projects that it's funding. That's number one. And then number two, to look at library impact fees over time and how they will repay the portion of that one-third mill that's going to pay down debt before those impact fees make up the difference; is that correct? MS. HILLER: Yes. MR. SW AJA: You were paying attention. MS. HILLER: You are really good. That was beautifully said, perfect. MS. TOWNSEND: We have our direction. MS. HILLER: And it may very well just be an education process for us, but I think it's something we need to get an understanding of. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just so that libraries are clear, that's a request from the Productivity Committee. You could save yourselves and us time by addressing them at their meeting, because what they do with the finances is not something we're necessarily involved in from planning, so -- MS. TOWNSEND: That would be fine. MS. VASEY: Yeah. If you would provide the information to Mike Sheffield, he'll get it to us, and we'll review it prior to the meeting on -- I think we're meeting on the 31 st. MS. TOWNSEND: Okay. Thank you. MR. HARRISON: Thank you, ma'am. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have one other thing I'd like to clean up before we take a break, and yesterday we were discussing parks. We were going to make a motion on parks and it was recommended we wait till we finish jails and EMS. And EMS is off till the 26th, but I think we're in the position to deal with the parks issue if everybody agrees on the Planning Commission side. Ms. Caron, it was your recommendation to hold. Do you see the Page 139 October 16, 2007 need to hold any longer or are you willing to -- do you think we should get into -- make a recommendation on parks at this time? COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I think you can get into it if you'd like. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yesterday in the discussion of parks we had community parks and we had regional parks. And during the discussion we came up with some concerns that -- and I had made notes of three of them; that the Delnor- Wiggins and the Collier Seminole Parks weren't accounted for appropriately in either one of the categories; that the unit cost was inconsistent with appraisal rates and that maybe we ought to be looking at more realistic appraisal rates; and the actual level of service due to the use ought to be factored in some manner in regards to the standards. During that discussion, there was also some talk about considering recommending that a reduction in the impact fees be made to this particular category so that -- the more room in the impact fee cap to move to other sources and not increase the impact fees 10 in the county and the other items that would be needed are like jails and possibly EMS after we discuss with EMS on the 26th. That was the result that I made -- that was the conclusion of notes that I had. I don't know if anybody else had any more. But if anybody has any ideas or thoughts on it, I'd sure like to hear it because -- Joe? MR. SW AJA: In addition to Delnor- Wiggins and Collier Seminole, we also have Rookery Bay, Everglades, and Ten Thousand Islands, which are massive parks available to all the citizens of Collier County and encompass hundreds of thousands of acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Agreed, that's a lot of open space that can be used. Is there any discussion? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what's the advantage of Page 140 October 16, 2007 you bringing those in? Because, I mean, obviously there is some minor lack of control, but what Joe just said there, when you go on Keewaydin Island, all these other places that are really open to the people, if we start counting those, we're really going to diminish our parks requirements to the point where there's no way we'd ever be out of compliance. But I mean -- MS. TOWNSEND: IfI can address a little bit about what we keep in inventory and what we don't. It may help because I'd sort of like the committees to look at this issue historically. There was a time when both Delnor- Wiggins and Collier Seminole State Park was included in the inventory, and I believe that's probably from the inception of this process somewhere in 1989 until somewhere in the late '90s. And what we've found was that we had a need for regional parks with an active focus, and we had a large amount of acreages in ecologically sensitive areas that were satisfying the need on the regional park acreage side and not allowing us to address active recreation needs on the regional park side. We took Delnor- Wiggins and Collier Seminole specifically out of inventory in order to allow us to fill that need for active recreation areas. At that point we basically established a policy under which a park was or was not included in inventory, and that was if that park was maintained for the general public use by Collier County Parks and Recreation, we kept it in inventory. And if it wasn't, we didn't. It made it very easy for us to decide what goes in and what goes out. That's why the schools collocated facilities were in inventory. We maintained it for public use, so we put it in the inventory. Ifit was maintained by somebody else or owned by somebody else, it was out. Now, last year when we visited the AUIR process, these committees rightly noted that we were using a countywide population but we weren't counting park facilities within the municipalities, and we were given direction and we did include those, not for the Page 141 October 16, 2007 community parks as we've already discussed, but for regional parks and for facilities type. Now, what changing on policy of what we include and didn't include in the inventory revealed was that, oh, well, if you're going to include facilities within the municipalities, then why are you not including facilities provided by the state? And so while it's certainly -- it's certainly understandable why Delnor- Wiggins and Collier Seminole should be included in the inventory based on some of the rationale we've been talking about, it would be best for staff if we came back to what does and does not get included in the inventory at a sort of policy-type level rather than looking at individual parks. And I don't have necessarily a clear suggestion for what that determinant would be, but sort of ask these committees' input on that because I think it would be very helpful for us to decide, rather than taking parks on a case-by-case basis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have any control over what goes in Delnor- Wiggins Park? MS. TOWNSEND: No, we do not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a pretty good determinant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. HILLER: Do you have control over -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: Do you want to take a break? We have a maintenance guy to fix that ballast. I think you're close, aren't you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can take a 10-minute break and come back and go forward. Let's do that right now. Be back at quarter of three. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Ifwe could bring the Page 142 October 16, 2007 meeting back to order. The noise on the ceiling has stopped. Thank you for facilities, whoever does that kind of work. And we left off before with a discussion by the Planning Commission concerning our motion or potential motion for the community parks and then for the regional parks. And I have to go back and ask the committee -- and this is the Planning Commission because we're the ones that have to vote on it at this point -- what their preferences are in regards to community parks lands first, and then we'll do regional parks second. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: You had listed three separate items CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as possible stipulations here for a vote. Can you just run down those one more time? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. The question came up about the inclusion of parks such as Delnor and Collier Seminole. Now, I don't know where they'd be included, whether it would be community or regional, but the point was, and was testified to, that those aren't included, and then, of course, we've heard that some others may not be as well. We also had a discussion yesterday about the modification needed to the unit cost, that the $230,000 per acre seemed out of context from what the pricing is actually going for out there. And the third thing we discussed yesterday that was questioned -- that we questioned, was the actual level of service due to the use of the facilities because we had pretty good use data supplied to us based on yesterday's review. So those are the three things that I remembered -- or that I made notes on from yesterday. And also I'd made notes concerning the issue about impact fees and that we might want to reallocate impact fees, not that we can legally do so, but the suggestion would be reduce these impact fees under the intention of seeing impact fees increase for Page 143 October 16, 2007 jails and/or EMS after we get done with the EMS project. Well, and throughout the whole time never raising the maximum ceiling that's already established for impact fees. That was the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- items that I remember, and I still-- I think we have two categories to go through, one is community parks and the other is regional parks, and we're going to need a motion from the Planning Commission on each one. COMMISSIONER CARON: It seems like the whole issue of whether parks like Delnor or Seminole should be included is really more an issue of what kind of facilities we need as opposed to whether we should have them in park inventory or not and that that's probably why they were taken out, because you needed to get at building more facilities, and having those parks in there was preventing you from doing that because then you would have shown a level that was too great or an inventory that was too great, so you took those out. Is that really basically what happened? MS. TOWNSEND: Let me -- I had one more comment before we -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MS. TOWNSEND: -- before we broke, and that is that when we did the level of service workshop in the spring and prepared those materials and the board looked at them in June, we made a proposal in there, and I had -- I slightly misspoke a moment ago when I said that I didn't have a good idea of what a policy criterion for inclusion or exclusion should be because we proposed one in there and the board gave us direction to use it, and that is that a park is included in inventory if Collier County Parks and Recreation maintains it for general public use or if it is maintained by another public entity for general public use and we have some sort of mechanism to ensure its use into the -- by the general public into the future. For example, ifthere is a Florida Recreation Development Page 144 October 16, 2007 Assistance Program Grant or a Florida Communities Trust Grant or another mechanism like that where the state has funded improvements to that park in such a way that we know the state has asked for a commitment from that managing entity to provide that for the public into a certain -- certain period in the future. Also, if we have an interlocal agreement with the owner of that facility so that, for example, we have funded improvements to Naples Landing within the City of Naples. We funded improvements to City of Naples beach accesses historically, and the interlocal agreements that we've executed on those -- on that funding have guaranteed that those parks would be -- those facilities would be available to the general public for a specific amount of time. Same is true with funding that we've done for parks in Everglades City. So that is the mechanism that we're using. If we have some sort of guaranteed that that facility is going to be available to the general public into the future, then we can -- then we feel comfortable including it in inventory . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that just kind of begs the question, why didn't you include the state parks? Because I mean, if anybody's more secure in their tax base, I think it would be state over the county, so -- MS. TOWNSEND: And again, for -- prior to last year, our policy was that it was only if Collier County Parks and Recreation maintained for general public use. Last year we were given very specific direction by these boards to include parks within the municipalities, and we simply took the direction we were given and did that, and that's now opened up this new sort of direction of thinking, and if it's the direction of these boards that those -- the parks be included in the inventory, we will do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering if you got the direction last year that was to open up the parks for more of these to be included, why wasn't Delnor and Collier Seminole, as an example, Page 145 October 16, 2007 included? MS. RAMSEY: It's actually -- Marla Ramsey, for the record. It's actually a little more direct than that. We have to have an interlocal agreement with the managing entity in order to include it, and there is no interlocal agreement or management plan over the state park or Collier Seminole. So Barefoot, for example, is included and half of that parcel is state owned and we have a management plan over the top of it, and we manage that particular parcel, so all 350 acres are included in our inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there -- Mr. Kolflat, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I think the thrust of your comments yesterday, Mark, as I recall them, pertain to the relative impact fees of what we might call more essential services such as police and emergency medical services -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: -- as compared to the parks. And can you recite again those differences? I think one was $1,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- when I asked staff yesterday for the estimated impact fees they said parks is about $3,000 per residential unit, and that's for community and regional combined; $240 for the jail and $130 for EMS. And we now know we have deficiencies in jail and EMS that could be funded possibly through impact fees and thus new impacts are increased through impact fees, and I think that in order not to increase the impact fees countywide any higher than the top level is right now, that we need to free up some space in there so that jail and EMS could possibly increase based on the outcome of new studies. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And that could be done by reducing the impact fees on parks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That was -- that's my suggestion. And to get there, we have to deal with the level of service, but the Page 146 October 16, 2007 level of service could be improved simply by including all the parks that are really being used in Collier County instead of just particular ones. Whether we have an interlocal agreement or not, anybody in this county can go to Delnor- Wiggins Pass State Park and use it. So it's irrelevant of the agreements. We can use it. It's there. We should count it. And as far as the rate of the acreage, you made it very clear during discussions yesterday that $230 an acre may be fine occasionally for the county's coastal areas, but that's not the way it really is when they go out and buy property, and we wanted to look at a better rate of -- or better criteria to show what that acreage cost really is. So those were the three suggestions that I came away with from yesterday, and that's what we'd been trying to discuss, and I know Brad had a comment after you, Tor. So if you're -- if that answers your question, we'll go on to see what Brad's got to say. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Marla, can go. MS. RAMSEY: Again, Marla Ramsey, for the record. Just one clarification. I hear you talking about reducing level of services so that you can get to a reduction in impact fees to the parks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wasn't going to suggest to reduce. What I'm saying is that by adding the other parks in, you automatically have somewhat diluted the level of service, because now you've got more parkland in -- to meet that level of service that you don't have to create out of more private lands. MS. RAMSEY: I understand that scenario except the other side of that is, is you really haven't increased any growth opportunity to the public in general by doing that because those assets that you're asking me to place into my inventory are currently available to the public through another agency. To include them into ours doesn't gain anything for our Page 147 October 16, 2007 community or for the betterment of our community as far as parks are related. So, you know, I guess if that's the recommendation you want to make, that's fine, but I don't really think it gets to the end that, you know, we -- and I'm going to speak to the parks side at the moment, I mean, we're looking for a quality of life in Collier County, and a lot of people move here because of the quality of life that we provide, of which parks is a very big part of that. And so just to include existing facilities because you can reach an end is not necessarily the best way to go about it. If you're interested in reducing impact fees, then why not simply just tell the board that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I think that if you reduce impact fees and you leave the level of service, then you're going to run into a deficiency in the amount of monies, then the next thing you know we're going to be looking at ad valorem to cover a deficiency that I don't believe is needed, and I certainly disagree with you on the amount of availability of needed parks in this county, and that's proven more or less by the closing of the North Naples Park. Ifit really was intended to meet a very specific level of service, we wouldn't be shutting it down during the week for a continuous week after week after week, so -- MS. RAMSEY: Again, I think I addressed that yesterday. The Collier Regional Park never closes. It is the Sun-N-Fun Lagoon Water Park. We'll also state that the 951 study that we have been doing is now to address parks east of 951. We currently have no large parks in that area, and so we have two parks coming on-line right now that we've pushed out. One of them is the Kaufman property, which is the Vanderbilt extension, which is outside of our five-year because their impact fees have been reduced because of the down that we're into. But we know that given the population that's out there, people want to do more than just walk or sit in their back yard. They want to play athletic games and we want them to play those in the area east of 951. We do not want them to have to drive all the way into North Page 148 October 16, 2007 Collier or the Vineyards or other urban areas in order to have those recreational opportunities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's closer to the people outside the county to utilize, too. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was going to say, and I agree with that, Marla. That was the point I was trying to get to in saying that it seems to me that perhaps we need to be looking at what we really want to build, and then perhaps this discussion wouldn't get to where it's going, because I doubt there are very many people who wouldn't say that there aren't ball fields that are needed east of 951; however, do we just need, you know, more parks there. I mean, once you get east of 951, most of these people have land. They have their own built-in parks, as we joked with Georgia yesterday about the people in the Estates. But -- so maybe we're just not -- we're not seeing this. MS. RAMSEY: And what I can -- you don't necessarily -- you do kind of see in your inventory what we looked to putting on in our park facilities. You see the number of ball fields in your lists. I'll tell you right now that the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park, which is over by the fairgrounds, just on the other side of the fairgrounds, it has five soccer fields in its inventory as we speak. It has a community room that will hold 250 people, which is a request by the community out there. We have done the design of that park through a committee out there for over the last year and a half. It has basketball, outdoor basketball, tennis courts, racquetball courts, all the active facilities that are needed in the Orangetree area in order to accommodate the growing population in that area. So the parks that we're putting on are not passive green space. That is not the kind of things that we are buying. Weare into the active recreational element. Conservation Collier is taking care of the Page 149 October 16, 2007 preserve side of it. Weare not involved in that process, nor do we include those in our inventory. Active is where we're trying to get to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, I think if we want to vote on this, can we break it up into different components, you know, this being one of the components, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we just got to -- we have two categories. I mean, I hope those are the components you're talking about, community parkland and regional parkland? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, I think the issue of bringing -- pulling Wiggins in and Seminole in. I wouldn't mind if we just kind of do at least a straw vote on the Planning Commission before we make that part of the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, make a motion. Or Mr. Kolflat, did you have a discussion or are we ready for a motion from Brad? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I think we're ready for the motion, however -- well, let me just make a comment. There's a lot of benefits in ball parks and so forth to the community, but there's also a benefit to the community to apply taxes appropriately and where they're really needed for essential services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Brad, did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not the one you want, but it's -- I'll make a motion to approve as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which, the community park? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Regional, I guess we'll start first -- I'm sorry. Community first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just the way it is, just approve it the way it is? Page 150 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way it is, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the community parklands as submitted. Discussion? Well, I mean, I'm -- my position on this has already been stated many times. I will not buy into such an item. Go ahead. Mr. Murray, did you have anything you wanted to say? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was going to defer to Mr. Schiffer, ifhe wanted to go first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, you can go. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've been quiet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've listened very carefully, and I recognize where we're trying to get, but I remember the preamble to this whole thing is, we were intended to look at whether or not the numbers were appropriate for the purpose, and the parks people are coming to us representing their own -- the needs of the public as they are charged with it. And unless I see something that they are telling us that is not correct, which we've certainly vetted, I don't see a reason why we can't use this as a basis. A good gesture to offer that, perhaps, the commissioners might want to consider using some money from X to go to Y, but I can't see taking it away here. I don't know how we would take it away, number one. So I can't -- I have to support a motion to go forward as they've put it forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? Mr. Schiffer, did -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will also vote for it based upon the fact that if they don't control it, I can't see how they could be responsible for taking it into their inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 151 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think if anything, Mark -- it may be my naivety, but I'm having trouble linking this with EMS. I mean, I think -- I'm looking at the parks all by itself. If there was a way to take money out of the parks and put it in EMS, maybe I'd think differently, but I don't know -- I mean, I think as -- the judgment we should be making here is focused on each element standing alone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't linking it with EMS, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what I was simply saying was that if we didn't increase this thing with impact fees, we provided some room in there, maybe some other more vital element of this could be raised where there was room, and we've got to create the room. And the way I was suggesting creating that room could suggest a lowering of impact fees here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, what I've learned today is, send the librarians over to EMS, you know, teach them that trick, because it's -- anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's -- I think we've had all the discussion. We'll call for the vote. All those in favor of Brad's motion to support the AUIR for community parks land as submitted, please indicate by raising their hand. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two three ayes. All those against, same sign? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three against. Okay. We'll go forward with no recommendations from the Planning Commission. Page 152 October 16, 2007 Regional parks. Is there a motion for regional parks? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make it. I'll move to approve regional parks as presented. The Wiggins Pass, Seminole thing, I think when you look at the chart, we're not going to be in a shortage of land. There's no need to scurry up any acreage to make the thing look good. It looks good all by itself. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that, and also what occurs to me as well, we talked about double counting. If the state counts available parkland and we count the same parkland, then the public has been cheated by it being counted twice. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I would have to say, Mr. Schiffer and Mr. Murray, I think that staff has answered that question very nicely. I don't think there's a need to put those in. It was my attempt at trying to help the situation that we are actually -- the goal we're trying to get to, which is to, perhaps, help funding of some more essential services than -- and that was the only point of bringing it up. I think they've more than answered why they didn't put it in, you know. And I don't have any problem that they haven't put it in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had no idea that was being -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer -- Mr. Murray, Mr. Schiffer had indicated he wanted -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I had no idea that was being construed personally. I made no -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, no, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys. Mr. Schiffer, you were next. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually he was saying what I was going to say. Is -- I guess I'm naive. I can't get the link as to what we could do here that would cause benefit there. If somebody could explain that to me, maybe I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't explain it any more clearer than I already have, Brad. So if I'm not doing that good of a job in explaining it, then I'll just have to, at this point, let it ride. Page 153 October 16, 2007 Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I believe one of our charges was to review the standard of services in making our review of this document, so we're certainly within the bounds of reviewing the standard of service. And no matter how we're approaching it, we should address that standard of service. And if there's reason for that standard of service to be changed, we ought to support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you, but -- there's a motion on the floor that would approve the document as it's been submitted, and we're into discussion. And is there any further discussion on this particular motion? The only thing I have to say is that the state has offered -- has demanded certain rollbacks and cuts, and it certainly seems like everybody must do that. And in my opinion, parks and rec is one of the fattest departments in the county, and it certainly could be one that could be cut. But if that's not the feeling of this board, then that's the way it will go forward. So with that, I'll ask for the vote in same manner in which we asked for before. All those in favor of the motion made by Brad Schiffer to recommend approval as this document stands, please signify by raising your hands. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Three in favor. All those against? Same sign? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same conclusion. This will go forward with no recommendation of the Planning Commissioner. And with that, Georgia, did you have something you wanted to Page 154 October 16, 2007 bring up again? MS. HILLER: Yes. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, when we send this to the Board of County Commissioners, we will make sure the board understands why there was a split decision and the differing opinions between the -- both entities so that it's clear that there were folks that basically had an opinion in regards to the parks and how it turned out. So we'll make sure that's clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was certainly relying on that, sir. Thank you. MS. HILLER: Janet, can we is we discuss what the Planning Commission has just discussed, and then afterwards, can you give me permission to readdress libraries? I want to clarify something, because I think I've made a mistake, and I'll tell you what my mistake is after. But if you'd give me permission to do that, I'd appreciate it. MS. VASEY: Sure. MS. HILLER: Sure. MS. VASEY: Would you guys stay? We're going to do the productivity part of it, too. Does anyone want to take a position on the parks at this point? MS. HILLER: I would like to make a few comments about it. I paid very close attention yesterday to all the discussions that we had, both comments from the Planning Commission as well as the Productivity Committee, and tying that in, again, with what Mr. Teasdale (sic) has said, I find myself very concerned. And the concern I have is whether legally, based on the arguments that were raised, if, in fact, we do have a satisfaction of the rational nexus test that's required to establish a legitimate threshold for the impact fee in this area. I think that Brad made a very important legal argument which raises the question of whether there is some arbitrariness in the calculation of the parks impact fee. And what he said, which I think Page 155 October 16, 2007 was very intelligent, is he said, you know, from year to year we raise the same issue, and that is, why aren't we using real appraisals? And that is a very, very important observation because the other arguments that came out as a result was that the $230,000-per-acre figure seemed to have been somewhat -- let me repeat the same word again -- arbitrarily calculated. Further, Brad Boaz went on to say, you know, that the weighted average cost calculation didn't seem to be correctly calculated. That concerned me as well. And then Janet brought up the issue that we have lands included in these parks that are not really usable lands and whether those lands ought to be, you know, reclassified somewhere else. So basically the whole analysis of the impact fee comes into question when all these issues are raised. So having said that, I have some concerns about whether the current threshold of the parks impact fee isn't higher than it needs to be in order to satisfy the level of service. Mr. Teasdale made it very clear yesterday that no argument needs to be made to lower the impact fee. The argument that needs to be made is with respect to the maximum. So if we want to see the impact fee lowered we can, and there seems to be enough justification there to suggest that if we lower the impact fee, that the level of service will not be adversely affected, because I think when all the numbers are recomputed, you will find that what we have right now is a cushion. So I would like to make a motion that we not approve as presented and that this be further investigated and that all the questions that have been raised as a result of our discussions be completely vetted and that we determine that, in fact -- and that's something that should also be turned over to the legal department to make sure that, in fact, we have a, you know, legally defensible impact fee in this arena. , Page 156 October 16, 2007 MS. VASEY: Is there a second? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Okay. There's no second right now, but I would like to address a couple of your comments. The impact fee, when it was done, was done very, very -- with a lot of data. The decision to go with $200,000 an acre was based on a separate study done out in the Golden Gate area, I'd say, two years ago, and the study was probably this thick where they looked at actually what was spent on properties out in the areas where the regional parks would be -- would be going, so they were looking in the specific areas. Of course, we all know that the land prices were very inflated at that time. I think that the impact fee that we currently have is defensible for the time that it was prepared, but I also believe that that's not exactly current anymore. The new impact -- the -- a full update is scheduled for 2009. If we feel strongly that the -- that this data's incorrect, we could ask for them to move it up in a year and have it -- have it done next year and take another look at the property values and, you know, move forward that way. I do think that at the time it was prepared it was defensible. We've inflated it based on history. All this is based on history. And they took the last three years, looked at it to see what they should inflate it at. And having a full update, I think, is reasonable if we want to suggest that, and it could come up with something different at that point. MS. HILLER: I think that's an excellent recommendation. And you know, what was done historically, you know, is a different issue than where we are today, and I want to make that clear. I think looking at the facts as presented today, I have concerns based on, you know, current market conditions and -- MS. VASEY: Yeah. It's not clear in my mind whether it would Page 157 October 16, 2007 increase or decrease, but it's certainly worth having a new study done if you want to and -- or recommend that. MS. HILLER: Exactly. MS. VASEY: That would be a commissioner's decision. But I would support that. MS. HILLER: Would you like to make the motion then, you know, restate what I said in a manner that incorporates your recommendations? MS. VASEY: Okay. I can try. And I have one recommendation, too, that I'd like to see in it. But recommend approval of the program for this year's AUIR with the -- with the additional recommendation that we conduct an impact fee update in 2009 to take another look at what the costs are. MS. RAMSEY: Is that 2008 or 2009? MS. VASEY: I'm sorry, 2008, yeah. It was supposed to be 2009, and I'd like to move it to 2008. And was there something else that you wanted in addition? MS. HILLER: The only concern I have is that we've got, you know, a possible commitment to projects that are five-year projects, and we're kind of -- you know, we're getting back into that, you know, possibly changing the impact fee but then having these projects that are being committed to now for the five-year term and, you know, that whole timing issue. MS. VASEY: On that one I think we have some time because what's coming up next is the land donations which will not involve any money . We'll have a chance to take another look at it. And perhaps we should specify that we have the impact fee study completed before next year's AUIR, so we're sure we have that information rolled into the AUIR. MS. HILLER: And maybe before any commitments for any future acquisitions till we know where we stand on the impact fee level. Page 158 October 16, 2007 MS. VASEY: Okay. MS. HILLER: That makes sense. MS. VASEY: Okay. MS. HILLER: I agree with that. MS. VASEY: And that -- also I would like to recommend inclusion of data to evaluate the financial feasibility of park facilities in the AUIR even though those facilities will not -- that facility information will not be needed for the CIE going to DCA, if that's not enough alphabet soup for you. Is there anything that you guys want to includes? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Okay. That's my motion? MS. HILLER: I'll second it. MS. VASEY: Discussion? All in favor? Aye. MR. HARRISON: Discussion. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. MR. HARRISON: What you've really talked through here is like a stand-still order until you're done with the next impact study. If you're saying no new commitments, right? MS. VASEY: Well, other than, the donations should proceed. I mean, that costs us nothing. MS. HILLER: Right. Donations are different. MS. VASEY: But no new acquisitions. MR. HARRISON: That's fine. MS. VASEY: That won't hold you up. MS. RAMSEY: Well, it could. I mean, we have a direction from the Board of County Commissioners to continue to purchase lands in the Bayview area to help with boat ramp facilities. And as a matter of fact, we purchased one about two weeks ago, and we've got three more that we're working with currently. So we do have some land acquisitions and existing projects that we're trying to accomplish. Page 159 October 16, 2007 MS. HILLER: How much is it? MS. RAMSEY: Well, it depends on the lot. They've been running about 285- a lot. MS. HILLER: And how many are we proposing to purchase? MS. RAMSEY: About four more, I think. MR. HARRISON: A million. MS. HILLER: I mean, based on the numbers that we're looking at here, that's not really a material acquisition, so I don't think it makes, you know, much sense to hold up a small project like that. I mean, when you're looking at total expenditures of 124 million, I don't think one is -- MS. VASEY: Well, their impact fee collections in a year are 32 million, so a million plus or minus is -- MS. HILLER: Oh, a million relative to that, but still it's not -- you know, we're not talking like 10 percent of the total budget acquisition. It's still less than one percent, so -- MS. VASEY: So that would be all right? MS. HILLER: I think so, yeah. MS. VASEY: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: Clarification? Do you -- are you suggesting to the board that we not move forward with any new park projects because -- and clarification, or just acquisition of lands? MS. VASEY: Oh, I was just thinking acquisition oflands while we check on prices and things. I was not thinking that we would hold up facilities. MS. HILLER: I think we should hold off on -- I mean, what facilities do you have in the pipeline? MS. RAMSEY: We are going out for a -- construction documents on Manatee Park, which is east of951 in Commissioner Fiala's district. That's the next one that we have. We're currently in design plan of the Big Corkscrew Island, but we will not be building that probably until, I don't know, 2010; is that what we have? Page 160 October 16, 2007 MS. HILLER: How much money are we talking about? MS. RAMSEY: We've got the Goodland boat ramp that's coming on. I mean, they're all listed in your -- about $9 million in 2008 and then 3.7 in 2009. But for this fiscal year, we've got -- and most of those have already been board approve. Not all of them, but some of them. MS. VASEY: I don't really think we can hold up the program. MS. HILLER: Agree. MS. VASEY: We'll take a better look at it next year with better information and -- MS. HILLER: I agree. MS. VASEY: -- be able to address it then. MS. HILLER: I think what's in the pipeline for this year has to go. I'm with you on that. MS. VASEY: Gentlemen, did I see a hand over here? MR. SW AJA: You did, mine. Are we going to separate community parks and regional parks? MS. VASEY: We can if you want to. MR. SW AJA: Yeah. Planning Commission did. Are we going to separate land acquisition from buildings? MS. VASEY: No. MR. SW AJA: Okay. MS. VASEY: Okay. My motion is initially for community parks, and you seconded? MS. HILLER: I seconded. MS. VASEY: Okay. All those in favor? Aye. MS. HILLER: Aye. MS. VASEY: Opposed? MR. SWAJA: Nay. MR. HARRISON: No. MS. VASEY: Okay. We'll take no action here. Page 161 October 16, 2007 Regional parks. All those in favor? Aye. MS. HILLER: Aye. MS. VASEY: Opposed? MR. HARRISON: No. MR. SW AJA: Nay. MS. VASEY: Okay. No action here either. Thank you all. MS. HILLER: If I may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Georgia, you had one more. That's right. Sorry. MS. HILLER: Steve and Joe. MR. SW AJA: Just one comment. I would have voted differently if we'd have separated facilities from land acquisitions. MS. HILLER: Facilities from land acquisition? MR. HARRISON: Let's take this up at our next board. MR. SW AJA: We'll take a separate vote. MS. VASEY: Yeah, we can do that. MS. HILLER: Steve and Joe, I made a mistake. You know, in the last discussion we had about libraries, even though Janet said, you know, I guess it's because it's just proceeding late into the day, I wasn't thinking clearly. She made it clear that the library projects that are on the table have already been let. MR. HARRISON: Yeah, yeah. MS. HILLER: So it's kind of moot to oppose what's being presented if that's already committed to and there's nothing we can do to change it, so I'd like to -- MR. SW AJA: I have this fatal flaw called integrity, and ifI don't agree with something, even though somebody made a decision, I don't agree with it. MS. HILLER: Well, the thing is that, I understand, but I mean they have presented the numbers. And quite frankly, the analysis that you want, I'd like to see in every area that we have this debt service issue -- I mean -- and this is just among us as members of the Page 162 October 16, 2007 Productivity Committee. I think it's a finance issue, a public finance issue, that we should be looking at, look at the impact fees, you know, the ad valorem dollars, debt service, thinking about all that. I mean, we really take a close look at that. But I really do have to reconsider my vote because, you know, I have integrity also, but I also know that, you know, the dice are thrown so it doesn't serve to, you know, look back at something that's been done. And quite frankly, it will do a great deal to promote education in the area, so I would like to change my vote on that, if I may. MS. VASEY: Okay. How about, let's handle it this way. We can't make a final decision anyway. This would just be -- would have been subcommittee recommendation to the full committee. We'll go ahead and get the information that we asked for, and then -- and then we will be taking it up on the 31 st, so we'll have a chance to vote on it again then. MS. HILLER: Okay. Then I'll just retract my vote and hold off till that point in time. MS. VASEY: Okay. MS. TOWNSEND: If I could make one point of clarification on parks. The community and regional parkland are the portions of the AUIR, are land acquisition only. Park development is not part of what you are considering when you're looking at those two programs. MS. HILLER: Does that make a difference? MS. VASEY: That's why I said no, that we were just doing it on the two acquisitions. But we'll work it out on the 31 st. And I hope you will be able to attend our meeting. You're invited. MS. TOWNSEND: Thank you. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we finished up with a whole bunch of stuff, and we can move on to the government buildings. Page 163 October 16, 2007 MR. CAMP: Good afternoon. If I could just introduce myself as Skip Camp, your Facilities Management Director. Roger Hovell (sic), who has given this presentation for years or answered your questions, has left the county unexpectedly and recently, and in his absence, we've asked Hank Jones to fill in. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. JONES: For the record, Hank Jones, Facilities Management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. Afternoon now. MR. JONES: Afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to make a presentation or just want us to ask you questions? MR. JONES: I think, why don't we go right to your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, I tell you what, after Jean came up here yesterday, Phil picked up on the routine, and it's been going pretty smooth since. Okay. Well, why don't -- we normally go through page by page, and I'm sure we probably have some questions of him. Page 173 is a summary form of the 2007 AUIR for government buildings. We'll start with that. Are there any questions from either panel? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Okay. My first one has to do with the revenues, and maybe Susan Usher will end up being the one to do it, but I'll start the question anyway. The loan for the general fund is for 8 million -- about 8 million 6. I'm concerned that we will not really have the capability to repay that loan. When you look at the program that is planned, it's 92 -- $92 million in this five-year period. It's 120 in the next five-year period, years six through 10. The impact fees that are collected are about 20 million in this five-year period. So you're going to be behind in paying for these new facilities, Page 164 October 16, 2007 and that's why you've got the loan for 8 million 5,8 million 6. And I don't think it's financially feasible to assume that the impact fees in the next period will be able to make up the next year's program. So I think that this is not -- this program with the loan in it is not financially feasible. And Susan is going to address that on the EMS on the 31 st with us. If you would like, you can deal with this again with -- now or on the 31 st. MS. USHER: The projects that are -- the loan is being made for the projects that are under construction today. So like I said earlier, if debt service is due, we already borrowed the money, debt service is due, somebody has to pay. If the impact fees are not available or have not arrived to make that payment, then one-third of the mill will make that payment. So we can recalculate, you can push off projects, but the trouble is, all these projects are under construction as we speak today. So there are no projects -- I mean, the fleet building is almost complete. MR. JONES: Yes. MS. USHER: The courthouse annex, the fourth floor, I think the fifth -- I think they're working on the fifth floor today as we speak, and the EOC, we just awarded -- was it in April -- the GMP to start that, and site construction already started many, many months ago on that. MR. JONES: The building is 20 percent complete. MS. USHER: Twenty percent complete. So those three buildings that this loan is making is because the impact fees are not coming in; somebody has to make that debt service payment, and that's why the general fund or the third of a mill is being used to make those payments. MS. VASEY: And I do understand that you do -- the county does have the money to make that payment. MS. USHER: Yes. Page 165 October 16, 2007 MS. VASEY: That's not really so much my issue as how will this -- if you characterize this as a loan, how will this facility ever repay the loan? Because each -- each five-year period they're going to go deeper into the hole. There will never be impact fees -- like in the case of the libraries, there will be a possibility to recover, I think, because there's no more construction for the next 10 years. But in this one, you have not only your program of 92 million now, but you have a program of 120 million in the next five-year period. So the reason you need a loan now is because your current impact fees won't take care of the current program, but you've got another program coming up that will not allow any excess -- there won't be any excess impact fees then to apply against this loan. So it -- my issue is with the characterization of this as a loan because it will never be repaid, and I'm not sure that this is the right way to balance the program. MS. USHER: If our current economy stays the way it is, then these projects that are listed on page 176, I am sure that some of those projects will be pushed back even further. But we have to first wait to see what happens in the future. Like when we go to the '08 AUIR and the '09 AUIR. Every year these projects get looked at. Unfortunately the three that are being represented on page 173 under that loan, they're under construction. They can't be pushed back. We've already bitten into that apple. We have to go through and we need to finish up those projects. But those other projects in 176 that say planned projects beyond 2012, those projects can be pushed back if truly Collier County is not going to grow any -- well, if we -- if the current economy of our housing market, our construction market, if this is the new reality, then these will get pushed out also, I'm sure. Now, as far as paying back, if that happens where we never pay it back, then we never pay it back. It will always be on the books as a loan. As was stated earlier, it's 0 percent. We didn't go to an outside Page 166 October 16, 2007 source. All we do is we take some internal money and we make that payment so -- but if for some reason the impact fees start coming in good and there is the ability to pay it back, then the expectation is to pay it back. But the key word is ability to pay it back. That will be paid back. But for now, we made a notation that it's a loan. MS. VASEY: Okay. You're already going to come back to us on the 31 st with a total package of what kind of debts you're paying out of the one-third. MS. USHER: Actually I was able to use somebody's computer, and I have some of that information right now if you're interested. MS. VASEY: I think maybe we should just -- you're not too interested in this part are you, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Personally, you guys could talk numbers all day long and I wouldn't be too much interested, no. MS. VASEY: Let's just go ahead and save that till the 31st. We'll go over it just as part of the Productivity Committee and -- because that's more our issue than Planning Commission. MS. USHER: Okay. MS. HILLER: Janet, may I ask a question that when we have that meeting, could we invite Mr. Teasdale, or is it presumed that he's going to be there? Because I think -- or what's his name? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tindale. MS. VASEY: Tindale. MS. HILLER: Mr. T. We're just going to call him Mr. T. Can he join us, please, because I think we're going to need a lot of clarification and edification in these discussions about, you know, characterization of, you know, debt versus -- MS. VASEY: Okay. We'll ask Amy since she owns his contract and see if that's possible. MR. BOSI: Just a clarification. You had invited Susan back to the EMS discussion, which is going to happen on the 26th of October. You have yet to invite her back -- and I guess just to -- this would be Page 167 October 16,2007 your official invitation to the 31 st meeting of the Productivity Committee. MS. VASEY: I think probably the whole committee, the whole Productivity Committee. That's what I'm thinking now needs to hear the discussion, since we're kind of more responsible for the financial part. MR. BOSI: But for your ability to take action on the 26th when we are going to hear specifically EMS and their master plan, you would -- I would still think you probably would like to have that information related to the debt service from Susan as well. MS. VASEY: Yes, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Amy, you were going to answer a question, then Mr. Schiffer has a question. MS. PATTERSON: Oh, Amy Patterson, for the record. You wanted Steve for the 26th and the 31 st, or just the 31 st? MS. HILLER: I think if we could just have him as an adjunct member would be great. I mean, if he could be there for both, I think it would be wonderful, because I think there will be a lot of questions that are going to be raised that I think we're going to need his expertise on. MS. PATTERSON: I'll have him -- and he is on an annual contract -- MS. HILLER: Good. MS. PATTERSON: -- so as far as that side, that's okay, but it's him checking his calendar to see his availability. MS. HILLER: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a couple things. One thing, what was that amount of money -- and you may know it, the one-third -- one-third -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mill. MR. SW AJA: One-third of a mill. Page 168 October 16,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Of a mill? MS. VASEY: Of a mill, yeah. Susan would know how much that is. Is that what you're asking? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I was just curious as to what amount of money that was. MR. HARRISON: Susan, I need to ask you a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I thought you were saying one-third of a million. I was going to say, she's stretching it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have got to talk one at a time because it's getting hard for the court reporter to take notes. So after Brad, Susan, if you could answer Brad's question, then Steve will have a question. MS. USHER: I'm sorry. What was the question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question, what kind of dollars is that one-third mill? MS. USHER: The one-third of a mill is on taxable values of all Collier County. That generates approximately $27.5 million this year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Steve, did you -- same question, okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was it. And then this is a question on impact fees anticipated. When you figured these out, are you figuring the slump we're going through, or what kind of data caused that 19 mill number? MS. USHER: The impact fees that are calculated in each one of these AUIR pages, basically this information's requested from our office in about June. What I did is I looked at the '08 budget that was at that time just a preliminary number, and I just based it off of that what the next five years are going to look like, off of the '08. So with the slump, then the rest of the five years, there's assuming a slowdown also. All I do is just take the '08 budget number Page 169 October 16, 2007 and apply the percentage increase of population, and if there is anything else, like if I know a fee increase is coming where the board says retro -- as of a certain date we're going to increase an impact fee, then I know it's going to take nine months to a year before I see the realization of that impact fee. Because as you know, when you put in a building permit, you're locked in the day you put in -- you request your building permit. So if subsequently the board approved a higher fee, you're locked into the old rate, so that's why I wait nine months to a year before I realize that revenue, that increased revenue in my revenue stream over the five years. So all I do is just take the next year's budget, which happened to be in this case the fiscal year '08 budget, and just increased it by the population. Now, I knew Amy did an indexing that was becoming due, so I threw that indexing in fiscal year '09 and let the population growth increase that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. USHER: So it's a very simple calculation. My degree's in accounting, not economics, so this is just an estimate. This is a five-year estimate. If you looked at the '06 AUIR, you would see those impact fee estimates were a lot higher because the '07 budget -- I mean, did we really know this was going to happen over a year and a half ago? So the '07 budget had higher numbers in it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think in your calculation of this, that you did take into the fact that we're in a bit of a dip here or -- MS. USHER: In '08, yes, a bit of a dip, but I probably should have dropped those numbers even further. But that's hindsight. In June when I was preparing these numbers, April, May, June, I didn't realize it was just going to continue going down, down, down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to see -- I mean, if you had thought that things were going to slow, I mean, that's better Page 170 October 16, 2007 than if you thought things were going to rocket through this thing. MS. USHER: No. I knew they weren't rocketing. I did put a dip in, but I should have -- hindsight, I should have brought them down even further. MS. HILLER: And I think-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're on page 173. Were there any other comments? Janet? MS. VASEY: Yes. Susan, one more thing. Since you gave us 25 million being one-third mill -- MS. USHER: Yes. MS. VASEY: -- how much are you -- do you have right now that's going to debt service? MS. USHER: Okay. I want to clarify. I have two different debt service. I have the old bonds that impact fees cannot not pay. I don't care how many millions we have in the bank, impact fees could never pay this debt. So this old debt, there's about $8 million worth. Okay. So impact fees can never touch that. Now, the other half where some of my impact fee funds -- they're not doing -- they weren't quite as healthy in fiscal year '08, I have transfers to them in the amount of about 5.2 million. That's on top of the 8 million. So those two numbers combined at total debt service, that's coming out of my one-third of a mill for capital. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on page 173? I guess the gentleman who's -- was it Steve? MR. JONES: Hank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hank, I looked through on your level of service at 1.7 square feet per capita, and it looks like you have a higher required inventory, so I was checking your inventory, and I couldn't find any of the buildings in the City of Naples, the City of Marco or City of Everglades. So they are all government buildings and they are all used by the countywide population. I didn't see them Page 171 October 16,2007 included in the inventory. Are they included in the inventory? MR. JONES: City of Naples definitely not. Those are only BCC buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you'd say that because that's what you said last year. And as last year occurred, unfortunately I disagreed with that position. I think if government buildings in this county exist, they're used by the people in this county, and if we're going to countywide population on which to base our calculations, we should be crediting all the countywide government buildings. So that's just a statement. I know where you guys stand. You told me that last year, but I'm just going to go on record again this year. Having that said, is there anything else on page 173? Mr. -- Steve, go ahead. MR. HARRISON: Could somebody tell us what residual motor pool, capital recovery is? MS. USHER: A few years ago the motor pool, our fleet -- we used to collect money from all the departments. If you had a car, we assumed your car would be good for five years, and then after five years or six years or seven years, that car needed to be replaced. So you as a department had to pay in, like a depreciation. So if you had a car, you also had to pay a fee to replace your car. So when it came time to replace your car, the money was already in this bank account waiting for you. So we stopped that practice a few years ago. Janet, you might remember some of this more than I can. And what we did is when we paid, we had a lump sum of money in that fund. We paid back all the departments and we kept 600,000 -- I think it was 600,000 out, and we used that 600,000 as start-up money for the replacement of an existing fleet building. So that's what that -- that's why that says residual motor pool, capital recovery money because it was that leftover money we kept aside to start that capital project. Does that help? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on page Page 172 October 16,2007 173? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 174. Questions page 174? Hank, the only question I have is, why didn't you use the unincorporated population for the county? Obviously my question -- MR. JONES: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. If you're using the county population, then I think you ought to be counting all the facilities in the county, but if you're using the -- if you want to get to what this document, I think, should pertain to, you should be using the unincorporated county population. I understand why you're not. I just want to be on record. I object to that. I will object to it in the closing statement for today, so -- any other questions on page 174? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 175, it's the chart. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 176 is the improvements plan. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hank or Skip, it pertains to items that are the total CIE, FY-'08-12, and it's the BCC building, and it relates, I think, as well to page 177 to the item where it says building B, human resources. And the BCC building, I think, is to replace that building, if I'm not in error. MR. CAMP: Again, for the record, Skip Camp. On your first page, 176, the BCC building is a general government building that was by the master plan, supposed to be done by now. It's 11O,000-square-foot proposed building for general administrative services. The one you're talking about on page 177, building B, is actually the current human resource building, and it has about 7,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those thing are separate entities, are they? October 16, 2007 MR. CAMP: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That BCC building, is that the one they were talking about moving the BCC organization up to the north? MR. CAMP: In the original 1998 master plan, the BCC building, as we refer to it, was actually going to be set over the old HR building, the old building B, on that footprint. Now there is some discussion-- which we have a master plan revision that will take about six months, we have, as you're referring to -- have secured 7.7 acres of Heritage Bay, and ironically 110,000-square-foot building could go very nicely on that lot, but there are some questions that we're reviewing. For instance, can the county seat be moved there. Those are the types of thing we're looking into right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm aware of those issues, and I suggest caution. MR. CAMP: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Janet? MS. VASEY: Just a small one, Hank. You scared me with that total line talking about the total cost for the 1 O-year period of $305 million, but it -- when I looked at it more closely, it looks like you're double counting the 92. You've counted it from a subtotal twice, I guess, or from the subtotal, and them from the CIE easement program for eight through 12 and then you picked up 120. You see what I'm saying? It just -- it's -- MR. JONES: Yes. MS. VASEY: That line is not totaling properly. MR. HARRISON: Ninety-two and 120 doesn't add up to 305. MS. VASEY: Yeah. So I just mentioned it because you scared me. MR. CAMP: Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have some tables of inventory that start on page 177 and through 178. Any questions with Page 174 October 16,2007 the inventory pages? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On page 177, isn't the transportation building a leased building as opposed to an owned building? MR. CAMP: No, ma'am. It's owned. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where transportation is is an owned building? MR. CAMP: It's an owned building, yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Joe? MR. SW AJA: These are all buildings we have in the county? MR. HARRISON: Owned. MR. CAMP: No, sir. These are the ones that are -- that are related to general buildings, not EMS or fire or those covered under others. MR. SW AJA: No way we could add that all together and get a total square feet, total number of people together in one place, is there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, we'll need the mike a little closer to you when you talk. MR. SW AJA: Is there any way we could total all those facilities up in the different categories and to count the number of people that go in there and kind of like express number of square feet per person? MR. CAMP: We could provide something like that. We have about three million square feet, 660 buildings countywide. They house our employees and they also house other people -- other employees of like state agencies, but we could put something together. I'll get with you off-line and find out exactly what you're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the inventory page for owned buildings? (No response.) Page 175 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 179 we have the inventory page for leased inventory. Any questions on that? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: What about this building? MR. CAMP: This building is an owned building, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's an owned building? Where is it on the -- MR. CAMP: This is a fee -- this was paid for by fees, so it's not on here. COMMISSIONER CARON: But we own it. MR. CAMP: We own it. COMMISSIONER CARON: So it's not in the inventory though. MR. CAMP: It's not in this particular inventory that has to do with government impact fees because it was purchased by fees. MR. SCHMITT: This entire building, the garage and everything in and around this camp -- this campus here was purchased with permitting fees. It is a county asset but it is not part of the impact fees. It's paid and funded, operated solely with permit fees collected. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Talk about that. So that means that we can't count this building for our level of service? In other words, this is not an asset that we have to maintain? MR. CAMP: Not under this general government buildings, just like EMS stations or sheriffs substations. They're addressed in other impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. MR. SCHMITT: And I -- and most people don't understand, but as far as monies and budget, Skip bills me for everything that he has to do out here. I have to pay for that out of my budget. That light today will cost me, because he's a nice guy. Page 176 October 16, 2007 MR. CAMP: But it's a good deal. MR. SCHMITT: But it's a good deal, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page 179? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. How many buildings are like that? Let me just stay on that. MR. CAMP: Well, again for the record, Skip Camp. You have EMS stations, you have sheriffs substations. Again, we have a total of around 600-plus buildings, but you're only seeing the ones that have to do with impact fees for general government buildings that are not covered by anything else. Like EMS stations we would not cover under this one. MR. SCHMITT: And just so you understand for the record, for budgeting purposes, those general fund type activities, code enforcement and other activities in this building pay me rent to reimburse the costs for this building, so there is a rent that's part of my budget. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't get it. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna? MS. CARON: Just one more question then. You just said EMS was not part of that? Well, EMS is showing up here under leased inventory. It's the last one on the page. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Leased. MR. JONES: It's leased. MR. CAMP: Yes. That should not be there, ma'am. We'll take care of that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. SW AJA: Mark? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh. Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe? MR. SW AJA: Joe Swaja. The sheriff, during his presentation, stated that he doesn't own any buildings. They're all county buildings. Page 177 October 16, 2007 MR. CAMP: That's correct. Florida law provides that the Board of County Commissioners must provide the space and maintain the place for all the constitutional officers and the judges. MR. SW AJA: So his buildings should be on here then, substations? MR. CAMP: Well, they're covered by a different impact fee. EMS -- I mean law enforcement impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Steve? MR. HARRISON: For the benefit of the Planning Commission members, I believe next year, 2008, productivity is going to look at the entire inventory of all land and buildings owned by the county with an eye toward their utilization, and there are things in there we no longer need. But that would include the 660, plus land bank -- you know, inventories of land that are owned by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be an interesting study, yeah. MS. HILLER: Can I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Georgia? MS. HILLER: Why is the state attorney's economic crime unit and the public defender included in the lease-based inventory? MR. CAMP: We provide -- again, per the Florida law, we provide space for the public defender and the state attorney and their tentacles, if you will, as it relates to court systems. MS. HILLER: Oh. We're required to by statute? MR. CAMP: Yes. MS. HILLER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else on page 179? Move on to the map on page 180; a chart with way too many lines on it for Brad on page 181, on page 182, another chart on page 183 with lines and columns. Brad, you're going to have a field day with that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As long as they line up right, I'm happy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we have a final-- a Page 178 October 16, 2007 report that goes from page 184 to page 189. That's the first report and there's a second one after that, so let's take the first one first. The report that starts on 184 through 189. Do I have any questions on any of the areas of that report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The second report is starting on page 190. It's titled General Space Requirements. It goes for two pages through 191, and that would be the end of the government buildings sector. Are there any questions on the last couple pages or the entire document? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public that wish to speak or talk about this particular element? Joe? MR. SW AJA: I have just one comment. Joe Swaja. Making level of service based on square feet per capita is beyond my comprehension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CAMP: I totally concur, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're all getting there, but it's a matter of how we have to deal with it. Okay. Are there -- ifthere's no other questions at all on this document, then at this point we need -- the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I make a motion that we recommend approval to the county commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made by Commissioner Kolflat -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Any discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. Page 179 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I think the thing you pointed out, the populations being so far off kind of make it difficult to really review what's going on here. I mean, that's a, you know, 88 percent essentially. These charts are useless, the data's useless, so I kind of think we should table it till we get those accurately portrayed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think that you're going to get them. See, that's the point I was trying to make. Last year we made the same -- we came to the same -- I shouldn't say recommendation or conclusion. We brought up the same issue last year. We brought up the issue that they were using countywide population. Why aren't we counting countywide facilities. In lieu of that, why don't we use unincorporated population. And as you can see, it hasn't changed, and I'm not sure it will change. I mean -- so we could ask for it, but I'm not sure the mindset is there to provide it. Mr. Tindale? MR. TINDALE: I think I can help. Steve Tindale. Part of that's driven by -- you adopted an administrative building impact fee and instructions were to be very careful, and in all situations, if we're going to err, err on the side -- if we have a court case, we'll lose it. A question came up, we took the county's inventory, which you own, and divided it by the countywide population because everybody in this county can come to one of your buildings. What we didn't do and could not do is take a city's building, because it is not a city impact fee -- and the law doesn't allow us to adopt a city impact fee. We didn't take the city's buildings and put them on the inventory, have anything to do with it. So this is driven by a county program, managed by the county, controlled by the county, and that's the reason it's structured that way to where we're dealing with that. And at this point in time I don't think the county wants to get involved in, you know, a court case where we start mixing in multiple government agencies and how Page 180 October 16, 2007 they're planning out their facilities and charging impact fees. So I think that was one of the reasons this thing's driven by a county inventory and a county, full county, you know, population, which means that a developer is not being charged for the city facilities. So that's somewhat of a -- as far as capital fees. Now, if the city wanted to charge a city administrative billing fee, they then could adopt that. So it's driven by that, and I don't think it's going to change. Now, if you want information regarding, you know, a different makeup, countywide plus city inventory and et cetera -- but we took the county population, which is a larger population, and divided it in -- which is the total county, including the city -- and divided it into the county's inventory, which reduced the fee. If we take an unincorporated population with an unincorporated ownership, the fee would be much larger. We didn't want to do that, specifically because city residents can and do use the county's facilities. So it is -- it's a little twisted in terms of, from a business plan, on how you would like to see it, but I don't think there's any out in terms of how it can be structured to manage a revenue program and an impact fee program and a county impact fee program with a county administrative building. So you pretty well-- now, if you want the information for some comparative purposes and other reasons -- but I think the structure is driven quite a bit by our care in making sure that we had a structure in terms of development fees that couldn't be questioned in terms of the denominator being pretty large and the numerator only being what you have control over. So any request you have to change that structure, I think, can be met. But the way this plan's going to continue forward will be what the county government has control over, and we will use a total population to be conservative. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the problem I have is Page 181 October 16, 2007 you're not dividing the population. This is a per capita. There's no denominator -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys can't talk at the same time. One of you has to be quiet. MR. TINDALE: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's no -- it's not a denominator. It's a -- MR. TINDALE: The impact fee is -- and this is -- again, there's an issue of staging these and timing. The updated impact fee, the actual per capita, is 1.52, not 1.7. So since you pull this out of one document, which you have to -- and we've done an update -- the actual square footage that we think you own that is active buildings is 1.52, not 1.7. So the next update in terms of doing this, that will even be changed. But we'd have to take in the total population and we have divided it into what we think is active buildings, and it's 1.52 per thousand people. MR. CAMP: Does it matter that the services that we offer are separate also, that our services are not in their buildings, that they're only in our buildings? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That they're ours? MR. CAMP: What I mean is, we provide certain services in our buildings, that we don't necessarily provide our services in city-owned buildings. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. TINDALE: County services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The city people, though, aren't going to use our buildings completely for their services. Obviously they don't because they go to their council chambers, they go do their -- they've got building departments. They've got everything. For -- just to exclude that population from -- I mean, if you exclude the ability for that population to have those buildings but include the entire population without weighing it into ours is an unfair Page 182 October 16,2007 burden on the taxpayers of this county. MR. TINDALE: No. It reduces -- it reduces the impact fee. It doesn't increase it. It takes a population that is being totally served -- now what happens is the city -- the city people are getting two services. They're getting the county service and the city service. And from a capital investment, if the city doesn't adopt an impact fee, then the development in the city is getting a much better service and only paying a county impact fee, and that's a city -- a city's decision to provide that service and not charge the capital, but it reduces the fee. It doesn't increase the fee, and is somewhat -- you know, that's up to the city to decide whether they're providing more buildings per unit in that area and not charge a development fee for that increased service delivery. That's the city's choice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm still not clear, and I'm not really clear on the fun with math part of it. If the -- we're multiplying this number. So when you came up with the impact fees -- and we're not here to do impact fees. We're here to do level of service, so this is where it's even more confusing. Then if you're multiplying this square- foot number -- so when you are looking at an office space, you're coming up with how many people in there and you're using that number, why is it helpful? Why is it helping us? Because what you're saying is if you use these -- the county's numbers it would be 1.5, and thus it's 1.7, and now that you're -- MR. TINDALE: Yeah. If you divided the county's ownership by owning unincorporated population, the number of square foot per person you're providing will go up dramatically, and when you're providing more service per person at the same cost per square foot, the fee would be up by -- say if you reduced the population by 20 percent or whatever it is in the city, the fee would -- the fee and the costs per square foot would go up 20 percent in terms of person and service. So we are saying, here's the county buildings and they're servicing every Page 183 October 16, 2007 person inside the county, including the city. So the 1.5, if you subtract it out and didn't include the city residents, it would be like maybe 1.9 per unincorporated population, which then is a much higher quality of service and the fee would go up dramatically. And we just wanted no chance of having a debate about that in your first implementation of the process, and I don't think there's any indication that's going to change. The other thing we -- again, from an impact fee perspective and a cost is we did not include all your furnishings and fixtures. And when you do an update and you include that, that would be another increment that will make the revenue flow seem much better in terms of the revenues you would generate because you're really now from -- again, being conservative on that one fee of not charging the full value of your asset. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I fold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I gave up 15 minutes ago, Brad. So I already know -- we've already made our -- any further discussion on the motion made to recommend approval of government buildings category B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion to approve, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those against? Aye. I'm against for the reasons stated earlier in the record. Okay. With that, did you guys want to discuss it at this point? MS. VASEY: No. I think our only issue is the financial one on Page 184 October 16, 2007 the loan, so we'll wait and take it up on the 31st. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think we could take a break right now and be back here at 4:15, and we'll probably end at about 5:00. (A brief recess was had, and Georgia Hiller is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the Productivity Committee was late from lunch, we can start 30 seconds early. And the next exciting chapter of today's meeting will be the Isle of Capri Fire and Rescue Control District. Chief, how you doing? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Pretty good, sir. How about yourself? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I hope that you've watched the presentations before you. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir, here. I will be short, brief and to the point. For the record, my name's Emilio Rodriguez, Chief of Isle of Capri Fire/Rescue, and I just would like to remind the board here that we are an ad valorem tax-based department and we are not funded by general fund, so we operate strictly from ad valorem and impact fees. With that, I'd like to ask the board if you have any questions on our AUIR. We are postponing from last year that I came to the board where we asked -- we needed to put a second station up at Main Sail Drive due to the tax cuts and also with the development out in the Main Sail Drive area that has slowed down, we are postponing the Main Sail Drive station there till 2013. With that, I open it up and I'm here to answer any of your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This is a rather short section of category B. So rather than go page by page, let's just open the entire document up and ask for any questions from the book, and as soon as someone has a chance to look at it. Mr. Murray? Page 185 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I misheard you. I thought you said that you're not -- you're ad valorem revenue? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I see impact fees on here, so I'm confused. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. I did say that we are ad valorem as well as impact fees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, you did. I missed that part. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We do collect impact fees. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I misheard that. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is your response time to the Main Sail area or actually the Fiddler's Creek area, which do you covered? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. We cover the first mile of Fiddler's Creek from 951 in. Right now we are outside of our response time, which is a four-minute response time within a 1.5-mile radius of our current station. So we're looking -- we are looking at, right now, at a response time to the Fiddler's Creek area above five minutes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And what elevation are you at? Your station's at -- and the concern is, during the storm surge, you would be essentially wiped out, wouldn't you? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: It would depend if it's a storm that hits us directly from the Gulf side and what the category is. Right now we could withstand up to category one, but depend on what type of tidal surge. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But is your building-- I'm not familiar with your building. Is it a two-story building? I guess Page 186 October 16,2007 . , It s -- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, sir, it's not a two-story building, but we are above -- we're three feet above the actual floodplain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Isle of Capri? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes. Chief, on page 194, you talk about the funding for the additional station being contingent upon the donation of land and availability of funding. You're looking for an additional 1.5 million. Will you be getting donation of the full amount or what kind of money would you need in addition to a donation? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, ma'am. We are looking at the donation of the land alone, and then for the actual funding of the station, we would look at financing that portion like we did in the past with our current station. When we expanded the current station back in 1992, we had a mortgage payment for seven years. MS. VASEY: Okay. And you think you could do it without increasing taxes? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: At this point we are not able to do it because of the tax rollback, and we don't know exactly what is going to happen in January, and that will determine whether we need to cut further or if we're at the same rate as we are now, but we did have to lower our -- we went from a 1.5 millage rate to 1.459. So it's going to depend on what happens in January. MS. VASEY: Okay. Because as I recall last year when you were talking about it, you said you would not be increasing this -- or adding this additional station until you could do it with, I thought, donations because you said you would not increase your taxes. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, ma'am. What I did say is that we will not be doing this station unless we receive the donated land at the time. Once we receive the donated land, then we would look at the funding for our half of the station that we're going to share with EMS. Page 187 October 16, 2007 MS. VASEY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One quick question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking at your Main Sail, is that where you really will locate yourself, far into the things? Could you not try to find a site that's closer to 951 ? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, there's two areas on Main Sail, which the first area that we actually discussed with WCI was at the entrance to Main Sail Drive, but with the construction halt right now, they are not looking at removing that sales center for several years. So our other alternate area is 2.73 acres that WCI currently owns that we are looking at right now and actually researching to find out if we could actually build anything on that 2.73 acres, which is located by the airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? Joe? MR. SW AJA: Chief Rodriguez, is the move-up to other fire departments, does that include your support to Marco Island? Because I know you guys support them a lot. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. We actually do a lot of move-ups for the City of Marco Island. MR. SW AJA: Okay. Do they -- do they fund you for that? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. MR. SWAJA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't there an interlocal agreement? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. We have a mutual aid agreement that we all follow within the county between all nine fire districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They help you out when you need help and you help them. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: And right now, East Naples, which is just a little Page 188 October 16, 2007 east of you, east of the Main Sail, are they taking care of -- or helping in that area if you have fires? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. We all help each other. We help them in their area and they also help us in our area, and that all falls under the mutual aid agreement that all nine fire districts have in place. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the Isle of Capri? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, are there any questions from the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. Is there any comments from the Planning Commission or Productivity Committee before we ask for a vote? Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my only comment is that it would be nice to see them get a new station, so -- but I guess next year maybe we'll talk about that. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, we will probably end up revisiting it depending on what WCI comes back with on that specific piece of land and after the research is done to see if we could actually build on that piece of land. So it's an ongoing process right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Write Carl Icon a letter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's the new guy. Okay. Well-- MR. SW AJA: My only comment is, I'd like to thank the chief. Everything I heard from the Marco Island Fire Department, you do a great job. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a recommendation from Page 189 October 16, 2007 Planning Commission? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Did you want to discuss it with your group, Janet? MS. VASEY: Would you all like to do anything now, or approve it or -- no? I think we'd like to wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SW AJA: I don't have any problem with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, wait? MS. VASEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item is the Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District. It's a similar situation. A lot of charts, a lot of graphs, so I'd just as soon we take the whole document at once, and sir, if you'd got anything you'd like to -- MR. McLAUGHLIN: Nope. For the record, my name's Alan Page 190 October 16, 2007 McLaughlin. I'm the Assistant Chief with Isle of Capri, currently acting as the interim chief for the Ochopee Fire Control District. Again, we are an ad valorem-based district, and if there are any questions I could answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looking at the whole document, are there any questions from the committees? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Looking at this map, I'm sure you would like some more territory, wouldn't you, to cover? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yeah. Since we're the largest fire district in the State of Florida, we'd like to have a little more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does say in the recommendation that, subject to the identification of the revenue source, to fund it -- have we identified the record -- identified a source? MR. McLAUGHLIN: I didn't hear the question, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, could you pose your question agam. MR. McLAUGHLIN: I couldn't hear you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Just reading on page 206 that the recommended action was, the staff recommends to go forward with it subject to the identification of revenue sources to fund the interim station that has a revenue shortfall of 106,900. So I don't know, isn't that our job to find that? Do we have that? Do we achieve that on this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know if it's our job to find the money. Ifwe could succeed in doing that with the Board of County Commissioners, we'd be in really good shape. I think they're more looking at us to see if the level of service is appropriate and the other -- the unit cost is acceptable and things like that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that would appear to be okay from what I can see. It's just that it leaves it open. Okay. Page 191 October 16, 2007 MR. McLAUGHLIN: To answer your question, we do have several large construction projects coming into that district, an II-story, nine-story high-rise into the Port of the Islands, and that's a considerable amount of money in impact fees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you can use that money? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. MR. McLAUGHLIN: New development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Janet? MS. VASEY: Is it more than what you already had here in your revenue? You have -- you show $193,000 of revenue from impact fees both unspent and anticipated. Are you saying there's more coming in than that? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Those impact fees have not yet been posted. The permits are just being pulled, and the estimated impact fee for those two structures is somewheres around 170,000. MS. VASEY: So that would make up your shortfall? MR. McLAUGHLIN: Absolutely. MS. VASEY: Good news, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that is good news. Any other questions? Yes, sir, Steve? MR. HARRISON: Earlier today with EMS, we -- they shared with us the number of rollovers that happen on the interstate. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. MR. HARRISON: Would your station that you proposed be able to service that need? MR. McLAUGHLIN: The Port of the Isles station -- is this the one you're referring to, or you referring to the I -7 5? MR. HARRISON: I-75. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Okay. I-75 is a needed facility. That station, along with the ALS engine, which would be part of the EMS system, would service the I - 75 corridor for vehicle accidents, vehicle Page 192 October 16,2007 fires, commercial HazMats, and pretty much everything else that's going to happen in that area. Medical calls that happen on the Alley that are non-vehicle related. I believe we had 23 medical calls this year already that were non-vehicle related where people either have heart attacks or trouble breathing in the middle of nowhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, are there any questions from the audience, any members of the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess the Planning Commission, and maybe the Productivity Committee, will take a position on it. At least the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to make a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In light of the fact that these two gentlemen from their respective fire departments have been here for two days and it seems that there (sic) wasn't terribly challenging with regard to this, I would recommend that next year they be given the opportunity to come rather early in the program so as not to take two days out of their lives and their jobs. I would hope that that would be acceptable to the commission and to the committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion's made for recommendation of approval. All those in favor, signify by saying say. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. Page 193 October 16, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, sir. MR. McLAUGHLIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That wraps up the elements that we can discuss in the AUIR through today's meeting. The meeting will have to be continued until the 26th at 8:30 in the morning at this facility to discuss the EMS. Is there a motion for that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not -- I'll just discuss one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm somewhat serious -- I'm really serious. Mike, are we able to have somebody go through the GMP, pull out the time-sensitive, goal-sensitive items and invent a category C, so we can -- like for example, you know, we don't know how many affordable houses were built. Could there be another water, you know, shed program floating out there that we're not reminded of yearly? I mean, can't somebody do that, or do I have to do that? MR. BOSI: Well, an individual from the comprehensive planning department can certainly strive for that endeavor, but during the AUIR process, it deals with capital improvement programs within the county for hard infrastructure. I'm not sure quite -- I'm not sure how that fits -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And whenever we bring it up we bring up a reason we can't do it. So invent something new. It's not the AUIR. It's a twin sister that comes along with it, okay? It's just a way to -- you know, what we're doing here is reviewing what Page 194 October 16, 2007 the Growth Management Plan does. All these things come out of the Growth Management Plan that come out of the capital element. But let's look at the other stuff at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, a solution to this might be for you and Brad to have this discussion so you can get a better idea exactly what Brad means, and then Thursday's meeting of the Planning Commission, which will be here, why don't we have a late agenda item just to discuss what the outcome of your synopsis is and whether or not you can or cannot provide something different if it's needed. MR. BOSI: Absolutely. As a suggestion and as the -- as an individual member, I would definitely want to have this discussion with Mr. Weeks, whose purview is over the GMP as to our ability to provide that type of information and further consultation with the county's (sic) attorney's office to make sure this is the appropriate time and place to have that discussion, but I most certainly will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think it would be better to do it outside the meeting to see where -- how viable it is, and then we can worry about beating it to death if we get that far. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else to discuss today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn -- or to continue to next Friday? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. Page 195 October 16, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The meeting is continued to Friday. Thank you all. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:30 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 196