Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/22/2008 AUIR October 22, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE AUIR MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 22,2008 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at Horseshoe Drive, the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ACTING CHAIRMAN: Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley Mark Strain (absent) Paul Midney ( absent) PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE: Lawrence Baytos Gina Downs. Joseph Swaja ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, Community Development & Environmental Services Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Page 1 AUlR 2008 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., October 22, 2008, AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, CONFERENCE ROOMS 609/610, 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPCIPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE SPECIAL MEETING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC/PC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE SPECIAL MEETING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPCIPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC/PC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES, CATEGORY A AND CATEGORY B. A. AUIR OVERVIEW - MIKE BOSI B. IMPACT FEES RELATED TO THE AUIR- AMY PATTERSON C. ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT - CHIEF RODRIGUEZ D. OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT - CHIEF McLAUGHLIN E. COUNTY ROADS - NORM FEDERlNICK CASALANGUIDA F. DRAINAGE CANALS AND STRUCTURES - NORM FEDER/JERRY KURTZ/STEVE PRESTON G. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM -JIM DELONYIPHIL GRAMATGES H. SEWER TREATMENT & COLLECTOR SYSTEMS- JIM DELONY/ PHIL GRAMATGES I. SOLID WASTE -JIM DELONY/ PHIL GRAMATGES J. PARKS AND FACILITIES - MARLA RAMSEY/BARRY WILLIAMS K. COUNTY JAIL - CHIEF GREG SMITH L. LA W ENFORCEMENT - CHIEF GREG SMITH M. LIBRARY -MARLA RAMSEY/ MARILYN MATTHES N. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES -JEFF PAGE O. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS - SKIP CAMPIHANK JONES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT - The Chairman will open the agenda for Public Comment after each of the categories noted above. 4. ADJOURN October2008 AUIRlCCPC!PC AgendalMB/mk 1 October 22, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Good morning, everybody. Can I have your attention, please. I think we're on. Good morning, and welcome to the Special Meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee for the review of the Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities. If you would rise, we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. I'm going to have the -- Mr. Vigliotti do the roll call for the Planning Commission, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm here. And Chairwoman Donna Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Midney's absent, and so is Commissioner Strain. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Now, the Productivity Committee works in a different manner. Page 2 October 22,2008 They are just here in small groups. I am assuming, Mr. Baytos, that you have the people here that you need to proceed? MR. BA YTOS: Yes. Mr. Baytos is here. Gina Downs. Mr. Swaja is the third member of our group, and I'm s1lre he'll be slinking in here very soon. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, good. Then Mr. Bosi, you are up. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Ms. Caron. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Our go-to guy. Item #2 REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITES, CATEGORY "A" AND CATEGORY"B" MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, with Comprehensive Planning. We're here again on our annual basis for the review of the Annual Update and Inventory Report, which is, for some of the new members to the advisory boards, it's the preparatory document and procedure that establishes the work plans, the five-year work plans, that will be part of our capital improvement element to our Growth Management Plan, which is sent to the Department of Community Affairs every year. Every year we annually update our five years of capital improvements. And basically this is to maintain a level of concurrency and the concept of concurrency for the county, particularly for the Category A facilities, which are transportation, drainage, public utilities and parks and recreation. The way that the process works in -- we'll utilize libraries as an example. Libraries have a level of service standard of .33 square feet Page 3 October 22, 2008 per capita. That level of service standard is compared against the population numbers that come from the Bureau of Business and Economic Business research from the University of Florida, based upon the statutes contained within -- from the State of Florida. That population, multiplied against your level of service standards, is what your capital improvement program is required to be for that five-year program to maintain concurrency. One of the handouts that I provided -- one of the handouts that I provided was the comparison of the BEBR population numbers from 2007 to 2008. And as you can see, there's about an eight percent reduction; an eight percent reduction from the '07 to '08 numbers. So basically what that's saying is that the population numbers that we had projected from last year compared to the population projections that were provided to us this year is about eight, eight-and-a-half percent reduction. All indications that the population numbers that will be coming out next year will be another downward revision to those projection numbers. In fact, this past September was the first year in the 42-year history of the tracking for BEBR towards where there was an actual reduction in the number of electrical hookups from month to month. And this is the first time it has ever happened in this state where we had a reduction from the previous month, the number of electrical hookups. So the issues that are surrounding the international and national markets are having a pronounced effect upon this local market. And because of that, we have a reduction within our projections for our population numbers. And what you'll see is within the program contained within the AUIR there's a dramatic reduction in terms of projects being proposed. In fact, the projects that we at -- even last year had thought were going to be required in this five-year period has been pushed out to years six, seven and eight. With the expectation of the downward Page 4 October 22, 2008 revision of the population numbers for next year, we expect those projects to be pushed out further and further. One of the things that we've had conversation with as a staff is from 2000 to 2006 the growth rate that was experienced by this county was tremendous. The divisions, the departments, the transportation department, public utilities, parks, libraries, EMS, the Sheriffs Department, the Correctional Facilities, we couldn't get the capital improvements up fast enough to meet the demands that were going on. We could only try to meet those demands. In the past l8 months we saw that environment completely change. And based upon that, we want to establish as a staff that we recognize the changing conditions, and based upon that, we have pushed projects off. We said these projects are not going to be needed within this five-year period, and we have them out in the six, seven, eight and nine year. What we want to establish to the advisory boards and to the Board of County Commissioners is not only are we aware of this downward trend, but we want to be prepared when the conditions begin to firm up, when we see the growth trend start to re-emerge, that we will be not only ready to implement the capital improvements when needed but in the time between now and when those capital improvement projects will be needed that we identify inefficiencies and we identify the most efficient way to provide those services or that infrastructure to be able to be the best stewards of the taxpayers' tax contributions. With that, it really concludes the overview for the AUIR from my perspective. We have on the agenda Ms. Patterson related to impact fees, which I think has relevance within today's situation. And I know that Amy would like to make a couple comments in terms of that regard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ms. Chair, I have a question. You mentioned in the BEBR that the electrical hookups, are they Page 5 October 22, 2008 the only things that is used is the electrical hookup? Is that the basis, or are there other bases? MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director. BEBR always starts initially by looking at its projections from the prior year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Randy, do me a favor, please, is the electrical hookup the only basis? MR. COHEN: No, sir, they look at our -- they start with the number of building permits that are actually pulled during a given year, and then they look at electrical hookups to attempt to verify exactly what is transpiring with a new governmental entity. One of the problems with electrical hookups that is transpiring in Florida now is a lot of builders, a lot of homeowners, a lot of people that have homes for sale keep their electric on to avoid mold. So sometimes they don't capture exactly when a unit mayor may not be vacant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. The reason I asked that question is beyond, in fact, it touches on that. We have a serious problem of foreclosures and abandonments. And from what I understand, the numbers are considerable. Do you happen to know whether or not those are factored into this? MR. COHEN: I know they've taken a look at foreclosures with respect to their preliminary estimates for next year. I don't think at this point in time that they're capturing the extent of the foreclosure rate. And one of the problems associated with foreclosures -- and we're obviously coming up on the 20 1 0 census -- is how do we capture not only those vacant units, but when they're purchased what type of vacant units will they become, whether they're permanent population or whether they're seasonal population. And then also the timing of occupancy. When the market comes back under normal circumstances, those Page 6 October 22, 2008 units are going to be captured and they're going to be occupied. The question that does become relevant to you as a group is right now we have a certain ratio of permanent residents to seasonal residents. Who's actually going to buy? What are going to be the demands on our capital infrastructure? And these are difficult times for us to project, because with the 2010 census really beginning, you know, about this time with the canvassing and asking the questions, we may have some problems with our base year that transpires in 2010. And how to rectify that based possibly off of a faulty vacancy rate concerns us tremendously as a staff, and should concern you obviously as a Planning Commission and productivity committee as well, too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Should we trust the number that you're giving us based on BEBR? MR. COHEN: Right now I think the numbers from BEBR may overstate the permanent population and the seasonal population. Obviously they're charged by Florida statute to provide every governmental entity with numbers pertaining to population growth. And the standard is medium BEBR population. If you want to deviate from that, you have to have a professionally accepted methodology that shows why you're deviating from that. Next year's preliminary estimates actually show a reduction of population, which is going to be the first time. And it's going to be very interesting to see how they project that out and whether or not they recommend local governments go to a low BEBR or some other type of methodology. This phenomenon is transpiring in a lot of the high growth counties, others that have a lot of transient population as well in markets that are subject to foreclosure. So this is our first time in the state that we're seeing this phenomenon, and how we're addressing this in our local perspective is we're going to take a look at demand numbers based on -- if you Page 7 October 22, 2008 recall, when we went through the seasonal population analysis you asked us to look at the main facilities. What we're going to do is we're going to go back and take the base numbers that we used for demand and compare this year's demand to last year's demand. We'll do the same thing for transportation. That way it will give us an understanding on what the impact is and what the demand actually is with respect to our public facilities. And if we see a really major downturn in that, we will potentially challenge the BEBR numbers. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Randy, we've been talking about population numbers. This is my third AUIR. We all keep saying that the BEBR numbers we don't believe are correct, we don't believe are accurate. And that's the basis of this whole AUIR. There is a professionally accepted methodology. Now, what do we need to do that? Can we do it this year, implement it as a county, present it to BEBR so next year we're possibly working on correct population numbers? MR. COHEN: Well, I think there's two issues that we have to address here. One is u.s. Census data, which is from 2000, is the initial starting point that is used. And the further you get out into looking at population trends from a base year the more inaccuracy you have. And obviously that's the case here, because when we put into account the factor of what's transpiring with respect to our population base, that inaccuracy increases exponentially. This year I think we're working on numbers that are overstated, but I really believe that the year that we're going to be able to capture what's transpiring is next year. Fortunately we've pushed projects out of the window so the impact is really not seen in this five-year period of time. So I think we're in good shape with respect to that. Page 8 October 22, 2008 But we need to really take a close look at how our population is impacted with respect to those demand numbers when we see them on public facilities. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, let me rephrase the question. The professionally accepted methodology, can you explain that to me, what BEBR wants from us that will be a professionally accepted methodology? What do we do to implement it to get it ready for next year? What are the requirements? MR. COHEN: Well, the first question is going to be this: Are they going to keep us in the medium BEBR range, even though we've seen a downturn, or are they going to actually say Collier County, your methodology needs to be changed. It's a question that we also have with DCA. We would need to provide them, to show them that the impact on our public facilities has gone down, which is indicative of a reduction in population. Usually when you do something along those lines, you hire somebody that has a background in demographics that can actually come on in and professionally analyze not only that trend but other trends as well, too. And if it's this body's recommendation to move forward with hiring somebody along those lines, you could include that in your recommendations to the board. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, but I'd like to know more about it. One person, if we hire one professional, they could do this program and get ready for next year, or is it more complicated than that, the expense? Can you give me some more input on that? MR. COHEN: It's really kind of difficult. The only governmental entity that's successfully challenged BEBR in the past was Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County had -- they had been given medium BEBR numbers, and they realized that they had reached the top of their growth curve and the growth was slowing down in Palm Beach County and they wanted to use low BEBR medium numbers in an adjusted seasonal population growth. And they Page 9 October 22,2008 provided documentation after they hired a company that specialized in professional demography and statistics. So it can be done. I think it's going to be done more in the upcoming years, based on what we're seeing in some of the other counties as well too, Lee in particular. It just depends on what comes out of BEBR and what their recommendations are going to be. So that's kind of where we're at. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, we say depends what comes out of BEBR. So far we don't believe BEBR is correct, so we're saying that maybe the next change they make will be correct? I'm suggesting, and I'd like to suggest that we hire that person, follow what Palm Beach County does and create our own destiny so we know for sure that we're working with correct numbers and we can tell BEBR what they are if we can get them accepted. MR. COHEN: And this would probably be the appropriate time to do it for next year, based on what their preliminary estimates are. For example, the number of foreclosures that are occurring on a regular basis here, what does that mean in the local economy. They're foreclosed, we see prices that are way down, we have banks and other lending institutions that don't want to carry those homes on the books, are they being sold. And are they being bought by permanent residents or seasonal residents? We don't know. So we have a lot of unknowns in the marketplace right now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, then I definitely make that recommendation. Nobody knows our county better than us. We can't rely on the state to understand all the intricacies of our county -- MR. COHEN: I think it would be appropriate -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- I think we could make that recommendation. MR. COHEN: I think it would be appropriate as a body to make that recommendation at the end of the presentation of the AUIR. It's not in the recommendations but if you do choose to do so as a body, Page 10 October 22, 2008 that would be in the purview of the CCPC. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: When would you expect to get preliminary figures from BEBR? MR. COHEN: Well, we received preliminary estimates from BEBR for next year already. And they showed a 1,500 decline in population for Collier County. That was based obviously off of information that they had in the prior year. So what happens is we're working in arrears a little bit here, and that's problematic, just like anything. And that's why I think it's a good idea to look at it from the perspective of during this upcoming year what the demand is actually on our public facilities, because what we may be showing is a really rapid decrease in population in an exodus of residents from our county, just like they're seeing in Lee County. And we know it's transpiring. , We'll also take a look at enrollment counts in schools, which are indicative of people leaving the area as well. And we also need to take a look at what transpires during this agricultural season to see what happens in terms of the residents that come back to the area and what the impact is in the Estates as well as in the Immokalee area as well. So there's a lot of factors involved. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Good, thanks. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Randy, when do we get the 2000 census information? How long does that take? MR. COHEN: We were just notified by the U.S. Census last year that they were requesting space for 120 days, which Mr. Schmitt's operations director is coordinating that with them. We also have 120 days once we receive information to respond to them. So it's in process right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question is, though, they'll come in, they'll take the census. When do we get that data?a Page 11 October 22, 2008 MR. COHEN: We'll probably get some preliminary estimates in 2009. I do know personally that they did some preliminary mail-outs, because I received one, this year. So they started their baseline data earlier this year. They're going to start in 2009 actually doing their door-to-door counts. I don't know if you've seen anything, but originally they were planning on doing things with computer entry. Now they're actually going to do door-to-door and do the hand entry. They had some problems and flaws with their system. So we should start seeing some data in 2009 to verify certain things and then go from there before they finalize their data. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is when do we get the hard 2010 -- MR. COHEN: It will be late 2010 or early 2011. And it correlates also with the redistricting that we need to do in 2011. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Good, thanks. And Mr. Schmitt. MR. SCHMITT: Can I add -- good morning. Joe Schmitt for the record, Community Development, Environmental Services Administrator. I think you need to look also at the population projections, because quite frankly as you look at the different categories within the AUIR, even if the line were to move down, it's going to have no impact or very little impact on the AUIR capital program. The capital programs that you're looking at, money has already been allocated and spent, or those programs have been executed. Anything that's projected based on an increase in population has actually been deferred. So even if you look at utilities or libraries -- maybe the only one that may have an impact on is EMS -- but if you look at the other Page 12 October 22, 2008 categories, even if the line were to shift and move down, it's going to have no impact on the AUIR. The AUIR is nothing more than a vehicle to project capital requirements to support growth. Most of those capital requirements have already been implemented and you're going to see, if you go through your program, there are no capital programs. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Joe, I agree 100 percent. The only thing is we don't actually know if the population numbers are right. This is my third AUIR and we just keep repeating, well, we have to trust BEBR, we don't if they're correct. Our population is changing now, drastic changes are happening. MR. SCHMITT: Bob, I understand. But again, we can chase that squirrel around the tree and really get nowhere, because the information you're looking for may certainly provide a more valid snapshot of where we are, but the money to go after that, the results are going to provide nothing in regards to the AUIR other than say yeah, now instead of deferring the utility plant to 2015, it may be 2020. And we've already -- we're already looking at those kind of deferrals. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree, and it's not going to change anything this year. But number one, I don't know the cost. Randy, maybe you could fill me in on the cost so we could find out before it goes to the board. But I'd like to know from our own evaluation that we control what the numbers are next year and going forward with that as a baseline. I know it's not going to change anything, I agree, but I'd like to have correct numbers. MR. SCHMITT: I understand. Understand that the BEBR is really looking at in a rearview mirror. That's what they're doing. They're projecting numbers based on what took place. And often it's at least a year in arrears, it's a year behind. And the BEBR numbers we've dealt with the last couple of three years were based on theu Page 13 October 22, 2008 phenomenal growth that we had in Florida in 2003,2004,2005. And they didn't project the downturn, the economic downturn. They didn't project the -- they should have, but frankly, they didn't over -- they didn't project the over-building that was taking place in Florida. And as a result they continued to forecast lO,OOO -- what was it, 10,000 people a month moving to Florida, that's what they were projecting. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. That's why I think we need to do the study. I don't know how expensive it's going to be. But I think if we do the study we could start with a baseline of what we know is correct and work forward. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we can certainly bring that position to the board. It's whether they're going to fund it. And I know that's not going to be a cheap -- you're going to probably spend 30 to $40,000 to do that type of analysis, maybe more, to do that type of population analysis. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Again, I think it's probably wise if we move through the AUIR and then discuss that at the end. Mr. Bosi did have a comment, though, before we move on to anything else -- MR. BOSI: Just one thing. Because the schedule for the AUIR was established last February and the Planning Commission has adopted a procedure towards where before things are taken from the Planning Commission and presented to the Board of County Commissioners, there's a revisiting the schedule, we have the November 3rd meeting with the BCC, so that won't be provided for in this AUIR. We'll do that in next year's AUIR. But I just wanted to -- when we make our recommendations upon each of the components of the AUIR, I personally just ask that we are clear and explicit so I can make sure that I am voicing what the recommendations of this body and the Productivity Committee were accurately to the Board of County Commissioners on the 3rd. And Page 14 October 22, 2008 that's just a request for myself. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, thanks, Mike, we'll make sure we do that. Randy? MR. COHEN: Let me add one other thing, too, with respect to the capital improvements element. This year it's going to track very closely behind this AUIR. The reason being is there's a statutory deadline of December the 1 st. And next year, hopefully what we're going to be able to do is to streamline the project management plan for the AUIR, have it heard by this body a little sooner. And that way both documents can be adopted in a timely fashion. The state recognizes that their December 1 st date is very problematic. And I know different counties are lobbying to have it pushed out a couple of months for that reason. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Amy? Finally, it's your turn. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm the Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager for Collier County. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Amy, can you -- with these mics, you have to get right on top of it. MS. PATTERSON: Sorry about that. I can hold my comments. As we go through the individual facilities it may be more appropriate to answer your questions that apply as we go through. I'll be here all day. So if you'd like to handle it that way, unless anybody has just general questions that I could answer now? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Baytos? MR. BA YTOS: Question, Amy. The projections that are in the book, are those based on the current staff proposal for indexing, or does that not assume any indexing? Page 15 October 22, 2008 MS. PATTERSON: The revenue projections don't assume the current indexing that will be brought to the Board of County Commissioners at some point in the future. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Anyone else before we move on? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Amy, then you're here to answer questions as we go through. Thank you, we appreciate you being here. And that means that first up is the Isle of Capri's Chief Rodriguez. Good morning. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Good morning. Chief Rodriguez from Isles of Capri Fire Rescue. And I'm here to answer any questions that you all might have pertaining to my AUIR. Basically we're not asking for anything. We're on status quo right now with the WCI Development on Mainsail Drive for the second station there. That is uncertain whether they're going to donate the land or not at this time. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any questions of the Chief? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it's not the AUIR, but Chief, you're going to be looking at a site that's deep into the Hammock Bay as opposed to close to State Road 951 ? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: It would be the site right where the sale center is at on 951 and Mainsail, which is the Hammock Bay Development. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We have a drawing that shows it way in and way out. But that's not what you're looking, correct? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, that is the old site there, which was back toward the airport. Now they're talking about they keep going back and forth, because they also own land by the airport. So we're willing to take whichever parcel of land they're willing to donate. So we're looking at those two. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think it's better to get up on 951. Page 16 October 22, 2008 And second is you will be screaming as you run through their neighborhoods. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, that is correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That doesn't make sense to them. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Question. Are the five buildings, are those towers all built? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, ma'am, there's -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I didn't think so. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: There are currently three occupied high- rises on Hammock Bay. Two are on hold and we don't know when the other two will be constructed. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So your impact fees, are those-- some of those from those towers? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. MR. BA YTOS: Are those towers generally occupied or see-through? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: There's one tower that has -- I'd say over 50 percent of the tower is occupied by renters. The other two towers, very few residents living in those towers now. It's more seasonal. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: How does the whole WCI bankruptcy affect the donation of that land? Or don't you know? Is that why you're saying you don't know? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That's why we're unsure at this time. They have had a lot of changes there with management. So every time we speak to somebody there, two or three weeks later it's somebody new, so it's -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just I think, Donna, one of the problems is the best site for the station is where their sales center is. Unfortunately with the other two towers not built, they still need a Page 17 October 22, 2008 sales center. So I think the biggest interruption is that if they would have built the other towers out they could have taken down the sales center. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: They could have taken down the sales center, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because that is the best site. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Uh-huh. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Gina? MS. DOWNS: Is your required inventory number based on the new requirement, is it 16,400 population? Is it based on that new number? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Well, we don't strictly go by the population, we go by the ISO rating, which is the insurance. And that's what we base all our levels of service with, as far as how many stations we should have, the types of apparatus that we should have for that specific area. MS. DOWNS: So that's the only measurement you're using is ISO? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: The ISO, yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I just had one more, and that's in what it costs you to get office furniture and outfit a station, as compared to Ochopee. Why is there such a difference in cost? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: For the equipment, you mean? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: For office furniture and full live-in facility. You're talking about $40,000, right? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Yes. We're talking about a small substation there when we build a station there to house one piece of apparatus with no more than two to three personnel at the station there. So we're not looking at a lot of office equipment, because our main station is on the Isles of Capri's. So that's where we would have Page 18 October 22, 2008 all our computers and everything else. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. I guess my question is that both in equipment and vehicle replacement, as well as office furniture, it cost you all a lot more. And I can understand land costs would cost you more where you're located versus Ochopee. But why is it that it costs you more to buy a truck, a fire truck, or more to -- for office furniture? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: We're also looking at putting in a ladder truck there, which would be a lot more than a regular engine, where Ochopee would be utilizing a regular Class A engine, about $300,000, versus 450,000 and up for a ladder truck to facilitate the high-rises in that area. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, you certainly would need a ladder truck for sure. Okay, but what about the office furniture? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: I don't know how to answer that. They might be asking for a bigger area compared to ours where we're only going to need one couch, two chairs, one desk. Depending on the size of the facility that Ochopee is building, compared to the size that we would be building, it's going to take less furniture or more furniture. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Because it would seem -- I mean, there's a 10 -- you're $10,000 higher than they are. And it would seem to me that there ought to be some economies of scale there that CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: I'm sure when it comes down to that point -- this is just an estimation. So I'm sure when it comes down to that point where we know exactly how much land and how big of a building we're going to be able to build, we will be able to reduce the cost. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The mitigation grant totally Page 19 October 22, 2008 covered the cost of the heli-pad? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, sir, that was a 75/25. So we put up the 25 percent for the retention wall behind the fire station, and that came out of reserves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing is since you do a lot of -- you guys are on the water more than anybody else, how do you figure out your need for that, just by experience from the year before? Or what do you -- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: As far as the needs for equipment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. In other words, there's no real NFP A or ISO rating on response times or distances. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No. Right now we were fortunate enough about a year ago, we had a group of residents that formed a non-profit, and they actually purchased a boat for us, fully equipped, for us to be able to provide the level of service that we provide out on the water. Right next door to the fire station right now we are able to keep the boat at a lift and dock there free of charge, because the owner of the facility is allowing us to keep the vessel there, because we don't have sufficient water behind the station because it's so shallow to build a dock there. Hopefully in the far future, depending on how many storms we get, we might be able to put in a dock out there, but right now we're not looking at that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done, Donna. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Now, Mike, do you want us to be voting on these things as we go? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. Each one individually would have a specific recommendation from each of the bodies. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Baytos, the Productivity Committee? MR. BA YTOS: Gina, all in favor of the vote? MS. DOWNS: Are you making a motion? MR. BAYTOS: Yes. Page 20 October 22, 2008 MS. DOWNS: Do you want me to make a motion? MR. BA YTOS: No, that's fine, I'll make the -- I move that we approve the program just proposed here. MS. DOWNS: I will second. MR. BA YTOS: All in favor, aye. Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And for the Planning Commission, do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer moves. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward the 2008 AUIR for the Capri Fire Control and Rescue District as shown on the summary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. You're good, Chief, thank you. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Thank you very much. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Next we have Chief McLaughlin. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Good morning. Alan McLaughlin, Chief, Ochopee Fire Control District. And the AUIR is before you, if you have any questions I can answer. And Ms. Caron, to answer your question on the facilities for Page 21 October 22, 2008 Chief Rodriguez, as you know, the board members that have been here for awhile, I was his Assistant Chief for five years and we were intimately involved with those projects. The facility at Isle of Capri is an administrative facility, offices. The facility that we're looking at in Ochopee is merely a satellite station without those administrative offices. There's why you have your $10,000 difference. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The location on 1-75, that station, when do you plan to bring that into the budget, because -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That station will come into the budget actually -- let me reiterate that. It will not come into our budget. The Ochopee Fire Control District cannot fund a station out there for transient population. They have been bearing that burden to taxpayers for a number of years. That will come into play when the concessionaire or the state comes up with the money to fund it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the state -- because that didn't seem fair that we're paying for essentially, like you say, transient. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: We cannot afford to put a station out there. As it is at this time the taxpayers of that district are funding that response out there and have been for a number of years without any reciprocity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And all the cost of operation will ultimately be state? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: State or concessionaire. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Concessionaire, you mean is if they sell 1-75 or -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: If the Governor was to sell it off to someone -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Part of that agreement does-- Page 22 October 22, 2008 CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: -- that RFP will be in there for them to fund that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Calm down. CQMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think maybe I heard -- sorry about -- they don't always pick up everything. I was going to ask the question about 1-75, whether that's changed, and I think you just answered that question. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions of the Chief? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, Mr. Baytos, do you want to forward a motion? MR. BA YTOS: I move approval of the Ochopee AUIR. MS. DOWNS: Second. MR. BA YTOS: All in favor? Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And for the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward with a recommendation of approval the 2008 AUIR for the Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District as shown on the summary form. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 23 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. Thank you. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Have a good day. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And now Pat's bad boy, Mr. Casalanguida. MR. CASALANGUIDA: **Good morning, commission members. Nick Casalanguida for the record to present the transportation road section of the AUIR. Start out by echoing Randy's and Mike's comments concerned about vacancy rates. We don't deal with populations in a five-year AUIR but we do deal with them in long-range planning, so it is an issue for us as well too. Vacancy rates are a particular concern I'll touch on later as we get through the presentation. On your first page it talks about our revenue stream and our revenue sources and what they are. And the pie chart on the second page breaks it down a little bit. Wanted to note is we have an impact fee rate per lane mile. Weare bringing that down based on construction costs. That number has not been finalized yet. But keep in mind that is a unit cost, and as we move from the urban area to the rural area, we have to buy more units to satisfy that demand. Your trip length is a factor of people, where their origin destination comes from. So typically in your urban area your origin destination trip length is shorter. As development grows to the east part of the county, that trip length grows. And you can see why. If you take the Golden Gate Estates as an example, someone who lives in the Estates and comes to work travels farther than someone who lives in the urban area. So while my costs will come down, I have to buy more units -- my unit costs come down, I'm going to have to buy off road to build that. So that's tied into the impact fee update coming out. But I wanted to kind of touch on that a little bit. Page 24 October 22, 2008 With our pie chart that we have as attachment A, we have a comparison between 2008 and 2012, and 2009 and 2013. And you can see the impact fee change from $335 million down to $170 million. So there's a big change in our impact fee revenues in this next five-year plan as well, too. And it gives you an idea -- as well as gas tax coming down as well, slightly. The revenue numbers appear to be holding fairly current. Under our attachments B, conditions report and considerations, we do this based on traffic counts. Our AUIR is based on traffic counts. We have permanent count stations and quarterly count stations. We factor those and adjust those up to the 250th highest hour. There's a section here regarding maintenance that I know Norman will step up in a little bit. He really wants to touch on the maintenance aspect of it going forward. It's not typically part of the AUIR. We put it in there as kind ofa flag to let you know what our concerns are about that. Flipping through the next page, Page 16, this is where I want to talk about the vacancy rates, and it's important that you understand it and how it impacts this AUIR. When you look at our vacancy rates, even in the rural area, on the roads such as I live on, on an Estates typical road, we're seeing about a 20 percent vacancy rate. So one out of every five homes is there but not lived in. And then when you get into the urban area it can be as high as 50 percent. You take Livingston Road, a development like Positano Place, and your vacancy rates can be even higher. What does that do for us? Well, you know how we base our AUIR. And if you don't, I'll give you a quick snapshot or run-through. We take background -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Nick, can you, a, slow down so that Cherie' doesn't have a problem, and b, it is going to be necessary to explain. We do have some people who are going through their first AUIR. So it would be good to give those explanations to people. Page 25 October 22, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm trying to maintain a level of service here, that's why I'm keeping the speed up. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Slow down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, before you do that, when you say vacancy rate, that means a non-seasonable, unoccupied unit, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't say it's non-seasonable. It's a little bit of seasonable as well, too. But it's the unoccupied unit that's in that 250th highest hour range, that transition from non-season to season or that year-round person. It's still a factor that we deal with. It's not a seasonal vacancy rate as much as it is a real vacancy rate almost year-round, like as you're suggesting. To the trip bank and what we do to maintain concurrency. We take traffic counts on each segment of roadway that we maintain in our AUIR, and runs as your baseline of what's out there today. And then when developments come online, before they actually C.O., we factor in a trip bank, an assumed amount of traffic that they're going to put on the roadway network. That's added to your background traffic, that measured number, and it sets what's called your anticipated roadway volume. And then we have a level of service volume that's hopefully higher than that. And as you approach that level of service that can't put any more cars on the road, that's where we slow down the plan to do road projects or we stop development if we exceed that. Now, if your background traffic is artificially low because of vacancy rates -- now, Livingston Road is an example. If I'm assuming Positano is fully built out and those units are fully occupied, I should be measuring them on our roads. Now, if that vacancy rate is high, I'm not picking that unit up anymore, and we've assumed it's an occupied unit. So what happens is you may be approving development in certain parts of county based on an assumed background traffic that's Page 26 October 22, 2008 artificially low because of vacancy rates. So what are we doing in transportation? Well, typically what we do one year after we've approved a project, our staff goes out and visits the site to see if it's occupied site. If it's a multi-family building is it up, does it have its C.O. and is it occupied. One year after it usually gets its C.O. we assume it to be full, people on the ground and movmg. We pull it out of the trip bank and we put it into the background traffic where we say we're going to measure it now. If the units are vacant and we think they've gone into the background traffic, we have an artificially low background traffic. So what we're doing right now is we're waiting one more year to pull that trip bank out. I want to make sure that these units are occupied before I start counting them in the background traffic. And I have to get permission from the board to do that and this commission. But that's kind of that safety net to keep that trip bank still there. Because if you don't, and if I say they're in the background traffic and they're not -- and that applies to commercial development too like the Marquesa Plaza that's up, half the stores are not full yet but it's C.O.'d and I have no way, similar to what Randy and Mike had said, through electric meters or anything like that to determine that vacancy, I'm going to be setting an artificially low service volume or service ceiling in there. So that's the concern we have with vacancy rates. And there is no easy way to address that. Are there any questions on that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. Nick, while you're explaining, can you explain phantom unit -- what we call phantom units and how do we address that? Are we addressing it, did we ever get a handle on it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, your phantom units are more in your long-range planning. I have to assume a certain amount of Page 27 October 22, 2008 development intensity within a PUD, for instance, that was what was zoned. So when you plug that into your long-range model in that traffic analysis zone, I'm assuming say 1,000 units, that's what they were approved for, realistically they may be able to build only 600. So it affects your long-range modeling. And I may be overemphasizing what I need based on that, but in terms of my concurrency system it doesn't affect it, your five-year AUIR, because it's based on real counts and real approvals. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, just to make sure I understand. So when you say a trip bank, that's a unit that's approved but in your books it hasn't been built out yet. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For instance, if you come in for a plat and you want to plat a 100-unit subdivision and the plat goes through us and we approve that plat, we put those cars on the road as if they were there, because that's your concurrency system. So that's the trip bank. It's waiting to be counted in the background traffic, but it's a unit that's put on that road, a traffic unit. So that we're not approving 10 developments all at the same time and they haven't come on the road yet -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the second thing is, once the units are built out, or half of them or something, you will then put them in the background, and then your problem is that you're out on the street doing counts. And if in fact these are vacant units, although they essentially were built, you're coming up with low numbers in your counts based upon the background count that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. That's correct. So you're getting that feeling today when you're driving on the roads we're doing a good job, we've built a bunch of six-lane roads, overpasses, things are going well, and you say okay, don't build Page 28 October 22, 2008 anymore roads, we're doing good. Or you don't think that you need any more roads. You can't think that. If you have all these vacant units out there, when they come online you're going to need the roadway capacity. And so we're planning for that and accommodating that, but I don't -- we don't have a good mechanism where compo planning and transportation identify that vacancy rate. There isn't a good way to do that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nick, would correct or better population numbers help you project through the future? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They help us. More accurate population numbers do help us. But for the purpose of the AUIR, it would not. That vacancy rate, if there was a good way to -- either through electric service, if there was a way to deal with electric companies, say -- you know, like they talked about -- Irene talked about a builder keeping a unit online just to maintain it for mold. If there was a way to tell what limit of electricity was used that we call an active unit, it would help us. But I have no way of dealing with that vacancy issue that's very good. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, one. But don't you have to be very careful, because that thing could be occupied in an instant? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, that's why I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, nobody's going to take the power off in Florida unless they're kind of dumb. And then -- but that means how do you know that somebody's not going to come in tomorrow and is driving down 75 as we speak? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the problem. I don't know. And so what I'm recommending to this board is the trip bank from last year, I don't try to put it in the background, I leave it as a trip bank for right now. So units that are approved to be developed that aren't built Page 29 October 22, 2008 yet, I leave them in the trip bank. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But again, they could be occupied overnight and they should have been in the background. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But as long as I have my trip bank, I'm accounting for them in my system. Once I pull them out of my trip bank because they've been C.O.'d and the building's up -- you mentioned one of the towers being looked through, I mean, is there anybody living in that tower anymore. If that tower's C.O.'d to me, within one year afterwards I assume it's background traffic. Remember, four years ago, three years ago, before the tower was built, it was sold. And they were occupied, people were moving into these units. And then the speculation occurred. So you have a significant amount of vacant units. So if I keep them in my trip bank, I'm accounting for them. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm still not -- I haven't caught on yet why that's a concern that if you put them in background too soon. What problem does that cause? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I put them -- that number doesn't go into the background. I'm assuming they're in the background. When you say put them in the background -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, A trip bank, is that a subset of background? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Background traffic is my base threshold of what I'm measuring out on the road. My trip bank is what I'm going to assume that development is going to put on the road once it's C.O.'d. So if we use Positano as an example, I measure 1,000 cars on Livingston heading northbound. That's my background traffic. That building goes up, and that's going to put on 200 cars in that direction; that's what we assumed it would do. So you assume I'd pick up 1,200 cars the following year. If! C.O. that building and I assume it's in my background but it's Page 30 October 22, 2008 only half occupied and I only pick up l, lOO, I've got, you know, another 100 trips that aren't going to be realized, that are not in my concurrency system anymore, they're not in the background traffic yet because they haven't materialized yet, and so it lowers that total number artificially low. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But I'm still not 100 percent clear, but -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: This is a fairly tricky little projection you're making. When -- and I admire what you're attempting to do which is to make sure you continue to plan. But at the same time, at what point will you acknowledge that there's a trend that is continuing that should cause you to modify your numbers? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we try and keep an eye on the vacancy rate. We did a -- as transportation alone, we did a sample. We sent out staff to look at some Golden Gate Estates streets and see what was for sale, what was vacant. Talked to real estate agents. We made some phone calls to probably a dozen real estate agents and said talk to us. We talked to some HOA's and said how are you doing with your HOA dues or, you know, what are the unit population counts when you have your meetings? So our numbers, we said about 20 percent in the rural area and up to 50 percent in the urban area. We're going to monitor that as best we can using that kind of field judgment. And every year we'll report back. And until we get a good feel that we're starting to get to a 10 percent vacancy rate, which is kind of more normal -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a year by year, and that's what we're going to carefully go by; is that what you're -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what we're going to do, that's our goal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand that. MR. FEDER: Ms. Chairman, if! could, Norman Feder for the Page 3 1 October 22, 2008 record. Mr. Schiffer, I think to clarify -- and Nick's done a good job going through it -- but basically what you have is we've got background traffic is basically traffic counts. So we're going out and doing and ongoing process of traffic counts, quarterly counts, and we've got permanent count stations that we factor everything by. So that is assumed that all the development out there, people are making trips, they're going. As we get new development approved, we take that units and the trips that should be generated for it and put it into the trip bank. We then pull out, depending upon the nature of that development, its size and the type of development, trips and move them normally in the course of things based on what we've seen on the build-out rates of different projects into the background, with the assumption that those have now been occupied and therefore I should be counting them as actual trips out on the roads in my traffic counts, and therefore lessening that number vested as another development comes in and we look at it to our capacity. What we're seeing, though, is with the vacancy rate, by moving those over on a periodic basis for each development, the vacancy rate isn't materializing into actual trips on the road. So what we're saying is we do one year where we hold back on moving those trips as assumed, keep them in the bank, which allows us to then check on the vacancy rates and see where we are and not remove those counts as we consider other development to our capacity levels. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do think I understand. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Don't go, Norm -- oh, okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's fine, either one. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Vigliotti and then Ms. Downs. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Our background traffic is actually counts. Page 32 October 22, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. MR. VIGLIOTTI: How does the downturn in our economy and all the construction vehicles that are no longer on the road, we have dump trucks, all our construction vehicles, a lot of them are no longer on the roads the last year or so. How is that going to affect you? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's going to show up in that background number as going down. Typically when -- if you look at a 20-year history of growth in the county and you see the spike that just went up and down and then you do a normalized curve of what a growth rate should be, we kind of keep an eye that as well, too. So a couple of years ago when you were in your high, you might have had an artificially higher background traffic because you have a plumber who's buzzing around 20 visits a day versus now 10 visits a day. And as the urban area starts to grow up, you're going to get a more normalized rate of travel in that area and you're going to see that higher growth start to push move east, that increased traffic, to meet construction demands and growth as well, too. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you are aware of it and you are trying to factor it in as best you can. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. And then when you look at the next chart, Attachment C, this is actually Norman's idea and I gave him a hard time because it was a lot of work for us to put it together in a sense, real quick, but it made a lot of sense when we got done with it because it gives you a visual look at what is in your following pages of that Excel spreadsheet with all the individual road counts. What you see in red on Attachment C is where we have increased traffic and green D is decreased traffic. And depending on the thickness of the line will tell you where the increase is greater and lesser. And if you look along the urban area, along 41, start there first, you tend to see traffic is still growing. That's your urban area. You don't have a lot of that construction traffic as much and that seasonal is Page 33 October 22, 2008 not affected, that vacancy rate on the urban area isn't as high as it would be on some of the speculative stuff that's been built as you get into the urban area. But all along 4l we grew approximately zero to 10 percent. So you have more traffic along 41. You notice the big jump on Golden Gate Parkway as expected. We opened that project up and we expected it to go up. That doesn't mean it's failing by any mean. I don't what you to think that when you look at a red line that's necessarily bad. It just means it's a change year over year. So that means that we opened up the Parkway, people started using the Parkway again. And if you look, Livingston Road decreased as well, as well as airport to the north. So it gives you a good feel in the urban area when we opened up a project, year over year that traffic's now starting to go onto that road. But interesting, once you get east of say Logan Boulevard and Santa Barbara, you're seeing that decrease, significant decrease, 10 to 20 percent in certain areas. So that's where your workers were coming in and out of from the Estates. They're not doing that as much anymore, so you're seeing that decrease in that picture as well, too. So it gives you a pretty good feel for what's going on. Along 1-75 on Immokalee Road east and west, it's a static line that's under construction. So we don't have counts on some of the roads for that one year when we're dealing with construction. So that's kinds of gives you -- that's a snapshot of the Excel spreadsheet of the table counts. And there's another one that gives you a different flavor of it that as well too. Are there any questions on that? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Nick, I don't have a question on that, but you're saying that the vacancy rate is normally 10 percent and now we're up to about 20 percent, and you're talking about development. But part of your number also includes commercial development; am I right -- Page 34 October 22, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. MS. DOWNS: -- empty store fronts, empty shopping centers, empty office buildings. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. MS. DOWNS: So you're factoring in for when these businesses are occupied as well as developments become occupied? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What I would do -- the same as residential, that trip bank, I would like to maintain it on that commercial until I get a good feel it's built out. Now, what staff does, they go out to a plat of 100 units. My staff will go out with the plat and they'll count how many houses are built and then they'll adjust the trip bank by 50 percent if 50 percent is built. When they go to a commercial development, they'll look at the same thing. Is it occupied? They can make some sort of subjective call to say is it vacant or is it occupied. But if you have a plaza that opened up and it was fully occupied when we counted it and said now it's in the background traffic, and those businesses didn't last and they become empty units and store fronts again, I don't have a mechanism to go back and keep checking that. So we're going to keep an eye on it, and if it becomes an issue we'll bring it up. MS. DOWNS: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good morning, Nick. We've got an area, some areas that are still failing. Now it seems like we've done a great job over the last half a decade or so in getting caught up from those late '90's problems that we had. I noticed something that keeps glaring at me and that is that 951 corridor -- well, Collier Boulevard, Davis, you know, 41. I mean, that whole -- what are we going to do about that? One of the only places in red that I see. Same area, it's gone through moratorium, didn't seem to MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are you referring to Attachment H, Page 35 October 22, 2008 sir, the diagram? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, F, I guess, and Attachment C, looking at C and Attachment F as in Frank. If you look at the LOS and the remaining capacity we're in negatives, and it's certainly failing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think a picture says a thousand words. And probably your Attachment is H. It takes those -- those Excel spreadsheets, the same thing we've done is given you graphics so you're not trying to file through that Excel spreadsheet and get a feel for it. So if you want to -- we'll jump around this map a little bit because it will talk about what we've done and what we are doing to address your concerns. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let me just say the crux of this is is that we've six-laned an awful lot of areas that needed it, and I don't even see a fix for that, especially that Davis and 951, 75, that area in there especially. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you're on Attachment H, why don't I walk you through Attachment H. And when we get to that area I'll walk you through each project. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, we're at the northwest corner of the county where you have old US. 4l, okay, and it's in yellow and it says existing deficiency vested trips. What that means is the trip bank, on the ground it's not failing, if you go out there and you say I've got enough capacity on the ground right now. But when you take into account what should be coming on line, that segment should fail. Now it's only a two-lane segment, so it doesn't take much to send that over the top. What we've done is that old US. 41 heading southbound into 41, we've done a major intersection improvement to developer. That should help that area over there as well too. Page 36 October 22,2008 Heading farther south on Vanderbilt Beach Road -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Wait a minute, before you go on on that, those intersection improvements, are those complete at this time? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think two of them are and one is still pending. And I'll find out about that. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Are they meant to -- is it a fix or is it a solution? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a fix. A solution would probably be -- if you look at old U.S. 41 at some point in time doing some sort of capacity improvement on the actual link itself. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Go ahead. Now you can go. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Heading farther south down to Vanderbilt Beach Road, you have the blue side, which is 2010 expected deficiency, and that's also based on traffic counts and vested trips. A concern was that Mercato development, they're building in that loop road. And that's one of the things they're doing now. That loop road is not going to service as a cut-through, it's not designed that way. So that was one of the concerns in that area. It's in that TCMA, so we're going to keep an eye on that. To the east part that approaches Airport-Pulling Road, the yellow, the county's planning on six-laning the west side of the intersection for approximately a mile-and-a-half as an in-house project. We wouldn't need any right-of-way or very minimal. And that's something we're doing as the county. So that -- funding, you know, funding available, that's one of the projects to fix that. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So that wasn't something that was factored into the Mercato? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was. It was factored into the Mercato. When you go up to 1-75 and Immokalee, you see a yellow and a Page 37 October 22, 2008 red. We've done a pretty good job working with DOT and also our county project. We're doing what's called a modified six-lane or almost an eight-lane section there from the Strand Boulevard and Juliet Drive to the east of North brook. And that with the interchange improvement will take those back into an adequate capacity. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nick, you're showing that as an E, which I guess to me is passing. And I don't know if anyone's here has driven on that particular road, especially, oh, you know, 8:00 area and 5:00 area. But there is no movement due to the lights -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Which road is that, sir? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- a massive amount of -- on Immokalee Road, 1-75 to Logan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. But what's under construction still, is that the part you're talking about? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Are you going to be keeping all those lights there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. You'd have the Northbrook-Tarpon Bay light. Then we're going to pull out the Oakes Boulevard light and move it over to Valewood so your spacing gets much better as well too -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, so we're going to keep that quarter mile from the activity centers, we're going to keep that -- we're taking that back to where it should be? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, with the eight-laned section you're going to have the interchange, and then heading east, you're going to hit the Northbrook, that Target Plaza, there will be a signal there. Heading east you currently have one at Oakes, that's being removed. And then you have the Valewood one. So your spacing is going to get much better. And then you're going to tie into that eight lane improvement. So you're going to see -- when we're done and when the state's Page 38 October 22, 2008 done, you're going to see a sea of pavement but a lot of lanes that will be able to carry traffic back and forth. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're saying Oakes is going away? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Good, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. When you had trouble down 1-75 again and you reach Pine Ridge Road, there's that yellow segment that's right there. We've done a recent improvement with the developer at the Naples Nissan intersection. We also have a significant amount of vested or bank trips on that link from the Marquesa Plaza and the project to the north. Weare working right now to get that Whippoorwill bypass in. We'll be bringing something to the board I would say in about a month or two that would tie in Whippoorwill Lane back into Livingston. So that will help that area as well, too. So we're working on that. If I slide to the east on Collier Boulevard, Jay's group has done a real good job with construction from Immokalee down to Golden Gate. That is ahead of schedule. And then we are in design right now from Golden Gate down to Green as a construction project and then from Green down to just north ofI-75 as a of right-of-way project. So that is scheduled to go in 2012 as a construction project from Green up to Golden Gate in our capital plan. And that's the six lanes. And hopefully I'll be happy to tell you that we've received a six dollar million grant for that, keeping my fingers crossed. It's not out yet, but I've gotten some preliminary good news on that. Heading farther south as you mentioned, 951 underneath 1-75 and then Davis from 951 west of Radio. We have a 20 million-dollar agreement with DOT for an advancement reimbursement. We're doing that project in 2009 along Davis, that one-mile stretch, so we're widening that. Page 39 October 22, 2008 The county currently plans to add that one mile north up to north of 1-75 with that project and do a one mile by one mile L-shaped project. And our goal is still 2009 and we're on schedule for that. To the west of Davis from Radio Road to Santa Barbara, that's currently in FDOT's work program in 2012. So it's still on their books to do, and so they're doing design on that right now. So that should all be widened in the next five years. Heading farther south, you've got intersection of U.S. 41 and 951. There is a DCA on the table right now and there's an amendment to that DCA that may be going to the board on the 28th and where they're going to focus on that intersection. The consortium went from a $54 million bond down to maybe a $25 million bond. They couldn't secure it -- economic downturn, the residential units aren't coming on line. So we have a proposal to at least do the intersection. The state right now has the design. They just finished the PD&E on 41, and they have design money right now on that project. We're going to focus on the intersection as we always do. That's the bottleneck. If we can get that done, we'll worry about 41 as money allows. And again, it's a state facility. We want to encourage them and work with them to put some money on that project, so -- going forward. To the northeast part of the county, you have -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Before you move on, what happens there? Obviously this DCA is falling apart in some respects, in that the residential that's approved out to the east is not going to come on line for obvious reasons. So we'll do the intersection improvements. What happens when those units finally come on line? Are they part of the DCA? Do they still have to pony up whenever it is they come on line or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, they're going to pony up in advance. And they're going to agree to a payment schedule. I'll give you a quick touch on what the DCA is all about. Page 40 October 22, 2008 Basically they're going to payor provide money in advance so we can start this project. Our goal is to do not only that intersection for now but for tomorrow. We want to look at an ultimate at-grade intersection that accommodates a fly-over like Golden Gate Parkway there as well, too. So what we want to do is take the footprint of the fly-over you at the Golden Gate Parkway, overlay it by the right-of-way, build the outside footprint and get that intersection to work past 2025. We're doing a pretty significant improvement there. And then after 2025 when we need to do an overpass, you don't have to touch the outside lines anymore, you can -- the overpass would go right in the middle. 41 would stay as a two-lane right now to the east, and we'd address that. And keep it in mind, that is a trip bank failure. Most of the actual -- you go out on 4l, you can stand in the middle of the road and not see that many cars. The big issue is that intersection. So we're taking that money to fix an intersection first and we'll deal with 41 later. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: But you're saying that the residential, even though it's not going to come on line right away, they are still part of that DCA -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And they will -- okay, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am they are. Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson. That's one of the roads that we still have existing problems on. It's only a two-lane road, it doesn't take much to cause problems there. That's in our capital plan I believe in 2011 or 2012 to be done. Right now we're going to 90 percent design and we're going to start acquiring right-of-way for that project. And that's one of the ones that are on our priority, as well, too. That gives you a snapshot of where the deficiencies are and what we plan to do to address those. The current two TCMA's that you see on that map are both Page 41 October 22, 2008 intact. You have to maintain at least 85 percent of the lane miles above level of service. They are. They're both functioning well. As developments come on line in those areas we're encouraging public transit, we're encouraging them to do anything they can to do intersection improvements and maintain that TCMA. Are there any other questions you have with regard to the AUIR? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nick, I just wanted to say that I've been critical of the transportation in the past, and -- I don't know, eight years or so ago when I was on the commission before, and I just want to the say that you've done a darn good job in the last eight years getting things up to snuff, not having to put moratoriums on and things like that, and it's just -- I'm just hoping with the funding keeps up so while the population numbers are low, if they are, that you have time to get caught up from, again those -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have to give my boss credit for that. But thank you. He's done a really good job since he's been here. I've been here only four years. He's -- you know, they don't call him six-lane Feder or nothing. But you make a good point. Now is not the time to say we're okay. Because of the vacancy rate, and now that we are starting to see some relief, you must continue the program or you're going to be in the same boat you are again. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I agree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nick, just a question regarding cost of making a road happen. Have you seen numbers starting to fall down? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, we have. Now, the word of caution I have, the last two projects, Collier Boulevard south and Santa Barbara extension, they came in about 30 percent below engineer's estimate. There was very little utilities on Collier south, which is a big cost. And Santa Barbara extension is a new road, so Page 42 October 22, 2008 they're taking all the dirt from the ponds and just moving it in the site and building the road. Our concern is when you get into an existing road where you have to do significant utility work and things like that. And you're going to see as we go through our impact fee update, two things that will come up: costs are coming down, trip lengths go up a little bit. People drive farther. So it kind of balances it out. You don't expect to see much of a change in the impact fees. I want in advance to let people know. But costs are coming down. And I think when our impact fees revenues, if they start to trend down, hopefully the costs will trend down as well, too, and we can maintain that program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be appreciated, wouldn't it. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer and then Ms. Downs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, one thing. All these studies when you get the numbers for the road, they're all, are they two-way or one way? In other words -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we measure both ways and then we do our concurrency in peak direction. So you're taking the higher volume of that bi-directional traffic. So if I've got a road and it's doing 30,000 cars a day but the directional factor is a split of 60/40, I take the higher volume, the worst case direction, and that's what we monitor concurrency on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the time of day, I think. In other words, do you have good data? Let's take a section of Immokalee, is the traffic in the morning going westbound and then is there an equal amount filtering back eastbound or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You would think it's equal. It's not always equal because people take different trips home. So there is a slight change. But we have data in the morning and in the evening, Page 43 October 22, 2008 and we take the highest hour, from 4:00 to 6:00 pm, which is the highest traffic hour on the road. So we take the worst direction, worst time of day. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then you treat both lanes in the worst case. I mean, wouldn't it be wise to kind of treat a road as two roads. I mean, as two different directions. One direction might not need the lane the size that the other one does. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioner Strain -- we don't -- we build the road symmetrically. But Commissioner Strain brought up two years ago when I was here why don't you do a.m. concurrency as well as too, because a.m. is the opposite direction? And we explained it's a lot of work, it can be done and it can be funded. Typically your p.m. peak hour is your highest hour but there are times when do development when we look at the a.m. direction, because you're right, in the a.m. hour, traffic is traveling in opposite ways. So when we do development review we look at it. But what's in our GMP and what our concurrency system is p.m. peak hour. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did discuss that. And the concern was mothers trying to get children to school and stuff like that. So we've never done anything past that point? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do studies to monitor what's going on the road in the a.m. And I think out of the 127 links we monitor, there may be only one or two that showed a little bit of a higher a.m. one hour issue than p.m. Most of them are -- typically on all traffic, 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., that one hour in there is your highest peak hour. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing is, when you were discussing the vacant units and stuff, were you looking for like a factor where you would move only a portion from the trip bank into the background, or you just want to hold them in trip bank for -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would like to hold them in trip bank for one more year. And I'd like to see them materialize. Now, we do factor them. I don't want you to think we don't. If we go out to look at Page 44 October 22, 2008 a development, for instance, it's a plat of 1,000 units and we count 100 houses up, we still leave the 900 units in the trip bank. But in general, if it's like a multi-story building, what our recommendation is, is if I can't tell who's in there and we don't have a good comfort feeling, we maybe want to leave them in there one more year to be sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the last question, in your summary sheet, why is the reserve shown in as a negative number? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The reserve -- its shows a negative number, we have to keep that money out of there. So it's taken out, it's not counted as an income stream or -- so it's money that has to be set aside, so it's shown as a negative number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why wouldn't you just not show it and -- MR. FEDER: The state requires that a statutory reserve and all funds be set aside. This is just reflecting that we've done that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But essentially what you're doing making a negative, you're subtracting it from revenue. MR. FEDER: We're just showing it as a negative because it's in all revenue, and then that negative leaves us the revenue that we can actually work with, because we're required to keep a statutory reserve. So yes, it is subtracted from total revenue, but it's the revenue that we can utilize because I'm required, as I said, to keep that box in reserve. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But is the reserve something that's carried from year to year or is this of this year's revenue, this much of it's going to -- MR. FEDER: It gets carried to the following year. But it's of this year, and that's why you only see the negative in the current year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What you're saying is of the revenue this year, this much of it is going to be placed in reserve. Page 45 October 22, 2008 MR. FEDER: Has to be held in reserve, has to be held. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. What's it reserved for just out of -- I mean, you're going to use it in -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a state-required amount just to show that you have some money set aside as a contingency. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Downs is next, then Mr. Wolfley and then Baytos. MS. DOWNS: I have two questions, and one will probably tie into what Brad was asking. It wouldn't be the first time that FDOT did not come through with promised funds. You talk about a road that 25 million is coming from FDOT. If you don't get that 25 million, do you go into reserves for it, do you move your fifth year project out to a sixth year? How do you account for that lost 25 million? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. The section of Davis from Radio Road to 95l is 20 million. We have the money into our accounts to do that job. We have an agreement to get paid back starting in 2011 in quarterly payments. That -- again, there's no guarantee, but that's is always on the top priority list of what has to be -- it's an agreement between the state and the county, so that's always one of the things they pay back first. Now, could they pull out the section from Radio to Santa Barbara, sure, they could. They're doing design right now. We just had the discussion with the state about being low on the totem pole. I'd find it hard pressed that they pull that out. But they could. MS. DOWNS: And they've done it before. And do you dip into reserves to make up for that lack of funding? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, we do not have from Radio to Santa Barbara planned for, for us to pick up if they take it out. MS. DOWNS: Second question, if! may, you talked about you're currently getting earthwork fill from where you're digging. Page 46 October 22, 2008 retention ponds on projects. What's the cost differential? What are you paying when you're using your own fill dirt versus what you would have to pay when you buy fill dirt? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It can be -- in place it can be as little as two to three dollars a yard if it's right there on-site, as opposed to bringing it out from outside you may be able to pay seven to $10 a yard. But it's the transportation costs as well, too. They're digging that pond, literally hauling it 50 feet away into the roadbed. So it's that transportation cost that you're not paying for either. MS. DOWNS: And that's a cost factor that won't play into your figures for at least five years. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I would recommend when you do your impact fee update -- just to clarify, we just met with Tindale Oliver. That's one of those where you take a road project, you don't want to use that as a benchmark for your future costs. In other words, you take -- when you look at what it costs to generally build roads in the next five years, if you get a project where you're successful-- Santa Barbara extension, it's a new road, there's no maintenance or traffic costs that I have to incur on that proj ect. I can dig the pond out and the trucks can run back and forth, that's expected to be lower and should be lower. I shouldn't be using that as my benchmark for all my new roads in urban areas. MR. FEDER: In answer to your question, Gina, just as further follow-up. On Santa Barbara extension, not only a new alignment, very little utilities, but we're able to get the fill because we combined it with the LASIP project in that area so we're digging a large area for retention, we're talking about 70 percent of the savings from the engineer's estimate to our actual bid was realized by about two dollars a cubic yard for fill and earthwork, lime rock and fill, as opposed to usually in the 24, 26 range that we're having to pay on projects. So it's a sizable savings. I think Nick's point is well taken, though, we need to look at Page 47 October 22, 2008 particular jobs to look at trends in costing. That's why we look over time. And that's why unfortunately you look three years historical to develop your impact fee. As prices rise dramatically it doesn't push the cost dramatically up but they go up over time. Same when they come down. It doesn't change it overnight, although some people say costs are down and want to see the fee come down immediately. And then, as Nick pointed out, there's other factors as well, trip lengths and other issues that we take into account. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. MR. BA YTOS: A question. I see about eight projects here of $20 million or more or each. If some of these economic effects that are going on that are kind of earth shattering, if that kind of comes down to Florida in different ways, fewer people come down, fewer people take vacations and so forth, construction continues to be down, are any of these projects in a stage that you could say okay, we've got to make choices, we're going to stop this one, stop that one, put this one on hold? MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we're trying to do as well with some of our projects is get them design/build ready. So if we get a throttled-back demand and a throttled-back revenue stream, what would be our next step? Is what you're asking, I think? We would take these projects and get them designlbuild ready. Take them to 60 percent, acquire the right-of-way, don't finish them in full 100 percent design and then as soon as demand comes back on line, you're not starting from day one acquiring right-of-way, getting the design done, getting the permit approvals, you're ready to turn these projects on right now. Similar to Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, our goal is to get it design/build ready. So when we're ready to move on a project, it's not starting from day one. You're got a really big head start, you can bring it on line really quick. But there is no plan to take any of these out Page 48 October 22, 2008 right now, but we are looking at both revenue and demand and we make those adjustments accordingly. MR. BA YTOS: How about impact fee revenue as a possible fly in the ointment? Because obviously the impact fees have dropped 50 percent? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And we made, as I showed you in the first part, we made a significant cut. Now, what you don't want to do is make drastic decisions based on that. You're going to keep looking at it. Right now we're funded in our first year and our second year. So if I come back in six months or a year back to this Planning Commission with the next AUIR and say impact fees are down another 30 percent, well now I'm working with projects in the outer years. And hopefully that ties into that demand issue I talked to Randy about, demand will be down as well, too. So we'll look at that. But right now our first two years are solid and we're going to keep looking at that impact fee revenue as it comes in and making adjustments. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Gina. MS. DOWNS: Designlbuild ready, is that something you're doing in-house or do you have to contract out parts of that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Vanderbilt Beach extension, for instance, I use that as an example, is contracted out to CH2M HILL. We're doing that design but we're going to stop at 90 percent and start acquiring right-of-way and get our permits in hand. So as -- if money comes in, you know, who would have predicted this downturn, who would have predicted the upturn -- if it turns on back again we are ready to attack that project quickly. MS. DOWNS: So if you're contracting it project out, you're having to sign well ahead of time for that work. It's awfully hard to adjust with the impact fees if they vary from year to year. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You mean the design fees? MS. DOWNS: Uh-huh. Page 49 October 22, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those are minimal compared to the construction fees. So we can -- in our design contract you can do a negative change order down. So if we say we don't want lOO percent plans, take this out of there, take it back down to say 60 percent plans or right-of-way plans, we can make that adjustment. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, still having a little bit of trouble -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm sorry, I think Mr. Wolfley was first, then you, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My questions can wait, go. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want something simple. You had discussed early on the cost per lane mile. Could you go through that one more real quick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Right now on your -- it's showing eight million, that's your impact fee cost per lane mile, that's what goes into your impact fee assessment. We see it going down to about six. Now that's your unit cost. That's what I tell everybody. There's a lane mile. That's one unit I have to build. That's what it would cost me. When you go to the east, when you start getting to the rural areas -- and you take the urban areas, it's more condensed -- I need more units. So as costs comes down I need to build more units to meet that demand for that trip length. You may not see a difference in that impact fee, because I have to buy more units, even though the unit cost is going down. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Gotcha. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, wait a minute, Nick. You can call it a unit cost, but it is listed here as a lane mile cost, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, one lane mile, one lane unit. So one lane unit. So if I have to build more lane miles to meet that demand -- Page 50 October 22, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Out there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: The overall project will cost you less. The lane mile shouldn't necessarily cost you more. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the lane mile won't cost me more, the overall project to meet the demand-- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: The project itself will, yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And in your impact fee there's factors, three of them. Your costs, okay; how much time people use the road, the trip generation, how many times they go back and forth; and how far they drive. So those are the factors in your impact fee. Now in your urban area it's condensed. The trip lengths tend to be shorter. They can get to grocery stores, banks, shopping centers. As you go out to the rural area your trips become longer. And that's a function of your impact fee. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, that was it. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's a new question I'll ask Amy. Nick, the revenue reserve, just last year's reserves was like four-and-a-quarter million. If you didn't spend that, you moved it over, it's coming forward in the carry-forward, including -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, and then you're adjusting that revenue reserve as a percentage of your revenues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What else is in that carry-forward? Is that money you just didn't spend last year or-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it could be committed projects that we haven't actually put the money -- we haven't paid the contractor yet but the project's let. So we have it in our account and it would be a carry-forward number. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it says it doesn't include Page 51 October 22, 2008 encumbered funding from the prior year, so what is in there -- MR. FEDER: If you look on Page l8, one thing we did this year with our five-year work program is our capital projects are still on top, but we did the dividing line here. You see all these projects listed, you don't see any funding for them except for one where we've got some right-of-way shown. Essentially all of these are encumbered, fully encumbered projects and based on our pay-out curve. So you look at these, these are all under construction. Some of them nearing completion, others getting close to that. Basically if your pay-out curve let's say is three years for construction phase, sometimes four years for right-of-way, you have these funds and you committed them and encumbered them two years ago, I still have two more years of pay-out. That remaining balance in the contract and in the project is what will roll into the first year. But again, that is all encumbered. So what we're showing you here, these are the ongoing projects. That will become the carry-forward. But it's all already encumbered on projects previously let. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: But Mr. Feder, that's not what your sheet says here. It says carry-forward includes the budgeted FY '09 carry-forward and does not include project funding encumbered in prior fiscal years. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We broke that out from last year, so -- MR. FEDER: And that's what I was trying to point out, you have additional funding that is going to come into the '09 fiscal year that you don't see here. You see the projects that will come. It's the balance that still remain on those projects we do the year end and the roll-forward from the prior year. The others are shown in here. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So it's just the going-forward encumbered funds that are not shown. Thank you. MR. FEDER: Correct. Page 52 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then from what you said right before I asked this question, Amy, could you explain, one of the things in the impact fees you're talking about is the distance traveled as a third component. And -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Usually we handle that project and we just coordinate it with Amy. We manage our own impact fee studies through our own divisions and we just coordinate it through Amy. But that's one of the factors is the distance traveled. And we did a trip length study, and I'll give you an example of that study real quick. We took Olde Cypress, two dead-end roads in the Estates, Boyne South, which is on 41, and a project out by Lake Trafford, I think one of the -- Lake Trafford development, I don't know -- Arrowhead. And you sit out at the end of the road and you do an origin-destination study. You ask the people where they're going, where's your primary trip destination, how far are you traveling, tell me the roads you're traveling on. It's done for three days. It's a pretty detailed study, it's done by an outside consultant. And you take that information and you say what is my average trip length. How far does the average resident have to drive to get to where they want to go based on that study. It's accepted practice. It was much higher than what we're going to use in ours. We blended it down with other state numbers as well, too. We tend to have, because of typically like the Estates, a much longer trip length. But we actually blended it down a little bit with more studies. We didn't want to take a small sample and say just based on this we're going to use a vehicle miles traveled that's higher. And what we found is, based on those studies in different pockets of the county -- and remember, we're going from downtown urban to urban fringe to rural. So we took the urban fringe and the rural areas and said, where are you going, how far are you traveling? And you do that as people come in and out. And you do that origin-destination study. And that tells you how far they travel. October 22, 2008 So when we plan for that impact fee it says how many lane miles are you going to have to replace to accommodate that travel. And that's factor in the impact fee cost, how far people travel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I think -- is there a way we could get a copy of that study -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- because the state development laws are now starting to introduce a concept of efficiency, and it sounds like we should really be aware of that concept as we review projects, especially projects with commercial that would interrupt that, that should give us a -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Perfect question, perfect comment. You're talking about making destinations shorter. We're working right now with the RLSA and talking the same thing. Put services in developments that people will use so they don't have to travel so far. Make sure that as you plan the eastern lands that they don't have to come in to Joe's shop for a building permit all the way in from east of 951. That there's a place to get a permit over there that they don't have to come to the courthouse. We need to reduce those trip lengths. You are hitting the nail right on the head. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you forward that study thought, just -- we've never been made aware of that. And we've had some commercial development out there and that was never introduced in our thought process. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, I'll give you the trip length study. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Couple questions. You say the price per mile, cost per lane mile, you're taking it down from eight million to six million -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have the exact number Page 54 October 22, 2008 approximately -- MS. DOWNS: I know. But what do you adjust that by, by FDOT numbers per lane mile, or are you using your average or five-year average, looking at your actual costs. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's three, but it's all numbers. We look at numbers that FDOT's doing in District 1, we look at our projects that we've recently let, and we have two. So you're looking at everything. You're looking at what's going on across the board. Now, I can tell you that District 1, long-range estimates, they're not going to lower them. They're concerned if they lower them too much right now -- unit commercial commodity prices have not come down, fuel has, okay, but they really haven't. What we're noticing and from talking to the road builders is they're cutting into their profit margins to get the job. But the costs haven't come down as much as we think they are. They're just saying, I was making a 40 percent margin on a job. Right now I want so bad, I'll do it for a 10 percent margin. My real costs haven't come down, especially utility installation and relocate. That's still high. But I'm -- you know, where if I'm making a 40 percent margin because I was the only guy who bid on the job and now I've got to compete against 12 other people, I'm going to sharpen my pencil. MS. DOWNS: And I'm sure you -- I shouldn't assume you can't answer this, but I know District 1 for Florida has the highest transportation per mile cost of all of Florida. Lee County has an even higher road impact fee than we do, $8,976 was there impact fee. I know there's more than just right-of-way costs. The land costs that ties into why our fees are so high in District 1. And I was alarmed by that until I saw California. Eldorado, California, 23,101 is their impact fee forroads. There are several in the 11,000 range, 9,000 range. MR. CASALANGUIDA: A component, as you go east it's not Page 55 October 22, 2008 figured in. I don't want to make this an impact fee discussion but I want to bring it up because you brought it up. When you do roads in the urban area, I'm not doing wildlife crossings, I'm not doing a bunch of wetlands mitigation, I'm not accommodating flow ways. When you look at projects like Oil Well, Randolph, Vanderbilt Beach Road, you are putting in anywhere from three to $10 million of additional facilities that you wouldn't do in the urban area. And those costs are real and they need to be reflected. So that's a good point. MS. DOWNS: And so now most of your road building is moving out east. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, in the next few years you're going to see more projects: Golden Gate, Oil Well, even along Collier and things like that where we start moving to the east, yes. MS. DOWNS: All right, thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Just one more question for Mr. Wolfley, and then we'll take a break for our reporter. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nick, you brought up Oil Well. That was something I wanted to address. Looks like one-sixth of the budget is some -- for Oil Well and Camp Keais Road. Was any of that borne by the developer of Ave Maria? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They provided the right-of-way, discounted fill, water management to that project done. So they did bore some of those costs that were for that project. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: None of the road costs, other than some prep work. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The design work is -- all there is a split a little bit between us. But the only costs they provided to us was the right-of-way and water management and discounted fill. The construction costs are the county's. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought there was more of that on Oil Well that they were going to provide. Page 56 October 22, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wish there was. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, we'll take ten minutes and then be back and finish up with you guys. (Recess.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, let's get back. And I'm not sure how the rest of the Planning Commission feels, but are you happy going through this the way we are, or did you want to do it page-by-page like we normally do? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, this is good. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: You're fine? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Then Nick, you can pick up where you left off. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think I was answering your questions, if there are -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All right. So did we get everybody's questions answered as far as we've gone? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, I have a couple of questions. The -- you have said that some of your projects are coming in as much as 30 percent below what you would have anticipated. What happens with that difference? Does it go to pay back our paper loans, does it go to other projects, does it -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would go back. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: -- go to carryforward for-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be in that one year's account. And as we let projects, we just -- we do that update next year when we're here again. Ifwe had three projects in this fiscal year and for example, they were 50 million each and we budgeted 50 million each for them, when we did our next year update, if they came in at 30 Page 57 October 22, 2008 million, you would show that accounting would be adjusted. We'd also do the same thing with the impact fees. Ifwe budgeted "X" amount and they came in lower, we'd do that update as well, too. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So you wouldn't be able to pick up a project that might be needed in that year. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, as you get out farther on -- I wouldn't do it that first year because I don't have enough data to make that decision, but that's why you do this every year. If three projects came in low, you may see a new project in your next fifth year that you didn't expect because projects came in low. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Ms. Downs, did you have a question? MS. DOWNS: I did. Nick and everybody, on Page 19, attachment E, since Donna brought this up, Commissioner Caron mentioned the commercial paper. The third item on here is your commercial paper debt, which doesn't begin until 011, 12 and 13. And I think we're all hearing commercial paper interest has gone from two percent to six or seven or eight or God knows what. How are you -- was that factored in when you put this report together? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was at a certain percentage rate. And the direction from both the county manager and the board is to use that commercial paper only as needed and then we'll evaluate what that interest payment would be. So we factored it in there. We're hoping not to touch it in the first year, and then when we get to the second year hopefully the credit markets are better, too. MS. DOWNS: But you factored it at two percent? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know what factor -- Norman? MR. FEDER: I believe it's shown at five, but we also got some commitments previously. So we'll see where it is. And we're not planning on using it right now. Page 58 October 22, 2008 MS. DOWNS: Okay. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, on -- I'm back on Page 13, the -- your general fund monies. How is it that you lucked out that you got the same, essentially the same amount of money as this past year? MR. FEDER: Essentially -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Good lobbying? MR. FEDER: I wish I could say that. Essentially in transportation, if you remember way back in 2000 when I came here and we had fun trying to go after a half penny that didn't unfortunately pass, we identified a level of need to get the backlog resolved. When the half penny didn't pass, there was a decision to bond the gas tax, which was done, out to 2023. That was two sets of bondings as we needed them. We did one about 100 million, another one about 110 million, but our overall need was somewhere about 294 million when we started out as an item. There was a commitment at first to use commercial paper, then a realization that as we were growing quickly and our ad valorem was going up that we could level that out rather than paying out in spurts. And the decision was to provide 14 million out of that ad valorem for reimbursement of the gas tax debt service and 10 million towards that gap between what the bonding provided and what the needs were that were identified when we first went out in the program. So that has been a commitment the board has held to, at least to this point, of24 million a year essentially. And that's been going on. So it's a level first 14 million of debt service payment and 10 million towards that gap to meet the program needs. Does that answer your question, Commissioner? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: That's fine. You -- attachment B in this report talks under considerations here about your operations and maintenance, and that the -- and the Page 59 October 22, 2008 life cycle of our roads from six to eight years in the urban area to 12 to 15 in the rural. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know Norman wants to talk about that. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Are those national or state standards or local standards? MR. FEDER: They are basically national standards as what I'll call the rule of thumb. They've been somewhat adjusted for Florida. We don't have a lot of snow and snow removal issues, but we also have the heat which hits us in other ways, and saltwater. They're basically national standards. We don't use them as a programming decision, but they put in perspective our needs. Because what we do is, say, pavement condition inventory, identify where our needs are and seek to address it with funding levels. What is our case, and the reason I put in this paragraph on maintenance, since the AUIR is typically how do you meet your infrastructure needs for new development, new demand. As we expanded the roadway system over the last eight years, put on over 200 lane miles of roadway, all those roadways need to be maintained. We've got sections of it when we first built portions of Livingston that are soon getting to the point of needing to be resurfaced. I've got issues of landscaping. Whatever your position may be, fact of the matter is whenever we landscape a section of roadway, we have an ongoing maintenance responsibility that comes with that that's much more costly than the standard road and bridge mowing, which isn't very acceptable, because that is now pushed with 24 positions with road and bridge, 28 over all in the division, out to a six or eight times a year basis, which basically very quickly you figure out that's somewhere once every two months. Grass grows pretty fast during the ramy season. So we've got a lot of maintenance season. I've got bridge program. We had five bridges that we had to address the last cycle. Page 60 October 22, 2008 And we squeezed that into our program. And you still a little bit of an expansion of dollars shown in the bridge program across our work program, but still, that doesn't nearly get at the fact that our bridges are getting 50 years and older, which is again a rule of thumb that a bridge will usually give you at least 50 years of useful life. Now, some may last 80, some may last 40, you know, so it's a rule of thumb. So what I'm trying to herald here is while we still need to maintain our efforts at capacity and not allow ourselves to sort of go another five years like we did in the mid-Nineties to 2000 of allowing all the capacity to be used up and then once everything was used up said oh, my God, we've got an emergency, we need to continue our efforts to capacity. We also need to recognize we need to find a way to fund the maintenance for that infrastructure we build and for that commitment that the public's made, very strong commitment to an infrastructure, in this case transportation here in Collier County. So the reason I wanted to put that out is to make sure that people realize that right now I'm woefully underfunded in maintenance. We don't have the bridge program as the bridges come online. Resurfacing, I'm on about a 50-year cycle with the last recommendation we're getting down to about 25, but a million-five of that got pulled aside, may come back and turn back. On maintenance for landscaping, 1.1 million of that was taken out. And all the money for new capital, again, that has to have maintenance dollars attached to it, if it goes forward. We got pulled back in our transit system, which is another effort to provide for services, but it's going beyond that to actually being a choice trip. Fortunately for people, not just captive. So there's a lot of that that I just wanted to point out, as well as what you see here in transportation. There's a lot of other issues we need to address. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Ms. Downs. Page 61 October 22, 2008 MS. DOWNS: Just -- if I could have interrupted you, 1.1 million is reduced in landscape maintenance. But you also use reduced how much landscaping you're doing, so -- MR. FEDER: No, no, that is for existing right now. Right now you have 90 miles of landscape roadway rights-of-way that are being maintained. That budget, even with the reduced budget with some more advantageous figures we're getting in now, because there's a lot more competition, was about 4.9 million. A million one of that was taken out as part of the balancing the budget. We're looking at whether or not that can come back and turn back next month. MS. DOWNS: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to take a moment and just add to that real quick, if I could. My prior life, banks would lend 20, 30, $100 million to buyers. And I'd run the proformas. I'd look and say what's it going to cost. And I've been a kind of a stick in Norman's side talking about this O&M, because you cannot defer the operation of maintenance. All these lane miles that we are building that will be turned over to John, you can't say we're going to cut your budget by 10 percent. We still have to run the bulbs, you've got to repave and resurface. And you can't do it in one year, you've got to plan for it over a 20-year stretch and then run it out over 20 years. So if anything, what the board did this year, it talked about cutting the millage or adjusting the millage and not taking that into account, I don't think we probably made a strong enough case and we probably will going forward is all these new roads get turned over to John, our maintenance department. He has no choice but maintain them. And it's probably over a long life cycle. And it has to be figured into every year budget. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I have a question that I'm sure Amy can answer for me, because I'm not sure why some of the maintenance isn't included in impact fees. It is an impact. It's an Page 62 October 22, 2008 ongoing impact. I mean, I understand the definition, and I know why, but we let things go ahead with the understanding that growth is supposed to pay for growth. But in point of fact, not only are we always short on that score, but we're really short because we can't figure in any kind of ongoing maintenance of the impacts that will continue to be there for forever and ever. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, good question. Essentially even in our impact fee for capacity -- and the state statute is it has to be providing capacity -- is credited by the amount that we get in transportation. As you mentioned, we get some ad valorem. It gets that credit. It gets credit for the gas taxes we collect. And it has to because that would be double dipping. Even though those are over time. So if! say 6,000 (sic) it cost me for a lane mile today-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Six million. MR. FEDER: Six million, excuse me. Yeah, 6,000 would be nice. Let's make that 6,000. Six million for a lane mile, I am not collecting technically all of what it costs, because I am then in factoring out the impact fee giving a credit for 20 years worth of gas tax and of ad valorem that will be paid in by those individuals. So that's there. So the answer to your question is to note that those other sources are covering my maintenance activities; that is, gas tax and ad valorem, and that's where it's getting very tight. Because we've gone to growth paying for growth. Most of my work program, and it's going down a little bit, as you can see by the pie charts, but is still impact fee, which can only be used on capacity. We first tried that landscaping in, but that didn't fly when we first went in in impact fees. So I understand your interest, and that's why I'm pointing out, right now as my impact fees go down, as my capacity needs are stills Page 63 October 22, 2008 there, I've got more pressure from my ad valorem and my gas taxes in addition to what I already spend there to go towards capacity, which leaves me with a transit system to fund, maintenance issues to address. And I can't keep deferring maintenance, as Nick wants to point out to me quite often. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: But, I mean, when I look over at Page 18 under your operations and improvement programs, I mean, in the five years you're only projecting 51 million. But yet in that time you're collecting 104 in gas taxes alone. So -- MR. FEDER: I'm only promoting -- oh, no, 51, these are selected projects. That doesn't count all my operating. My road and bridge maintenance and other issues are under an operating budget. This is only the capital budget. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, all right. Yes. I apologize. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I have. Norm, you gave me a bit of a start when you said we don't have a program for the bridges, and some may go out in eight (sic) and some may go out in 50. I'm sure you do have a program, but you -- but my question, maybe for no other reason than maybe we ought to initiate a capital program innovation, but do you not keep -- and you know you inspect them and you put -- MR. FEDER: Actually, the state does. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- you put it in a chart of some form as to their potential for wear or their current wear. But if! heard you correctly, you don't really have -- you know, you have a question mark at the end of that. Am I -- MR. FEDER: Okay, let me make it a small question mark, as I know other people are hearing this as well. So I need to allay any fears. We do have -- as you see on Page 18 as noted, we've gone up from two million to five million, as you see across in our bridge Page 64 October 22, 2008 program. Ideally some of that can go to new capacity bridges. As we inspect the Estates, we've seen that we have a lot of areas where if we can bridge, we can open up that two-lane grid out in the Estates. I'm hoping that some of it can be used there. If not, it will cover maintenance. Now, we do inspect the bridges. Actually, the state inspects all bridges every two years, more frequently if they start to see issues on them. We follow up on that inspection as well. So we know the conditions of our bridges. We do some maintenance on them to keep the life going. But it doesn't take many bridges to start to fail and require reconstruction before that five million can start to be pushed very hard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can reconstruction be considered a capital element? MR. FEDER: Only if I'm adding capacity. It's a capital element when I'm doing it. But if you're saying as far as impact fees if I'm not adding capacity, adding lanes, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're strictly maintenance. MR. FEDER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Darn. Okay, thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. Tying back into what Commissioner Caron brought up, and I don't know if this is for Amy from impact fees or from you. An additional impact that happens when growth comes to the county, which I do not see anywhere in transportation, would be bus service. And when you say we're getting growth further to the east, that's even more expensive bus service than what we have in Collier. So why is that not a part of a transportation impact fee? MR. FEDER: There are separate transit impact fees with varying levels of success around the country. Again, the transportation impact fee in transit is part of transportation. We recognize that. But typically Page 65 October 22, 2008 the transportation impact fees are road and bridge, impact fee are highway impact fee, and doesn't include transit in and of itself because it's not adding, quote, unquote, capacity in that nature. MS. DOWNS: But it is legal-- MR. FEDER: But it is -- MS. DOWNS: -- more than impact fee-- MR. FEDER: -- but you can establish a separate impact fee for transit, yes. MS. DOWNS: And it's not something we're starting to look into as all that growth -- MR. FEDER: We are as our transit system has started to grow, yes. Because we started off with a very small system. We now have over a million one, million-two passengers a year, and so we are starting to look at it. Originally the system wasn't that large and we didn't know where we'd be with it. We started in 2003. It has grown very well since that time. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. And just one other point was somebody mentioned gas taxes are figured in as revenue. But unless I'm wrong, aren't your gas taxes mostly bonded, so it's not really spendable income for you? MR. FEDER: They are bonded. But as I mentioned, I'm getting ad valorem monies to cover the lost gas tax revenues due to the bonding. MS. DOWNS: How does that work? MR. FEDER: Basically I'm getting monies from ad valorem that are effectively paying off the bonding so the gas taxes are available. MS. DOWNS: General fund? MR. FEDER: I'm paying it with the gas taxes, then I'm getting an ad valorem general fund backfill. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: To touch on Commissioner Caron's Page 66 October 22, 2008 comment about transit, and also, Brad, you touched earlier about when you're reviewing approved developments. There's one LDC amendment going forward that says all future roads built in private developments will be maintained by the private entity that surrounds that. It's kind of geared towards this RSLA where you're going to have all these towns coming in. We're also going through that RLSA review where we're recommending put in a transfer station, subsidized busing. If you don't put them in this RLSA review coming up right now, you've lost a big opportunity to encourage transit. And it will be a big debate as we move forward in the RLSA what you want to see east of951. And I think each one of those towns should have its own transfer station bus network and be prepared to handle transit at build-out. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Can we go through on Page 18 and go through the list and just point out to everybody what of the projects in the five-year plan also show up under attachment G, which are the -- are our deficient areas, the areas we should be concentrating our efforts on. Are we putting anything in our five-year plan that is not really an immediate need? MR. FEDER: No. If you look at the section that I mentioned on 18, if you look below the first double lines, that is the new capital projects that are being brought forward. As you look at each one of them and you look at what's in the identification of needs that's on Page 23, which is attachment G, you'll see that there's a correlation between the nature of the projects we're doing and the needs that are out there on the system. For instance, as Nick pointed out to you, I've got Golden Gate Boulevard as an existing need, even without vested trips or bank trips. That is in here for construction. The only one that falls in that category that you're mentioning is Oil Well, and we had a developer contribution agreement on Oil Well for the construction of both the eastern and the western segments. Page 67 October 22, 2008 There were provisions for cost sharing in areas on that project. That need probably doesn't show up as well as it should on the western sections, pretty much a need today, but we had a project that doesn't show deficiency because it's in our first years. The section over by the university is probably not as immediate. However, we did agree with the university being built at Ave Maria with the town itself and its opportunity to turn around trips. The thing we're talking about in reducing trip lengths, the beginning of those issues is why that's in the program. So it's under a developer contribution agreement. That's probably the one segment is that western segment that is not specifically driven, if you will, by the -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So that's the 46 million that's scheduled for -- MR. FEDER: Portion of that 46, but again, it's part ofa developer contribution agreement. It was a decision by the board to -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right, I understand. The other one that I see that doesn't show on any needs is the Vanderbilt Beach extension. MR. FEDER: Yeah. And there I have right-of-way and no construction. And as we said in our program -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. But it's $30 million of right-of-way, $30 million that could be used for something that is actually on this needs sheet. MR. FEDER: And what is on that needs sheet that is not being addressed? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I don't know. Is there anything that's not being addressed in the five-year plan? MR. FEDER: The best way to discuss that is to look at Page 23, as I mentioned, G. And you can look at what we're doing to address the needs as identified there. And I think you'll see there's actions or items underway to meet those needs. And so in fact we are. What we're also trying to do is to take a section of the county. Page 68 October 22, 2008 We still look at our long-range planning as well as most of our immediate needs, and there's no question that while we have six-Ianed Immokalee Road, I have no other east-west connector for a very growing eastern Collier County. And so that's why the Vanderbilt corridor was deemed so important. It is unfortunately a replumbing of an area. Sort of like building the house and then coming in and putting the plumbing in. So it's been a difficult one but it's one that's really needed and therefore, we're trying to keep it as funds and as needs come up in the future. But those demands are out there. The prospects of growth and the consideration in the ILS and others is that that need is going to be coming and we're trying to plan for it, but we don't have any construction shown. And back to your question, should we find that our revenue stream doesn't come in, where would I cut first would be projects that I'm not moving to construction. And that's one of the few that we're still trying to do to preserve that corridor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a housekeeping question. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've referenced from our Page 18 and 23, and just housekeeping for my purposes, maybe, help everybody, they're identified as project numbers, but they're identified as item numbers. Are the item numbers -- would it be possible or is it desirable to put a parenthetical in there to show which ones correlate to which? Is there an advantage to that? MR. FEDER: We could. What your LD. number refers back to actually, so that you can get the full details, is the exhibit before it, which is attachment F, where you have every link shown with an LD. number so that you can go back and see what basis it was and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, it's -- okay. MR. FEDER: It's really going back to F -- Page 69 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just being lazy -- MR. FEDER: -- and I think that's the most important reference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that's all. Thank you. MR. FEDER: I appreciate it. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So are there any deficiencies on F that are not included? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can take that question. Commissioner, back to the deficiency map, that's the easiest one to kind of work on, attachment H. Pretty much everything on that map is being worked on in one way or another. Whether it be PD&E, design, right-of-way or construction. So when you look at that deficiency map, each one of those has an improvement tied to it. And the only one that's probably not funded for construction or really is going to be deferred a little bit is probably that U.S. 41 to the east at the bottom of your map. And again, that's a two-lane road, so it fails pretty easily. It's a state road. And I really want to encourage our friends at the state to work with us to start bringing some money back down here to work on state roads. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, one thing that I personally feel is important is the bridge work out in the Estates to complete the grid. And we don't really know how traffic will flow once we do that. We certainly know the benefit to emergency, you know, access and stuff. But what is actually being done? Norman kind of mentioned it as a contingency funding. But what kind of plans do you really have for that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've done a -- as part of the east of 951 study with Mike Bosi's group, we did an east of951 bridge study. And I'm happy to put it as an agenda item. MR. BOSI: That is actually going to go before you the Page 70 October 22, 2008 December 9th meeting, the special meeting where you hear the horizon study in its full completion. That will be portion B of that presentation. And you will hear Nick and Lisa Koehler, who headed the bridge study present that study and the findings of that study and some of the effects of the improvements they would anticipate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in terms of the AUIR, when would -- let's assume that your given direction to actually start to include that work. What years would that start to show up in the AUIR? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You mean the bridge work? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The bridge work is in your five-year plan, as Norman pointed out. You have a line item on Page -- in the CIE portion of it -- 18. When you have bridge going from two million to five million and staying at five million in that -- out to fiscal year 13. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What line is that again? I'm sorry. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's your first line under operation VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: It's 6606. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So that bridge study that's coming to you is part of the horizon study as identified bridges. And so first priority is maintenance, second priority is construction. We would start picking off that list at the priority that you would endorse or look at, as well as the Board of County Commissioners, and start building bridges in the Estates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, this is a bridge repair and improvement budget. Okay, so what you're planning to do, how much grid closure or, you know, connection are you planning to do there? Is that a lot of bridges, or -- Page 71 October 22, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can get into the detail at the bridge study, but just to give you an example -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll save it for that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. I mean, Eighth and 16th that go north-south would be significant north-south roads. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this money is essentially to support the study. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's both. It's maintenance first and improvements. So what we're doing now is we're looking at all the bridges and saying we either maintain them first to make sure they're safe. Anything left over goes to the top priority to build bridges. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the funds that are allocated here, are they enough funds to do what's shown in the 951 -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: The bridge study? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not all the bridges, but it's a start. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what percentage? I mean -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have about 10 bridges that we want to do, maybe 10 to 12 bridges, and the cost of probably one to two million apiece. So you're looking at $20 million. So when you look at this, you've got two and then four years of five, so you have about 22 million. But top of that goes to maintenance of existing bridges. So what's left over would start that program. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But based on the outcome of these hearings, you may next year be adding more money to these categories? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I got to find the money. I would like to, Commissioner. If I could do all the bridges at one time, I'd be happy to do it. It's a funding allocation issue. MR. FEDER: Mr. Schiffer, if I could, back to the answer that I Page 72 October 22, 2008 had with Mr. Murray, Commissioner Murray, essentially we had about two million a year for our bridge program that we hope will help us maintain. Ifwe have some major issues that we identify on some bridges, then we're going to utilize some of that three million that I've added each year now to make sure that we cover and maintain the bridges. But ideally what we're looking at is about three million a year. As was pointed out, if I need 20 million, it's going to take me about seven years to get there with my current level of funding if I can maintain that throughout. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, maybe you should start a new line item if we do go into those proj ects, just -- MR. FEDER: And again, where you see below the line here when it says operational, we haven't identified the specific locations or the projects there. It's intersection improvements to the other. Otherwise it goes up above the line. But yes, once we get an approved bridge program, go through the studies and we identify that, we'd stop pulling some of the bridges and this would go down proportionately and the money would go above the line to identify let's say the Eighth or 16th bridge or both of them and then the dollars go down and -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Why wouldn't it make more sense to use the Vanderbilt Beach extension right-of-way money, $30 million, and build all these bridges and get them -- get the grid going that we know we need right now? MR. FEDER: First of all, up until a while ago, nobody wanted to build bridges. And we started studying it and tried to bring to the community the need. That's number one. We still have a lot of issues, because everybody wants the bridge on the street one over, okay? We built one and had a lot of fun with it. So what I'm first trying to tell you is we're trying to do the study to show the need. Will that negate the need for a second east-west Page 73 October 22, 2008 corridor in this county? No. Will it allow us to limit the number of multi-lane facilities and utilize a two-lane grid to its maximum? Yes. And that's why we're pursuing it. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: No, I'm talking about a timing tissue only. Because we're talking about declining populations and we're talking about -- . MR. FEDER: That's an option. Right now I don't have an approved program, an accepted program of bridges to be built out in the Estates. We're working towards that. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All right, Ms. Downs had a question. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just -- Commissioner, if I could follow up with that real quick. Most of your bridge enhancements that we have planned are north-south improvements. And yes, it will take traffic off some of the east-west roads that don't have to loop around. But your problem of that Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road being your only east-west road will not be solved by the bridge connections we put in. It will make it easier to get around, it will reduce the trip length in the Estates, but that rural to urban traffic, it will not lessen that at all. So -- and as far as Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, I want to touch on that quick, too. I've been one of the proponents, as well as Norman, to keep it going. Your GMP says a portion of your budget will be allocated to the planning and acquiring of right-of-way for future transportation corridors. We've got a corridor preservation -- a corridor management ordinance coming before you in the next two months that you'll be seeing how we're going to plan on protecting even more corridors. But critical in this time where property values are dropping down is we've put a certain amount of our budget to advance right-of-way acquisition while it's cheap. MR. FEDER: And that's the critical last thing I wanted to point Page 74 October 22, 2008 out. Acquiring this corridor sooner is going to be a lot less expensive. But even beyond that, as I mentioned, it's sort of like putting in the plumbing after you built the building, unfortunately. There's people living is that building. And we need to respond. We had to identify a corridor. We're holding a lot of people hostage when it was known somewhere along there. Now we've defined it. We're trying to respond to those people that are impacted by the fact that a corridor will be built out in that area. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, everybody understands buying now will be cheaper. That's not-- MR. FEDER: Will be cheaper and -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: -- the issue. MR. FEDER: -- in response to those that are -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And that's not the reason for the question either. So Ms. Downs, did you have a follow-up? MS. DOWNS: Back to Page 23, attachment G. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. MS. DOWNS: In the middle you've used trip bank numbers. These are your deficient roads. You've used trip bank numbers in one column and beside that everything in the red is called remaining capacity. I'm wondering what that's based on. Background numbers, 250th hour, where do you get that shortfall? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That remaining capacity is what you talked about. We do that background number, then we add the trip bank to it, and then it's taken off that surface volume. And if it's a negative number, it means we've gone over the capacity of that road. And while we've broken it down into existing deficient is based on traffic counts, that means it's a real deficiency on the road today. The ones that are in yellow, deficiency is based on vested trips added to traffic counts. It means if you go out there today, things look Page 75 October 22, 2008 pretty good. You don't have a problem. You're still meeting your on-the-ground service volume requirement. But if you let the developments, which they're approved, they go forward, you will have those cars on there so that it will become deficient. So we broke it down into two segments. MS. DOWNS: So is it peak hour, or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Peak hour. MS. DOWNS: -- is it average? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Peak hour, peak direction. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Would you explain to me what in-house intersection improvements are? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Does that just mean that there's no developer, there's no impact fee being used? Or what is it -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, no, it's the money coming in where we take a project, instead of putting it out on the street to have an outside consultant do it, we have an in-house design team where it's more cost effective to take an intersection and put in a turn lane or make improvements to that intersection, we can do it in-house. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Good, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Does anybody else have any other questions? (No response.) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chair? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ijust have a comment. I alluded to it before and you've brought it up that, you know, our population is down, it's time to relax on some of these things. But I figure right now is the time to throw money into our infrastructure. Because if some of you may recall 2000 through 2003 it was pretty miserable trying to get around when everybody was moving down here and we just couldn't Page 76 October 22, 2008 get through the roads and then we had to put moratoriums in place so that the roads would not be overloaded even more. I think now if we can somehow find the money, because now is the time to get our infrastructure in. Because in five years we're going to be seeing that flow of people coming back here again. And well, we're hoping that's what happens with the economy. But I'm just thinking that -- and I'm hoping that this is enough money to accomplish getting everything completed before the influx of people comes again. That's all I want to say. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. I think everybody -- I don't think there's anybody who wants to go back to the way it was before. I think that the most critical things on this list are the things that we want to get dealt with, and we need to get that dealt with first. In addition, there is the whole issue of operations and maintenance that's -- and bridges and infrastructure that hasn't been really looked at for a long time. We've just been building lane miles, more lane miles and more lane miles. And while we needed to do some of that, Norm and Nick have pretty well, you know, maxed all of that out and some -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it's a catch-up. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, it's been a real catch-up. But, you know, it's time to think about some of these other things. And perhaps some of -- I mean, I will still contend that the Vanderbilt Beach extension, probably that right-of-way could be pushed out some in order to enhance some of these other things that really need to be done today. That's a debate for the Board of County Commissioners to have, and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have adjusted a little bit and we will do so again if necessary. And one of the things, if! had my way, and maybe, you know, in discussion with Norman, every year when we show a line item of a Page 77 October 22, 2008 new project, maybe we should show a 20-year maintenance fee that goes with that project. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, not a bad idea. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because maybe we -- because it's not necessarily for us, but it's always to tell the board, look, you bought this. It's like buying a car or a house, this is your maintenance fee that goes with it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A real cost. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a real cost that you have to figure in for. Because if you say we're going to do a 10 percent cut across the board indiscriminately because that's our budget, you can't. It's like you bought that vehicle, you bought that house, you've got to take care of it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it's a double-edged sword. You got sticker shock, too to worry about. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You may, you may. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, if nobody else has any questions, do you want to take a vote on -- MR. BA YTOS: Okay. I move the productivity committee accept the proposal. MS. DOWNS: I second. MR. BA YTOS: Unanimous again. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Once again. And for the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it, if you need one. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Sure. Let's make a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I move to recommend approval of the 2008 AUIR for the county arterial and collector roads as per shown on the summary form. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 78 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, you're off the hook. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick and Norm, while you're here, can I -- one little pet peeve is that, you know, we put these guardrails on the road and they're really tall. And, you know, I mean, one I think has got to be my shoulder height. They're kind of bright and ugly. If a 42-inch guardrail works on the balcony of a high-rise, why are these so tall? And they end up becoming aesthetically the dominant part of an intersection. And they're bright and they're -- can't you hold a design competition and do something different? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could ask ifthere's anything creative, but they meet minimum standards, and they're designed to those standards based on if there's a curve there, the vehicle speed, the roadway classification, to make sure that that car doesn't go over that guardrail. So we could look into that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the guardrail, these aluminum things I see along sidewalks are to prevent a car from going in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're like four and a half feet tall? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I watch a lot ofVin Diesel movies -- Page 79 October 22, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Center of the gravity of the car is pretty low. MR. FEDER: I think you're talking about the aluminum handrails that I have to put on. If I have a drop-off at a certain level -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thirty inches. MR. FEDER: -- I have to put those in at that standard. I have them on Airport, as an example, and a couple other areas. That's a standard. I'm with you, but I do understand if I have that drop-off, I have to provide for it, and this requires it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This seemed too high. And again, like if in a building you can have a 42-inch guardrail for a high-rise, which the fall is obviously fatal, why into a drainage canal 30 inches below you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It could be fatal, too. MR. FEDER: Yeah. And that's what it's for, for bicyclists or pedestrians. But a little editorial, if you'll allow me that. We're designing so that nobody has to take responsibility for their actions. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a good point. MR. FEDER: And that's by standard, national standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you very much. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, Norman, you're back up agam. MR. FEDER: Back up again. I want to recognize John Vliet as well as Jerry Kurtz and Steve Preston here from stormwater. So if you ask any particularly tough questions, I'll get them up here. But I'll try and be fairly brief and then open it up to your questions. Stormwater, we've had some good discussions over the last three years with the Planning Commission and the last two years with productivity. Page 80 October 22, 2008 This was a project that was actually in your category B's. We had a write-up that I think got changed by date only year after year. Then we asked a lot of questions, we couldn't answer them. So I think we're a lot further along than we've ever been. But we also have in here an identification of process that will get us even further. So what I'll do is be fairly brief to give you the background of where we are right now, but also to present a little bit about where we plan on going. The stormwater program, as you're well aware, is .15 mills of ad valorem funded and goes after grant funding. Most of that comes out of the Water Management District or the Big Cypress Basin. Essentially we're trying to address not just draining the swamp, as it were, not just the issue of drainage, flood attenuation, controlling flooding so that we don't flood in the homes and the like, but also the issue of water quality. Because unfortunately, if you get rid of that water real fast, they've found with the Everglades, you create other problems, not the least of which is when the dry season comes your water table has been reduced greatly. Also, you have problems in Naples Bay with too much freshwater, other issues of the sort. So the issue is managing a resource, not simply trying to do, as most people sort of associate stormwater with, and that is getting rid of that wet stuff when it comes down in three-and-a-half inch increments on us at times. Basically what you've got here is we've gone back to the board, which is a recommendation of the two committees last cycle, and redone our policy relative to stormwater. If you remember, we had a policy that was one-third, one-third, one-third, and one of the one-thirds was MSTU funding which was coming forward. And once we did the two-thirds, it was unlikely that necessary people would want to come with the rest of the monies. So we came back to the board and we said, what are we really Page 81 October 22, 2008 doing here. The Water Management District, Big Cypress Basin basically manages and operates the primary system. I'll use a road analogy, because that's probably where I'm most comfortable, but that's sort of the interstate system, if you will, or should be -- maybe it will get there again -- is the interstate system. Then you've got the secondary system, which is basically all your arterials and collector roads on the highways. They are basically bringing that traffic from the local home, which is the tertiary system or the local street, out to the collector and arterial and going on up to, let's say, the interstate for long-range travel. And in this case the interstate's bringing you to basically your outfall areas for the most part. Some of them are on secondary, most of them are coming off of a tertiary. So essentially what I've got is the analogy much like roads, and we said in roads when I do my modeling and I do my analysis, my concern is the primary and the secondary, not the tertiary. I don't model local streets because their purpose is to in this case get people to and from their home, not really for through traffic or through travel. Much is the same in the stormwater system. The tertiary system is really designed to address both hopefully attenuation and stormwater discharge and water quality around the individual homes or around the local area. Moving that then away from that area is the secondary system, bringing it to the primary canals and then to outfall, both in moving the water and in treating the water. And so our focus is on the secondary system. We brought that to the board. And in January of this year the Board of County Commissioners restructured the policy to make it clear that my expenditures of that .15 mill in grants need to be focused on that secondary system, its improvement. And the only time I really work on the tertiary is if I have a Page 82 October 22, 2008 particular flooding problem, particularly a home potential getting under water, or where a improvement to a tertiary is the most cost-effective way to meet a secondary need. Other than that, the focus is on the secondary system. And that's consistent in many respects of where we've been from the start. Because I'll call your attention to Page 31, which is table one. And in our Growth Management Plan we only really had four stormwater projects identified. And they were basically the Gordon River, which in this case has become the major project on that is the Freedom Park or the Water Quality Park as it's known; the Lely Area Stormwater or LASIP improvements; Gateway Triangle; and then also Belle Meade Stormwater Area. Those are the four that are in your comprehensive plan that are stormwater facilities to be addressed by AUIR or to be addressed by the county really right now in stormwater. So what we've done here is we've given you something better than just how many structures I have, how many miles of canal or anything else, and we've addressed specifically those four areas on the issues of water quality and flood attenuation or discharge. And what we've identified is based on the permitting that was granted. It only took us 19 years to get LASIP permit, Lely Area Stormwater. But based on that permit, based on the permits for the other projects, basically once we fully finished and meet all what we're able to do under the permitted activities would we have in the way of water quality, which is acre feet where you're actually retaining or slowing down and allowing it to be treated, or flood attenuation, which is cubic feet per second, how quickly you can move it in each of those projects. We identified what our level of service need in the case of Freedom Park, for instance. Our acre feet is 24.6. That's basically how many acre feet of water quality treatment will result at the end of the completion of that project. Right now, and this one's almost a misnomer because it's almost Page 83 October 22, 2008 done, but we have 24.6. All the lakes are in place. And if you haven't been there, this is going to be a phenomenon facility, not only for water quality but for the county and for everybody in the area. If you haven't walked the walkways out there, pretty soon you'll get a chance to do that. So on our five-year and our shortfall we don't have any. But if you come down to Lely -- and that is basically a water treatment activity, not a discharge or cubic feet per second issue. In the case ofLely, we're showing you that we have 372 as our need for acre feet. Our current we have 234. Our five-year will give us the balance of 136. And so we will have no shortfall once we're done with the five-year program. On the issue of cubic feet per second discharge, 1,546, 1,105 existing, 220 added in the five years, which leaves us 221 we still have additional projects in LASIP that will go beyond the five years of our current CIE. And that's basically scheduled out consistent with the permit and the phasing schedule. So this gives you an idea where we are. We still have that need and so we have to address that past our five years. Gateway, I'll just show you again. Gateway's an interesting one, because in water quality and treatment, we acknowledge that there's a lot more we'd like to do, but there are some limitations. And even our permitting we can't get to the full level of storage that we'd like to for treatment of the water. So here we are, we've got a project that's going to get 11.25. We'll actually be working with the Gateway folks on this too. 1.8 is in our current surplus of what we have for acreage and ability to treat. We're adding another 1.87. That's still going to leave us with a shortfall of 7.63. But again, that shortfall is really restricted by our availability to get land and work in that area, and that's recognizing the permit. But our discharge will be addressed through these projects. Even Page 84 October 22, 2008 though we won't get as much treatment as we'd like, we'll maximize what we can with the project. Belle Meade hasn't been addressed yet. Okay, so that's where we are in our current. And you'll see our five-year program is there, too. Probably what I really want to highlight your attention to is on Page 30 itself. And Steve Preston has been particularly involved in this and working and coordinating with the watershed master planning that's going underway. And basically we have a three-step approach to identifying what new projects will come in here. As you can see, we're working towards completion of these that are in our Growth Management Plan. But how we're going to identify the next projects we focus our attention on. And that is basically identified here on 30. First process is underway. Steve's working very hard to get field survey existing system, understand really what's our inventory, what we have, discussions we had before we've got a handle, but we're refining that, in particular refining it to understand acre feet and CFS at discharge, not simply I have a mile of canal here or I have a structure here. The second task is to -- and that should be completed, excuse me, January of next year. The second task is working with CDES on the watershed master planning. They will be doing the surveys and the modeling, and that modeling will utilize our inventory data and identify exactly where some of our deficiencies and issues are. And that would be the end of '09. By using that modeling and identifying the deficiencies, we can then start developing what projects we need to bring into our program, consistent with hydrological data and information on a watershed basis. So what we're telling you is we're bringing this one into a full Page 85 October 22, 2008 Class A orientation. We've got the methodology down, we're moving towards it. We're basically addressing the current growth management projects based on permitting results. We hope to bring in projects specifically based on watershed management and specific deficiency needs based on what we have for capacities, either for retention or capacities for discharge in the system today, identify those deficiencies and set a program to resolve them over time. So that's where we are on the stormwater. I open it up to questions. And I said I've got the experts here I may defer to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Norm, very good. I remember from other activities and I think AUIR prior about education for the tertiary system, that was something that we were going to foster. We also talked -- I think in the watershed issues we were talking about FEMA and grant money that might come from various sources so that people could lift their mobile homes, et cetera. And finally the MSTU that was recommended that it should be in place for all these. And then something happened there and I'm not sure what. I know this is not as directly related to your capital, but in fact it is ultimately. MR. FEDER: All of it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you tell us -- and I'll go first. The education. I recognize you're short in staff, I recognize the limitations we are in economically. But have you been successful in getting an education program about people taking care of their tertiary systems? MR. FEDER: And Steve is over our MPDES, and yes, there's a lot of work that's been done on the efforts to educate people on what they have to do and what was structured, and I can defer to Steve, if you want some more -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I only want the answer to one question. Are we seeing success as a result of that -- Page 86 October 22, 2008 MR. FEDER: We are seeing some. Not only in that, also I have to give credit to CDES and their watershed master planning and in the flood abatement efforts. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah. MR. FEDER: They're doing a lot to get with people in that area as well. I should note that really when we think of stormwater we are working on the major program areas, but there's also pollution control within utilities and the group within CDES that are working other components. So collectively I think the answer to that is yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then finally the -- well, maybe not finally, but the question of -- Bob Wiley was talking about monies that might be made available where people could actually get their homes lifted up, particularly I guess mobile homes and things of that nature, to get them out of the problem that would ease some of your struggle. Have we been effective in doing that? And I don't know if that's your purview or if it's CDES. MR. FEDER: I know there's a lot of work that Rob is doing for the flood management, both the mapping and the information. I know he's seeking some funding areas, and I've heard some of the success he's had and some of the issues he's still pursuing. I don't know the exact answer to that other than to tell you I know it's being worked on. That's somewhat out of the purview of our stormwater program, but it's obviously related. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Let meet plant a seed then. I would hope that if such a program eventuates that it could become a capital item. That really is where it's deserved, I think. Because what it will do is it will reduce overall the stress load and of course make people's lives -- MR. FEDER: And again, it deals a lot more of the tertiary. And Page 87 October 22, 2008 that's other reason that we pulled back from that. That water hopefully doesn't get in the homes, that's what you're identifying. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's right. MR. FEDER: And then it flows in those areas, getting out into the secondary. I need to make sure the capacity's there to handle it. And so basically it's a little bit different issue, but they're related and all three are talking to each other. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And in the MSTU, did that ever manifest? I -- MR. FEDER: No, it didn't. We put one mandatory MSTU on what was called the Title Program. Basically it was more for navigation in many respects than anything else. And that was a mandatory MSTU that went into effect and does exist today. But we weren't getting the funding out of the MSTU program, and that's why we went back to the board with a change in policy, as has been identified with both of these committees in prior discussions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. MR. FEDER: You're welcome. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I -- lot of information here about computer modeling and so on. I'm wondering, we had a storm come through here, what was it, July or August. I think it was Fay, I believe. Did you learn anything on the ground with that one with the shortcomings of our drain water? MR. FEDER: Probably too many things. Yes, we did. And exactly to your question, we work closely with Big Cypress Basin as well. They have level indicators on their system. We do on some of ours. We looked at that. We've seen how they've changed and how quickly they go down or how quickly they increase when it flows from one area to another. Page 88 October 22, 2008 Lessons learned beyond obviously that part of it, which is directly in stormwater, is we had at northbrook bridge that we're trying to get the foundation in for. The hurricane required us to open everything back up and let it flow. We closed it back up, trying to get the foundation and the bridges all ready to go. Need to get that finished off. And sure enough, we got three-and-a-half inches. I raise that only because we had to open it back up again, and I'm still waiting for northbrook bridge. But it took days. And I actually had white water rapids coming through there after we opened that back up. And it took quite a few days. It's gone down, but it takes a while. It flows. And a lot of area is covered by these canals. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I say that because I'm leading up to something. And -- because as you know, water sat in the Estates for a week to 10 days and brought up a frog problem then. And I think it's the frogs that indicate that we aren't doing our job. Or n<'1: according for humans, anyway. Did that change the budget any in how you're going handle any future -- MR. FEDER: I think hopefully there's going to be spot areas that you won't have that problem. But there's no question, we have unusual events. You're planning for a three-day 25 or three-day 10-year event. When you have a 50-year event, you're going to have some areas of backup. Just like we had a couple years back out in Waterways where really the system worked, but nobody liked the level that the lakes got to, and it didn't drain as fast as everybody wanted. That you're still going to experience to some degree, even when we get everything done. But having said that, that should only be the unusual event, and in some cases we're experiencing that in a normal event. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So that didn't change any of your financials at all? Page 89 October 22, 2008 MR. FEDER: My finances are sort of fixed and I'm going after -- other than grants, which we're pursuing. And as a matter of fact we're doubling that effort. And so I'm sort of using my financing to meet my needs. The ones identified in the growth management and setting up a system to further define my need for the future. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So do you feel if that storm comes along next month you'd be ready for it? MR. FEDER: I didn't say that. What storm is it? How big is it? How long does it stay and how quickly does it deposit three-and-a-half inches? I can tell you but, the last one wasn't a name storm but boy, it hit us hard. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? Ms. Downs -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Norman, the triangle, the volumes there, are those generated by the triangle itself, or are these outside areas feeding? MR. FEDER: It's called being in the center of the bowl. When you basically may be below sea level in portions there, that's a lot of what's generating it. So the volume is basically out of the area, the impervious surface of the area itself. So you've got -- what we're using for the area that you've got defined here is a defined sub basin, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so it's really -- okay. The other question is I know we have watershed flow way plans, and I think you mentioned three plans. Yours is one of three. Well, why aren't they all combined into one? Why would we separate it? Because you -- MR. FEDER: They are being -- what I actually was identifying is we've got three different functional areas dealing with this issue of water and how we work with it. I've got in CDES sort of the longer range planning, the Page 90 October 22, 2008 insurance, the floodplain broader planning. I've got within utilities pollution control. And you've got issues that occur, water levels and issues there that relate, a little less so, but still. And then of course you've got stormwater within transportation. As far as the coordination of planning, we're working with each other. But I think what I'm pointing out to you particularly here is they are working together. We're looking for the watershed master planning, giving them the data and information we have on our inventory and our system capabilities to help us identify exactly where our deficiencies are and then to stop programming those as part of our AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So these models will all interconnect with each other, feed each other? MR. FEDER: Yes. The modeling we're talking about is the watershed, is the hydrological modeling, singular. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Gina. MS. DOWNS: This is probably a long-range question, but I'm a little concerned with the amount of money that's spent in the long-range programs for water quality. You can't change the quantity part, but reduce the need for the quality, which probably could be instituted on the county level, but it's not, as well as being instituted on the state level, and it's not, would be the ban of phosphates that other states have done, reduce the nitrates, the fertilizers, the pesticides. That would give you a higher quality of water that you had to treat, which should reduce your quality costs in the long run. Is the county doing anything to help increase the quality of the water that you have to treat? And -- MR. FEDER: Yes. MS. DOWNS: -- if they're not, why not? MR. FEDER: I stopped beating there a long time ago. No, essentially what you're asking is a good question. TMDL's Page 91 October 22, 2008 process -- and I may ask Steve Preston to come up here, he deals with it. But we're looking at discharge rates -- MS. DOWNS: What's a TMDL? MR. FEDER: Come on up, Steve. I told you I'd get the experts when you get right down to it. But the bottom line, though, is that you're looking at what is your effects of runoff on all these issues. And point source, pollution control, and that is being done. Weare fortunately an area that isn't experiencing some of the regulatory requirements because of the level of our runoffs and discharge. But that doesn't negate the fact that we need to address it. Steve? MR. PRESTON: So your question is what are we doing to -- MS. DOWNS: What's a TMDL is number one. MR. PRESTON: Okay. TMDL is an acronym. It stands for total maximum daily load. MS. DOWNS: Oh, sure, okay. MR. PRESTON: You've heard of that now. MS. DOWNS: Yeah. MR. PRESTON: Okay. And that's the maximum load ofa particular substance like phosphorus or nitrogen or any other thing you want to name that a water body can accept into it and assimilate it and remain healthy for its designated use. So I think it is in December the EP A will finally designate four water bodies in Collier County as being impaired under the TMDL rule. One of those is the Gordon River extension. The other one is Lake Trafford. One is a portion of the Cocohatchee canal. We do have the Freedom Park, the Gordon River Water Quality Park, which is ideally situated at the very downstream reach at a salinity barrier between the Gordon River extension, which is highly polluted, according to DEP standards, and Naples Bay. So we'll be able to -- if all goes well with the permitting, we will Page 92 October 22, 2008 be able to during the dry season siphon water off of the Gordon River extension and pull it into that treatment drain and remove a lot of the nutrients that are causing that water body to be impaired. So normally -- I think originally that park was meant to take water that was coming down Goodlette Road, which may only happen two or three months of the year, which would be flood runoff, and it would be idle for as much as nine, maybe 10 months of the year as far as water quality goes. So we've been able to increase the use of it by during the dry season siphoning water off the Gordon River extension and running it through that system that's already there. MS. DOWNS: But the more far-reaching question is, what is the county doing to make the water quality better before it gets into that drain system? MR. PRESTON: Well, we have -- it's called the MPDES program, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. It's a federal program that's administered by the state. One of the components of that -- well, let me back up and say that that permit allows the county to operate a stormwater collection system. One of the requirements of that permit is that we run an education program. Right now primarily our education program is trying to deal with pollution prevention as the major means for reducing pollution that's coming into our system. The state regulates what's coming out of our system and so they leave it up to us to regulate what's coming into it. And because of the economy and the practicality of doing that, it's primarily an education effort. MS. DOWNS: Well, as a county, can we legally ban phosphates, or does that have to be done on the state level? MR. PRESTON: Well, the City of Naples I believe was the first in the state to have some kind of an ordinance about specifying Page 93 October 22, 2008 fertilizer use and quantity. And the state has been trying to come up with something state-wide for quite some time. And when the City of Naples did that, Tallahassee said please, no more, don't do that until we have a chance to make some kind of a state standard. And the practical reason for that is that you have suppliers of, let's say, fertilizer in the state and they don't want to have, you know, a different standard for when they ship different places, different counties, different cities. And then you have the poor yard guys that are going to apply this stuff and he might have contracts in Lee County and he might have one City of Naples, and ifhe gets caught with the wrong bag of fertilizer in Naples that's not allowed in Naples but he used it up in Lee County, he could get fined. So there's a lot of practical reasons why they want to make it state-wide. MS. DOWNS: And when do you see that happening? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In the year 2525. MR. PRESTON: No deadline that I see. In the future. MS. DOWNS: I'd like to see the county take a more active role, if that were legally possible. MR. PRESTON: The last I have heard, that's in Community Development Services, natural resources department. MS. DOWNS: And they're not here? MR. PRESTON: But we'd certainly lend a hand. MS. DOWNS: All right. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, anybody else have any questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, the Gateway issue. What's the solution to the Gateway problem? I mean, we're not going to suddenly come up with land, are we? I mean, it's -- MR. FEDER: We have bought land. We're continuing to go after Page 94 October 22, 2008 __ we recently bought just a little bit more, and that's what you're seeing here. Weare looking at other alternatives, but at least right now what we're going to do is relieve the major flooding issues, be able to disperse the water quicker so that a flooding event is of shorter duration, but we don't get to treat it as much. That's what I was noting there on where our shortfall is. Our ability to disperse will be greatly increased of what we've got for projects. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And unfortunately we don't have much control over the development in that area either, do we? MR. FEDER: We have some control over it, yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I mean, a lot of it's already zoned for what's there. MR. FEDER: A lot of it's already zoned and being rezoned, that's correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Unless it's getting rezoned to go to a PUD or something, you're not going to be able to extract anything either. MR. FEDER: No, not if it's already out there and it's already covered. And I think Mr. Schiffer probably even has a better feel. There's been a lot of issues related to that area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's going to be an urban center, so it's not -- Norm, one question, though, is there any ability -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: We don't want that the urban center, though, to flood, that's the -- MR. FEDER: No, once they come in with major development, a unified development, and we can require -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. MR. FEDER: -- and will require that they address the issues in Page 95 October 22, 2008 the fashion to keep it on-site. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: But I'm just curious, is there enough of that there that you will get to where you need to be? Because you're indicating here that that's not going to happen. MR. FEDER: What I will tell you, as we are developed today, we're working towards meeting the needs. It will take probably some rezoning or some unified development if that ever occurs in the area, to allow us to go much beyond that. Although we're continuing to look at what our options are. We even looked at the possibility of deep well injection and other issues. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Norman, on that, has anybody ever thought of bringing this water into the reclaim, the gray water system? MR. FEDER: That's where the deep well issue is coming in. And there's a test effort on the water quality of Freedom Park working with the City of Naples right now for that, and so we're looking at that as an option, if we can keep that water. I'm saying retaining's important, not just discharging. But if we can retain it even longer periods of time and utilize it when we need it in the dry season or as gray water or whatever have you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And also that water could be used for irrigation and stuff -- MR. FEDER: That's what I meant by gray water-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- within the development -- MR. FEDER: -- but yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- of the Gateway itself. So I mean, it is a gray -- you're harvesting water really, which could be used -- MR. FEDER: It's treating it as a resource, which is what we're trying to get to, yes, sir. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, we really need to do-- Page 96 October 22, 2008 MR. FEDER: Because we have it at times and we have too much of it and then at times we don't have enough of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's life. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: On Page 32. MR. FEDER: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Number 11 is your stormwater master plan update. And there is $270,000 in the next three years assigned to that. And there was 500,000 in '08. What-- MR. FEDER: Weare now piggybacking and focusing our emphasis off of the hydrological modeling being done by the watershed master planning in CDES. But what we're focusing now more heavily on is doing a thorough inventory and analysis of the capacity of what we have out there today so that the models can then tell us truly what our deficiencies are. So we've refocused that master plan. Originally it was to try to do a whole bunch of basin plans. We have that being covered under the watershed master planning. And now we're focusing it on getting the inventory and capacity information about what we have out there in the system, our system information, to be able to utilize that modeling from the other -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So tell me again what we got for our 500,000 that we spent last year? MR. FEDER: Well, we actually didn't use it. It got carried forward. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, all right, this is part of carryforward? MR. FEDER: And actually got reduced to what you see here now. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: How does that happen then? Why isn't that part of carryforward? And in this chart carryforward is a negative number, so -- which it's not anywhere --R Page 97 October 22, 2008 MR. FEDER: Yeah, again, because in some areas -- and this one we had a project where we encumbered at the end of the year a project that exceeded the balance and so it carried forward for funding from the prior -- next year. Essentially in answer to your question on the 500,000, if I don't spend it, it comes forward as funding still available in the following year and then gets allocated to projects. In this case it got distributed out, a portion of it for the master plan, others for other activities, particularly the LASIP. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So some of that -- so we decided we needed $500,000 to do the stormwater master plan update. And now you're telling me it's not really going to cost 500,000, and we haven't started it, it's going to start this year? MR. FEDER: It's actually going to cost considerably more, but it's being done in CDES under the floodplain mapping. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So they've taken part of that away. MR. FEDER: Yes. They're doing the modeling and the hydrological, which is the expensive part of the master plan updates. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm just curious here, because once again drainage and canals is doing things differently than anybody else. Because -- so I don't really know what happened to that 500,000. It didn't get spent last year. MR. FEDER: It didn't go away. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: At least 270 is carried forward as a stormwater master plan update. And can you tell me where else, what other projects the rest of the money went to? MR. KURTZ: Hi, yes. I'm Jerry Kurtz, Principal Project Manager with Stormwater. The 500,000 actually got redistributed to other projects that we completed in last fiscal year. Most of it went to Lely Area Stormwater Page 98 October 22, 2008 Improvement project. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So it primarily went to the LASIP project. Okay. Now, your grants. MR. FEDER: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And we went through this before. Are we pretty sure about these grants? MR. FEDER: Yes, both in transportation and in stormwater, we only showed the grants that we've already got some level of commitment from in this case. You see that mainly from Big Cypress Basin Water Management District. And they've put those in their program. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All right. So they don't -- you don't anticipate any big shifts in -- MR. FEDER: No, just I want more. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: -- those grants funds. Yeah. I'm not sure that your column, at least for '09, is adding up. One place it says 12,247,007, and then it says 12,147,005. MR. FEDER: Okay, I'm showing 2,247,007 (sic) on both of them. What you should have is three items into the first number, and then below that is the revenue stream that supports that programming. And both of them on mine for '09 say 12,247,007. Am I missing something? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. If you look at line four under revenue fund. MR. FEDER: Line four under revenue fund. Okay, go ahead. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. It will add up to 12,247,005, because that's what it says here. MR. FEDER: Yeah, which is also what my program is. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, no, because your total program says 12,247,007. Page 99 October 22, 2008 MR. FEDER: Yes. And down here my total program revenue is 12,247,007. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right, but when you add-- MR. FEDER: Number five, you're saying you add up to number five and then take the negatives? I'm not sure what you're saying to me, Donna. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All of your projects are capital improvement, non-CIE and operations, right? MR. FEDER: Correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And they total 12,247,007. MR. FEDER: Correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. When you go down to where you're going to get the money from -- MR. FEDER: Yes. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: -- if you look at it, your grant subtotal is 2,200,000. And then your transfers from the general fund are 12,l47,005. So that would total 12,247,005, not seven. So you just have lost some dollars here somewhere. MR. FEDER: No, because what's happening is actually if you look it, you got a subtotal right after three is 2,200,000, okay, that's number one. Then you've got a transfer in, which is the ad valorem of 12,147,005. Then you've got two negatives that you're addressing. So if I took 12 and two, two, I'd be over 14, I'd be 14-three something. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, all right. Because your carryforward is a negative. MR. FEDER: Yes, yes, those are both negatives. And with that in mind, then you come out both equaling each other. I understand the confusion. Maybe we can show that a little better. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, does anybody else have Page 100 October 22, 2008 any questions on drainage and canals and structures? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Onward. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Let's take a vote then. Productivity Committee? MS. DOWNS: I make a motion to accept drainage canals and structures. MR. BA YTOS: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve county drainage canals and structures for the AUIR 2008, based on table two. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. All set? Bob seconded? Okay, all in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Then you're set. MR. FEDER: Thank you so much. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: We're getting there on that one, Norm. MR. FEDER: I know we are. We'll be there. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Now, yeah, I think before we start on a new one, we might want to think about taking our lunch break now. Normally we take it at quarter of, but if we take it now it will be before Phil has to get into his presentation. And then we'll just come back earlier. Page 101 October 22, 2008 MR. BOSI: And I guess the one thing for consideration for this board, there are no new projects being proposed for drainage or for wastewater. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, we may be able to whip through this one. MR. BOSI: And in past years you have showed a pretty efficient staff. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I think we did everything for this year one, Phil, last year, didn't we, because we -- MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, we did. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: -- reduced -- MS. DOWNS: Move to pass. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, the Productivity Committee is moving -- MR. BA YTOS: Well, we move to pass. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, there's some questions. I mean, I know we're hungry and everything, but Phil, one of the issues that came up in the fire task force was trying to get potable water into all areas of Collier County. Is anything in here starting to work on that? MR. GRAMA TGES: Fill Gramatges, Public Utilities Engineering. No, there's nothing in here that addresses that. This is all restricted to -- limited to areas within our water and sewer district, not outside of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how would we start to expand that district? Because it isn't fair, a lot of these areas of Collier County don't have the required pressure. They're spending a lot of money on fire protection and if they don't need to if they had better water supplies? MR. GRAMATGES: Let me see if! understand, Commissioner. Page 102 October 22, 2008 Weare providing a minimum of 40 psi for fire flow anywhere within our system. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except the City of Naples is not. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we don't-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We had testimony there was like 20 and that's all they had to do. My point is, is there any movement to take over for the residents of Collier County, you know, or get -- you know, shed Naples and bring it into our systems? Which is superior, I think. MR. GRAMATGES: No, sir, there's not. That would have to be done by the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In addition to that, if! might, and I could be easily mistaken, but I thought I saw a city council meeting where they took up that issue and they were talking about upgrading their system. And if I'm correct, that should solve that problem. Of course I could be incorrect, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a long ago -- I mean, the problem's been for a while. And there's some sad stories because of that problem. MR. GRAMATGES: Understood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So anyway, but what you're saying is, is there's nothing in the future. How would we go about getting that? The commissioners would have to tell you to start looking at that, or -- MR. GRAMATGES: I would imagine it would require an approach by this committee or any other committee within the county with that suggestion. I really don't know for sure. I imagine that Comprehensive Planning could probably give us a better answer. MR. BOSI: With that, as Phil had suggested, I mean, that would be something that you could add on to the recommendation, if the Page 103 October 22, 2008 majority of the Planning Commission felt that they agreed with that position to -- and what I'm hearing is the potential take -- or the exploring the potential incorporation of the City of Naples, currently their water system within the Collier County water system? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, there are parts of Collier County that are supplied by the City of Naples. Essentially, you know, Bayshore, that area like that. And they're deficient in the pressures and all that that are required. We have churches down there with huge water tanks for -- you know, just to try to make it up for firefighting. It doesn't become a problem with flushing a toilet, it does become a problem when your building's on fire. So the concern is that why aren't we -- why can't we go into that area and provide our county standard to those residents? And I guess how would we go about doing that. I mean, obviously it's an expense and it's a complicated thing, but it's not going to happen until it starts to happen. MR. BOSI: There would have to be a recommendation from this body for the Board of County Commissioners to direct staff and utilities to begin exploring the feasibilities of such a program. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, you are frowning, but-- MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to pick a fight with the City of Naples, it's always okay by me. But I fully agree with Mike. I mean, if you want to have a recommendation that the board direct staff to look into it, that's fine. But I think you're going to get an awful lot of push-back on this. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah, and I would think that -- I would take a slight clue from what Commissioner Murray said, that the City of Naples may be addressing this. And perhaps we should check that out first before we proceed to push our own county to do something. And I think that would be a way to approach it. It can always be brought up, Brad, at another meeting, I mean, if you find that you still have that as an issue. Page 104 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it is an issue. And the unfairness is that these are residents of the county that live in inferior condition. I mean, can we make -- I mean, obviously I think we'll approve this, but could we add that, the recommendation that they look at it? If they look at it and the City of Naples says don't do it now, don't do it now, we're going to fix our stuff, that's fine. But who knows what the City of Naples is doing, and who would know from watching a television meeting to decide what they're doing, so -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I think we can find out whether in point of fact they are doing something about it or not. I think that should be fairly easy to find out. And then we can go from there. If suddenly we find out that there's nothing planned for the next 20 years, then we can bring it up again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you could do this via public petition in any event. Any citizen can come and go to the commissioners and raise the issue. And based on a health -- in this case a safety situation, if they would be interested in hearing it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can we get the feel of the board as making it an attachment to this recommendation? I mean -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Everybody can weigh in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're the chairman, so -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm not sure I know enough about any of it to make a decision right now. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I think we ought to look into it more and see ifthere's any background that we're not aware of before we take any action. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I go along with Tor on that. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree that it's not a bad Page 105 October 22, 2008 idea to make a recommendation. But explore both parts and find out whether or not the city is in fact doing something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My opinion's obvious that we shouldn't have areas where Collier citizens are living in a second class situation when it comes to water flow. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also agree we should at least look into it and find out where we sit. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So you want to make that as a recommendation with this going forward, or do you all want to wait and find out first and then see if we need to make a recommendation to the board? MR. KLATZKOW: CDES staff is your staff. If you want to ask them to look into it and report back to you at the next Planning Commission or in a subsequent Planning Commission, you can do that as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: That's probably a better way to go about it, and let them check in on the issue first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who would do that, Phil? So Phil, I guess give them a call, see what they're up to, tell them the natives are restless or whatever phrase you want to use. But I do think it's an important thing that -- for the safety of a lot of areas of the county. MR. GRAMA TGES: We will do that, Commissioner. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Phil. Now, does somebody want to move that potable water-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 106 October 22, 2008 MR. WOLFLEY: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: We will now break for lunch. Let's get back here at a quarter of one. (Lunch recess.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Can I have everybody's attention. Thank you. We're back on the air. Phil, we're going to go into the sewer district. MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes, ma'am. Phil Gramatges, public utility . . engmeenng. Do you have any questions about wastewater? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Does anybody have any questions about wastewater? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That was a nice approach. MR. GRAMA TGES: Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm surprised you just didn't ask for a motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I think if everybody looks at page 44 we've -- essentially there are no new projects. We've taken care of decreasing the gallons per capita per day. We did that the last time around, so -- MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, ma'am, we did. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Everything is pretty well adjusted. Does anybody have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, what are we doing to increase the ability to have reclaimed water? Are we at maximum capacity or could we do more? MR. GRAMATGES: At this point in time we are using all the reclaimed water that we have. The only exception is -- as you heard Page 107 October 22, 2008 from Norm, we get a lot of water when we don't need it. And when we need it, we don't get any. Because during the rainy season all that reclaimed water is not necessary. There's no demand for it. The way in which we need to approach this in the future is for us to store it when it's available and use it when it's not. Storing it is a problem however. There is -- there's a financial issue with it. You can either store it in overground tanks or store it in ponds. And, you know, that requires a lot of real estate. And, of course, that gets very expensive. The other alternative is to store it in ASRs. And we are looking very aggressively at that. Unfortunately, however, in 2005 the State enacted new laws about arsenic. And whenever you put anything new underground and you pull it out, they exceed the limits. So everyone in Florida is struggling with that at this point in time. And until we find a technical solution, ASRs are probably several years away from being a practical way for us to store water. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That problem is -- is the water going in without the arsenic and coming out with it? MR. GRAMATGES: No. The problem is that the water gets injected underground and there's arsenic existing in the underground aquifer. And when we pull it out, it pulls the arsenic with it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But all the people that are connected to reclaim, like golf courses and stuff, they're using it throughout the year, correct? MR. GRAMA TGES: They're using it throughout the year with the exception of during the rainy season. Obviously they're not going to pay for a service they don't need if it's raining. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But there are a lot of people that are using potable water to irrigate. MR. GRAMATGES: That's very true. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would use it all year round. So why aren't we hooking them up? Page 108 October 22, 2008 (Mr. Harrison entered the room.) MR. GRAMATGES: Well, because when the reclaimed water is available -- when the demand for reclaimed water is there, we don't have enough reclaimed water to give to all the customers who want it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially what's happening is the customers who could use it who are on potable water who would go off of that, if they had the opportunity, are not able to access it because you have larger customers that use it on demand. And then when they're off demand, there's a surplus. MR. GRAMA TGES: Let me say it this way. The demand for reclaimed water is higher during the dry season because the need for irrigation is higher. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GRAMATGES: During the dry season all of the reclaimed water we produce is distributed. All of it. We don't have anything left. The only exception is if, by any chance, which does not happen very frequently, it doesn't meet the specifications and we have to dispose of it. But, like I said, that's very rare. So whenever there is -- the dry season happens, all of the reclaimed water is available. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. GRAMATGES: During the rainy season nobody wants it because it's raining and you don't have to pay for the rain. So that's the dilemma. When there is a need for it, we use all that is available. When there's no need for it, there's nothing we can do with it but deep inject it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you say you have to get rid of it, what do you do to get rid of it? MR. GRAMATGES: We deep inject that reclaimed water, yes. We have no way to store it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it would be nice to see Page 109 October 22, 2008 what it would take to get more people on reclaimed water. But what you're saying is you don't have any more capacity for more -- MR. GRAMATGES: We don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- in the dry season. MR. GRAMATGES: We don't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Anybody else have any questions? I think that whole issue of getting more people on to reclaimed water is a big one. I don't know. What are the other possibilities? I mean, what would you have to do? I mean, obviously ASR you just told us is not viable. What are the other storage options? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, once again, ASRs are the-- financially the best way to store water. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. But if we -- MR. GRAMA TGES: But obviously until we resolve the technical issue of the arsenic, that option, which we're still exploring, we're still working very hard at making it work, but it won't work for awhile. The other options would be aboveground storage or storage ponds. And we do have a few of those. Unfortunately, those require a large amount of real estate. I mean, we're talking about millions upon millions of gallons that we would have to store in order for this to be feasible. And that requires a lot of real estate. And, as you well know, even though it's cheaper now, real estate is still very expensive in Collier County. So it's not very practical -- financially practical for us to pursue those options. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So somebody needs to come up with a better mousetrap here in order to make this viable. Okay. Any other questions on the sewer district water system? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Then I'll take a motion from Page 110 . October 22, 2008 the productivity committee. MR. BAYTOS: We move approval. MS. DOWNS: Second. MR. BA YTOS: All in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So that was unanimous from the productivity committee. And there are four members here. And from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to forward the recommendation of approval the 2008 AUIR wastewater system as shown on the summary form. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Second by Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And opposed? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: None are opposed. And just as a note to clear up something for the County Attorney, all the prior motions that Cherie had taken, they were all unanimous. And if you would just note that for her, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Phil, you're still up. Page 111 October 22, 2008 MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, ma'am. Solid waste is next. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And because Mr. Murray brought this up to me, and he is absolutely right, there are no speakers out here in the audience. So there's nobody to speak to us about these issues. So go ahead, Phil. MR. GRAMATGES: Actually, the situation with solid waste is similar to the situation with potable water and wastewater. There is really nothing new this year on the AUIR. So if you have any questions, I'm ready to answer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do, Phil. And while I recognize it's not new this year, some year we certainly should be doing it, I tell you what. Awhile back I made a visit to the landfill, then I made a visit to the water plant. And it occurred to me we have methane that we're flashing, getting rid of. Why can't we take and use some of that, if not all of it, to generate what we need to take care of the water plant? And Mr. Mattausch said, well, that's certainly possible. In fact, we're working on that. We're thinking about that. Now, that was several years ago. And the biggest concern there was the implications to FPL because that would be a significant reduction to FPL's revenue stream and certainly a considerable benefit to us. So I recognize the implications of it. But at what point have -- has your department given consideration to initiating a capital program to do this? Because I think it's a lot of money that we could save. MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, Commissioner, I'm glad that you asked that question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: Because this very year we are going to be presenting a proposal to the Board to go on with a project to recover that gas to generate electricity or generate steam or use that gas in Page 112 October 22, 2008 order to take advantage of the energy that it has. And this is a project that we, of course, are doing with -- in conjunction with Waste Management, who manages the landfill for us. And we'll be proceeding -- I wish I could tell you exactly when it will be presented to the Board. But it is at this point in time scheduled to be presented this year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 2008? MR. GRAMATGES: 2008, yes. 2009 fiscal year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's terrific. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Terrific. We're making progress. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Good job, Mr. Murray. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Did you solve the problems with FPL; are they going to get some lines down there to take their power? MR. GRAMA TGES: I don't know that we've gone that far, but in the past FPL had been receptive to this kind of approach. In fact, I think that there is probably some legal reasons why they need to accept it, as well. I know that that's true for -- that's true for New England where I come from where they had to accept whatever power was provided by alternative means. And, once again, I don't know if that's the case with Florida. But when you think about it, this is going to be a very small percentage of the overall energy that we buy from FPL. Weare FPL's largest customer in Collier County. And FPL is not going to, in my opinion, look negatively at something like this. I think it's a step in the right direction. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I think they're looking at the value of that energy, plus the line extensions that they've got to do to accept the electricity. MR. GRAMATGES: I can't comment on that. Page 113 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. And I have one other question. You were proposing a recycling facility just north of the current -- I don't want to call it a dump. What do you call the -- MR. GRAMATGES: Landfill, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Landfill. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And how's that coming ahead? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, this is in the planning stage right now. I am not sure when we're going to go to the Board with it. I know that there is a schedule for that. Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to tell you when because those schedules are flexible depending on, you know, how the design goes and so on. But we're very serious about that. We're very serious about that expansion. We think it's going to be a very positive step for us to take. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What year do you think that will happen? MR. GRAMATGES: This is something that will probably take several years to design and then a couple of years to implement. So I would say within the next five years we should see something on this area. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? Anything from the productivity committee? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Then I'll entertain motions. Productivity committee. MR. BA YTOS: So moved. MR. FEE: Second. MR. BA YTOS: All in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Aye. Page 114 October 22, 2008 MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Unanimous. And CCPC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. Move to forward with a recommendation of approval the 2008 AUIR for solid waste and landfill capacity as delineated in the summary form. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: It was unanimous. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, the only other comment. If you can't -- if you're not going to hook up the methane and stuff, see if you can move the flame closer to 75 so we can appreciate it better. It is always fun to look down and see this. Maybe a little sculpture contest for the stack. MR. GRAMATGES: I'll take that recommendation to my superiors. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not that important. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Phil. MR. GRAMA TGES: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Next up is Barry Williams with parks and rec. MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, productivity committee members. I appreciate having this opportunity right after lunch to talk to you about parks. Page 115 October 22,2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Before you take your nap. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. Just to summarize what you have in your packet, the projections for community and regional parklands for the next five years. And, as you know, we in parks measure inventory based on acreage per thousand. And for community parks that's 1.2 acres per thousand and for regional parks, 2.9. Both, as you can see in the packet, our community and regional parks indicate a surplus for the five-year window that we're describing. And just to highlight some of the notable increases during this time, there's a 47-acre reduction in community parkland that we anticipate in providing those acreages to transportation in the year indicated. We also this April, 2009, we understand, the stormwater transportation project that you heard about, Freedom Park, that will be coming into the parks inventory. Parks and rec will be maintaining 25 and some change acreage there. So that's one thing I wanted to identify. Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park is a 65-acre parcel off of Everglades Boulevard. As you're probably aware, that project-- there's a question about that project. We're doing it in conjunction with public utilities. The utility that would be built there, after they've laid the infrastructure for that particular project, would be an opportunity for us to come in and build our park. We're dependent on that project. We can't really go forward with that project until public utilities maintains that process. The last thing I'll mention to you is just an A TV park. And if you notice in the regional parklands, we have a 625-acre parcel. And that's kind of an anomaly of sorts. That particular parcel -- we anticipate it coming during that period of time; however, there's still some questions about that parcel. The South Florida Water Management District and the Board of Page 116 October 22, 2008 County Commissioners are still working through details related to that parcel. With that, I just wanted to stop and entertain any questions that you might have about what we've provided you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Vigliotti first. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I know at this time parks and rec doesn't take into consideration any parks that are in developments. For instance, PUDs have parks, a lot of other major developments. Why don't we include those? They're available to the public. The people in those either PUDs or facilities use it. Why don't we use those figures in our calculations? MR. WILLIAMS: That's a question that's been asked, I understand, in the last couple years. We've actually sought an opinion from DCA. The parks have to be in the control of the Board of County Commissioners through parks and rec to be counted as part of the inventory is our understanding. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Wait a minute. Before you go further on that. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: While I was looking at your backup information, that's apparently not true for Lee County. Why would -- they count Federal and State parks in their inventory. So why would it be different for us? MR. WILLIAMS: I can't explain Lee County's data. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can you, at any point, go back to DCA? MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely, absolutely. We could certainly inquire with them and ask them that question. We don't want to necessarily bring Lee County into the discussion with them, but we can certainly ask for our own purposes about Collier County and whether that can be included. Page 117 October 22, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schmitt had a comment. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. And not from -- for various perspectives, and if you would explain, basically our AUIR does regional parks and community parks. Those were -- would be more of what would be what the -- it wouldn't be deemed a community park if they were inside of a PUD. They would -- MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it's a good point Mr. Schmitt makes. We basically characterize three types of parks; community, regional and neighborhood parks. MR. SCHMITT: Neighborhood park. MR. WILLIAMS: The neighborhood park is not included as part of the inventory. MR. SCHMITT: Now that said -- because I was looking for the word neighborhood. With that said, the Board -- or you could certainly recommend a level of service change based on the data. And we have that data analysis that was provided of the number of whatever throughout the community. Number of bocce courts, bocce ball or whatever they call it, basketball to tennis courts. You know, we went through that a couple of years ago. And that certainly is something you can use to make a recommendation if you want to reduce the level of service. But to understand, if you reduce the level of service, then it has an impact on impact fees, as well. That it could have an impact on impact fees. And, Amy, you could cover that. Thank you, Amy. I know you wanted to speak. MS. PATTERSON: Hello. Amy Patterson, for the record again. Regarding the level of service, there's a level of service established in your impact fee study that is your achieved level of service, meaning what we have today. And generally for our facilities, either the level of service matches that in the impact fee study or exceeds it as our adopted level of service. Should you choose to adopt a level of service that goes below the Page 118 October 22, 2008 achieved level of service, then the impact fee would have to be reevaluated. Because at no time can you charge growth what the other taxpayers have not provided. And so that would be putting an inordinate burden onto growth and would require the reassessment of the impact fee study. Meaning to bring the impact fee down would essentially be the result of a lowering of the level of service or it could be, depending on the study. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So the impact fee would be lower; it would be reduced? MS. PATTERSON: It could be likely. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: A downward adjustment of the level of service would likely have a downward adjustment on the impact fees. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to discuss the recommendation with the other Board members to see what they think. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Let's get all the questions out of the way first, Bob, and then we'll go back to it. Mr. Wolfley was next. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The level of service, you're referring to the 1.2 acres per thousand? MS. PATTERSON: What we would have to -- that is not the level of service that's provided by the impact fee study. That is the level of service that we're referring to. So we would have to do an analysis of how that level of service relates to the impact fee level of service and then how that should be adjusted based on the adjustment to the adopted level of service. But, yes, that's the one we're talking about. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I got that one. What you're trying to say is that -- in a backward way that 1.2 is adjusted to affect the real number in the thing? In other words, it could be 1 acre per thousand or 1.4? Page 119 October 22, 2008 MS. PATTERSON: The adopted level of service could go to whatever the Board deemed appropriate and then the impact fee calculation would have to be adjusted accordingly. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Forget the Board for that because they're the last ones to see it, or sort of. But, I mean, it's you. Is that how you calculate it? How do you do this level of service here? I mean, how do you come up with that? MS. PATTERSON: For impact fees or for the-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: For impact fees is -- depending on the facility, it's either the square footage per population or the number of acres per population. We also have the cost per acre. And so all of those go into the level of service established by the impact fee. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Ifwe determined that cost has come down now. MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. Somebody else. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because that was the question I was going to raise. We've used $230,000. And I know Tindale has done the study; is that right? He continues to do that. MS. PATTERSON: Well, Dunkin did the last park study. Tindale is in the process of updating the parks study. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right. Now, does he get into the -- he doesn't give us the appraised value in a dollar amount, does he? MS. PATTERSON: He is validating the-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He validates that, as well? MS. PATTERSON: He is validating it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, of course, it's lagging now. In other words, we're going forward or attempting to go forward with last year's numbers. When will we have a potential correction? Page 120 October 22, 2008 Because we don't think the $230,000 -- I remember this very well, this process we went through, which became essentially circular. We couldn't even get to an answer that would satisfy anybody. It seemed like we were all locked into this process. MS. PATTERSON: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sooner or later we have to break through this because we definitely have a change. And while a great effort was made to show the $230,000 was a valid number, I dare us to prove that today. So what are we going to do or are we going to do anything about looking at this number? MS. PATTERSON: The number is being looked at. And, unfortunately, again, there's still not data to support bringing that number down. And a lot has to do with the types of lands that they're acquiring and the area that they're acquiring them in, as well as the land that they've acquired in the past and the value of that land. It doesn't mean that something can't be done about it. If the Board elected to assign a different value, they could do that. They could do that, again, through the level of service. They could also elect just to bring the parks impact fee down if that's -- if that's the ultimate goal. Is it a question of wanting the level of service to be lower or a question that you want the parks impact fees reduced? And so, I guess, that's kind of where the question lies. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I guess the real question is: What is the reality? (Mr. Swaja entered the room.) COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Because we're dealing with projections. We're dealing with probabilities. We're dealing with hearsay sometimes it seems. But the reality is what we're seeking. And I recognize clearly that your -- all of the staff are constrained by the facts they have to deal with. But at some point the community needs to know that the staff is as interested as the citizens in coming up to a more realistic figure. They see the tide going down, the ships Page 121 October 22, 2008 are going around, they don't want to have the perception that the government ships are sitting up here. MS. PATTERSON: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if -- and I can tell you that, you know, prices are falling all over the place; commercial, residential. How is it plausible that we can still attribute the same dollar figure to something that we see coming down? MS. PATTERSON: This is probably a conversation that we're going to have in each one of the category "B" facilities. I realize we're still in the As, but when we get to the Bs it's going to be the same conversation that -- the correction on the downside is as slow as the correction was on the upside, as costs were escalating faster than we could capture them. There's just not an instantaneous answer to that. And we can restudy the impact fees as often as the Board directs us to. If it's once every three or every two years or every year, ifthere is a lot of volatility, that can be done. And, like I said, we're in a full study right now of the parks impact fee. We're to the point of near completion, 75 percent complete. So if there is some recommendations that are going to come out of this committee that are going to directly affect that study, meaning level of service or some direction on cost per acre that need to be forwarded to the Board and will affect the study, rather than getting all the way through the study and starting all over again that's probably what we need to look at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Well, of course, we'd have to know what the parameters of the study are in order to know whether they're insulting it. So -- and I'm sure I even want to go there. Maybe you can help us all by making us aware of -- you said 75 percent you believe. What's your expectation for the date of finish? MS. PATTERSON: I would say probably within the next month to month and a half we'll be complete. Page 122 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, Mr. Bosi, when is it that this has to go to DCA? MR. BOSI: The AUIR is a local document. The DCA does not see this document. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. So there's no -- that's right. No work, nothing involved with that. MR. SCHMITT: Correspondence. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we have time. So, in other words, we have the opportunity. The Commission could at a regular meeting have that on an agenda item and they could modify it. MS. PATTERSON: They could. And, again, the recommendations coming out of that impact fee study do not have to be accepted by the Board. They can adopt any -- the study will recommend the maximum legal limit of the impact fees that can be imposed by the Board of County Commissioners. They can elect to adopt them at 50 percent or 75 percent or whatever percentage that they deem to be the appropriate amount. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear you. But in reading Mr. Bosi's or whomever the preamble, there's a lot of indicators in here that we're pretty much stuck the way we are. That's the basis for my question, I guess. Is it seems like -- and I remember this now year after year. We seem to be always stuck that we can't change it because we're always waiting for something to happen. And then the next year we're still waiting for something to happen. And I'm not trying to insult anybody or upset anybody, but I really believe that we have to find a way to be more effective. As I said, the boats are going down and it does look like some of them are sitting up here on some kind of special tide. And I'll stop with that. I think you've tried to answer my question. Thank you. MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray, I think it probably would be appropriate to clarify one thing. The AUIR is not a document that's Page 123 October 22, 2008 provided to DCA, but the recommendations that you do make pertaining to the AUIR get transferred into this CIE, which you'll see forthcoming probably in December. And that's with the category "A" facilities that are in the AUIR. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. COHEN: And, also, ifthere is a change that would be made with respect to parks and recreation levels of service, usually there needs to be supporting data and analysis to go along with that. For example, you know, providing that inventory that's available in the PUDs would be something to justify a reduction in the level of servIce. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Amy, the only level of service we use acreage -- because in the past we've had different kinds of like water access, hard court, stuff like that. We're still using that, correct? MS. PATTERSON: The level of service is being measured is the acres that's listed in the AUIR. Now, this actually is probably more of a question for Barry of how they're doing the other facilities. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, just to mention -- and this came up I know last year about the question of how we measure. And we surveyed the counties in the state about how they measure, as well. So it's a fairly accepted standard to determine level of service. So I think of the counties that we surveyed -- and we surveyed 45 out of the 67. All 45 used acreage for that. So I'm not sure if that answered your question, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, but we do have level of service requirements, don't we, for different types of facilities? Like in the past we've had water access, hard courts. Michael. MR. BOSI: Last year during the AUIR process the Board of County Commissioners directed the staff to no longer utilize the Page 124 October 22, 2008 facility's value as a level of service standard. And based upon that, there is guidelines that have been adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for the number of hard courts, the number of beach -- water access points. But they are no longer regulatory, binding level of service standards, but yet they're a guideline that the County will utilize to determine how well they're doing. And that's provided for within the back of your AUIR book, I believe. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Starting on 237. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if we don't use facilities, then I think it would be extremely difficult to credit private development. I mean, because you're going to be crediting acreage. And essentially the only thing that would make sense is if you did have requirements by facilities that the residents -- the population of that thing may be excluded from the demand. But in this case if it's pure acreage, there's absolutely no way I think you can isolate acreage in a PUD. MR. BOSI: And I believe the discussion at the very beginning of this proceedings was, you know, the nonrecognition of the privately-held recreation facilities in PUDs and the neighborhood park facilities. And as Mr. Cohen had suggested, the existence and the inventory of those facilities could be utilized to justify to the DCA. Any recommendation for lowering of the level of service for community or regional parks or both, the recognition of not only the neighborhood park facilities that are behind the PUD, but also the existence of the State and Federal parklands that are available to Collier County residents. All of those can be utilized as a justification to DCA as to why the factors were utilized to lower the level of service for any of the park facilities. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. I think if you look at the back report, you will see where they had -- they had done on page 241 Page 125 October 22, 2008 -- there's an inventory of -- they did go through and try to do an inventory of what was available in the private sector in these PUDs. A couple of things just to comment about that is it says here that you don't think it's advisable to be including these facilities because they could change over time. Well, I would say to you that that's not really a valid argument because we do our AUIR every year. So we have a chance to take into account any changes that might happen within a PUD. The other thing is that when you talk about whether or not we have control or not, we do have control over PUDs. You know, there is a controlling factor by Collier County for these PUDs. So there is -- you know, that old rational nexus thing is back again. But I think you can make that determination. And then when you get to facilities like, for example, Delnor- Wiggins State Park there is absolutely no reason in the world not to be counting those acres. They are a prime focus of the amenity we provide to this County. And not to include them is -- I think, as I said last year, is, you know, is disingenuine. MR. WILLIAMS: Like I say, we could seek clarification on that issue and certainly could give you back our response. And, you know, I know that we did -- last year we sought that clarification. And our understanding at the time was that we could not count the State facilities. I can't describe to you why Lee County is able to and we can't though. So I do need to provide that clarification for you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Again, we had given a list of possibilities for that. And not going so far out of whack that we are counting land that nobody can get to or it's all a panther habitat and nobody can have -- MR. WILLIAMS: The Everglades. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: -- any recreation, you know, ability on it. Those were not the kind of things that we listed last year. Page 126 October 22, 2008 And, again, just to go back to the unit cost. We did talk last year specifically about reducing that unit cost. And I'm glad to hear that there is -- a study is being done because we do want answers to that. On page 242 of your report it says here that -- I'm looking at paragraph 2, the bold paragraph in the center of the page. Can you give me examples of where it doesn't work? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm at a disadvantage. I don't have page 242 in front of me. And perhaps I could ask Mr. Bosi to help me with that. MR. BOSI: Interlocal agreements. MR. WILLIAMS: And, if you could, just to clarify, your question is? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: The center paragraph. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In bold. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: It's talking about your reasons for not -- let me just -- MR. WILLIAMS: Not including the municipality's parks? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. I'm sorry. Yeah. Owned and operated by the municipalities in the inventory. But where doesn't this work? I mean, the whole premise is that there's some problem with this. MR. WILLIAMS: Again, to clarify, our understanding for us to count within the inventory is that we have to have control of the property. And, I guess, that's a question that needs further clarification. In these circumstances where municipalities have parkland where there's not an interlocal agreement of some sort that shows that control, we're not able to count it into the inventory. Now, your specific question about where are cases where it does not work, I'm not sure I understand exactly. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, the implication is ifthere's a park in the City of Naples that you don't particularly have a -- an interlocal agreement with, then it's not valid for us to count that as a park. Page 127 October 22, 2008 MR. WILLIAMS: In some exceptions. The regional parks -- those with the designation of regional parks we do count as part of our AUIR. And the premise is certainly a regional park suggests that you have people from the unincorporated areas using the park itself. So the community neighborhood parks aren't counted. Neighborhood parks aren't counted, period. Community parks only with an interlocal agreement that shows some relationship between the county and the municipality would that be counted in the AUIR. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Anyway, are there other questions here? Anybody on the productivity committee? Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: Yes. I wanted to ask on page 77, regional parkland acres, 2.9 acres per thousand population. Am I correct here it says a deficiency up until the year 2012? And at that point you would acquire 629 acres through a South Florida Water Management commitment, A TV park? MR. WILLIAMS: That is correct. In the 625 acres, the ATV park, again, that's -- that's in negotiation with South Florida Water Management. We're anticipating -- there are a couple of properties that have been discussed about the A TV park, most notably a 625-acre parcel near Lake Trafford. There's some environmental issues with that property. As you know, the dredging from Lake Trafford is going onto that property. So there's some things that have to occur before that property could even be considered for us to do the things to mold it to be a park. So we're looking at the end of the five-year window of that being a possibility. So we would be in a deficit up until that point. MR. FEE: And we would have some kind of interlocal agreement with SFWMD at that point? MR. WILLIAMS: That would be -- the ownership of that property would be transferred to the County and operated as an A TV Page 128 October 22, 2008 park. MR. FEE: And my last question is: Can we actually run a deficit and still approve the AUIR? MR. WILLIAMS: I would defer to comprehensive planning for that. MR. COHEN: The answer to your question is yes. For example, with the regional park, obviously it's based on so many acres per thousand people. You wouldn't -- you're going to run a deficit because you're not going to just go out and build a new regional park when you just go over that one figure, you know, that allows you to make sure that you have at least one. You reach a certain point in time where it's necessary to go on out and find other regional parkland. It's kind of like you wouldn't, you know, build a parking lot to accommodate your Christmas crowds at a mall. You're going to build smaller. This is a matter of timing more than anything. And usually what ends up happening is you have growth of population in a certain area and the demand grows as such and you go ahead and you build that regional park. You're going to obviously trip the need for community parks a lot sooner than you are going to do for regional parks. MR. FEE: This A TV park has been on the table for quite a few years and you've not been able to solidify that. What makes you convinced that we will? And if we did not, is there something else in the future that would replace and bring us into compliance? Is there other parkland that -- MR. WILLIAMS: There are some projects that are out there. The Vanderbilt Beach Extension, there's a -- Big Cypress DR! is in the works. And there's some potential there for additional parkland. So there are some other opportunities that exist in the future if that didn't come to be. MR. FEE: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Harrison. Page 129 October 22, 2008 MR. HARRISON: As I recall, in our review last year we talked about the efficacy of this 1.2 and 2.9 acres per thousand and asked numerous questions about what is the capacity of our parks and what is the utilization of our parks in operational terms. I'm glad to see they've inserted now between pages 85 and 95 some operational data. But maybe you could give us the highlights of that. I do notice that, for example, maybe we no longer have a boat ramp problem. But boat ramp usage seems to be down. And ifI'm reading it right, so is beach use down. I mean, we're talking about land here as if this is the key to providing recreational opportunities. But the operational data suggests that, you know, maybe we're not using it today as much as we did a year or two ago. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be happy to provide the highlights, if that's the panel's wish. I can tell you there are a couple of things that have our attention, the beach data in particular. The numbers and what we are providing -- we're actually doing an audit of our numbers and how we've calculated them. That concerned us a great deal and the beach in particular. We've had some internal discussions about that. The 2005/2006 years were kind of peak years. A lot of people down. But the decrease that we're seeing just doesn't jive with some of the other information that we have. In particular TDC funding fairly -- being fairly high or increased from previous years. So we got some head scratching on that particular item. And I just wanted to make that point. So we do want to audit that number and make sure that we've done due diligence in collecting that data. The boat ramp, the launches, we do feel that that seems to be consistent with the trend. The high cost of gasoline, fuel in particular. Anecdotally, we've seen the decrease in the number of people that are using the boat ramps. We don't see as many people on the water. So that -- that number has a good feel for it. Page 130 October 22, 2008 I do want to mention a couple of others, if I may. And certainly if you have questions about the data, anything that you see, I'm happy t provide it. The Sun and Fun Lagoon is certainly an area that we're looking at and looking at what attendance patterns we might see at that particular facility. If you're familiar with the Sun and Fun, it opened in 2006. The first year, which was a partial year that we were open, we had about 105,000 visitors. The next year where we were open a full fiscal year, we're at about 175,000. We're anticipating -- and we don't have that included in your numbers, but we're looking at about 165,000 this past year. So we're seeing a pattern of use of that facility, which is important for us to know. And as you're aware, the Sun and Fun Lagoon, in terms of the expense to revenue, what we have seen over the last two and a half years of operation, the first full year of operating we pretty much came close to break even. We were right, I think, $85,000 less than what our expense was. And our goal with that facility is for it to be as close to break even as possible. So we've been successful with that. And with the trends that we're seeing, in particular with the attendance, you know, it helps us in our planning for future budget years. The last thing I would mention to you about -- in the operations data is that we do and have begun tracking field use data. And there are a couple of incomplete charts that we have in there. We had some changes in how we were collecting data. And we see that this operational data will become more consistent in how we're collecting it. I will tell you I attended a conference, I guess, last year for best practices regarding field utilization. And we all had a good laugh at the best practice being 1,000 hours per field. That's just not very practical for us. Page 131 October 22, 2008 And you can see by some of the data that many of our fields are overused. So it's a constant battle between us of maintaining the fields, and the importance of that. You know, the money that you spend to maintain a field -- and you've heard Nick talk about roadways. Athletic fields have the same consideration for maintenance costs. So we're constantly balancing the need for the community to use the fields with the maintenance costs associated with it. But, again, if there are other questions that you might have about the operational data, certainly I'd be happy to answer them. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: I'm glad you brought that up. Because as I recall from last year, the only area of constraint that we seem to have in the entire budget was the utilization of baseball and soccer fields. That's the only place where the demand seems to exceed supply; is that correct? MR. WILLIAMS: I would agree with that statement. There are pockets where we don't have that issue, but, in general, I would agree with that. MR. HARRISON: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And what are we doing to solve that? MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that question. I think probably the most innovative thing that we're able to do is we work very closely with the School Board. And the School Board, as they develop new facilities, they also have the need for green space and -- open green space. We work with them very closely to design facilities that they're building that lend themselves for public use. And we had a number of those examples this past year that we've added acreage. Palmetto Elementary, as well as Eden Elementary in Immokalee. We have interlocal agreements with the School Board where the school uses the property during the day for their use and then it Page 132 October 22, 2008 becomes available in the evening and weekends for the public use. So that's been a very good arrangement for us. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have one. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Actually, I just have a couple more questions and then -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Go ahead. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: If you go to page 77. I just had a couple of things. First is a comment on, number one, the Freedom Park. Because this is one where we got two for one because we're getting water quality and we're getting a good park out of it. So that's turned out to be a very good thing. I guess we've beat the A TV park to death. So the Pepper Ranch. I thought that was a Conservation Collier thing and not a parks and rec, but I'm -- MR. WILLIAMS: We have talked to Conservation Collier. And, of course, Pepper Ranch is still up for consideration. It's not a done deal. But we've been in conversation with Conservation Collier about offering some recreational use on the property, much in the way of trails, pathways, that type of thing. And the idea is that parks and rec would maintain those trail-ways. And so that could be counted as part of our inventory. So that's our thinking with that. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: What's the interagency partnership Isles of Capri? MR. WILLIAMS: If! could, may I ask Ms. Ramsey to talk to that? That may be one that I think she could better explain, so -- MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, public services administrator. If you're familiar with the corner of 951 and the road going down to Isle of Capri, there's about a 9-acre parcel there that the Rookery Bay has been working to try and secure funds to put in a boardwalk, canoe/kayak launch area. And we've been in conversations Page 133 October 22, 2008 off and on for a number years about utilizing that for the public good and partnering with them to make that happen. They have a money whoa, we have a money whoa. So we've pushed it out a little bit farther into the plan. But it's about 9 acres that could be used for kayaking and canoeing. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a question. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Barry, you tickled my fancy with something there. You were saying that -- and I'm not clear, so you have to tell me. If the Pepper Ranch would be acquired through the Conservation Collier, yet you would count it in your inventory. Is that -- how does that work? MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah. Let me ask Ms. Ramsey about that, too. MS. RAMSEY: Again, Marla Ramsey. In talking with Alex Sulecki with the Conservation Collier and one of the -- there's a couple of areas of interest in that particular project to do some outside of the box kind of recreational elements, things like camping, places to stage that, interpretive area. And so there's a section right up against the lake that has the homestead on it, which is cleared and has a house or a couple of houses and whatnot. And the thought was that you would use that as a trailhead, interpretive area, et cetera. And that way you would then do all your parking, all your impact into that particular area. That's about 50 acres in there that could be utilized for recreational purposes. And at some point in time, then -- if funds become available, we would probably do some kind of transfer of funding at some point. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Funding, not ownership? MS. RAMSEY: Well, it's owned by Collier County. And if we do the funding, it would become a parks and rec facility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. I'm not going to Page 134 October 22, 2008 try to tear it apart in any way, but I just want to understand. You're keeping it on your records and they're keeping it on their records, but obviously you like size, that's why I said, you know, ownership. MS. RAMSEY: And, again, you know, that's out so far yet that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's not meaningful? MS. RAMSEY: It's still in the planning stages, let's put it that way. But we think it's viable to provide some kind of trailhead at that location with some kind of recreational, whether it's camping or group camping or tent camping or whatever it might be at that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I like that because that would be the feed the alligators program right over there. MS. RAMSEY: Well, it has direct access to the lake as well from the north side. And we have a small segment down where Ann Olesky Park is that you can get a boat ramp into, but this would also come up against it on the north side of the lake itself. So it has some viability for recreational purposes. There's also -- you know, we work with Conservation Collier to help with their trails in some of the other locations that they have. So sometimes we trade our services for some inventory elements too. So there's a number of different ways. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. I guess what I was trying to understand is whether or not you were going to come up with some money, whether they were going to acquire it and you were going to be -- act as though you were a lessee or -- I realize it's all Collier County, but everybody has separate books. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was trying to figure out where that was going to be in the capital and how that was going to work. And that's interesting. MS. RAMSEY: It could be -- it could go three different ways probably depending -- when we work forward as far as part of their management plan. You know, who would be responsible for Page 135 October 22, 2008 management. There might be some kind of opportunity there, as well. So it's not -- it's not a for-sure yet and I don't have any cash to do that. There is no cash for me to help her to acquire it at this point in time, so it would have to be futuristic. And as you see in the inventory, it's out quite some time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Wish list. MS. RAMSEY: Wish list. Well, wish list that I think could happen, okay, not just, you know, pie in the sky. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Because it's my first time, and forgive me, you've probably covered this before. It looks like your measurement of what you need for parks is based on per acre per thousand per population. And you don't break it down per component, but you used to, right? It used to be broken down for each facility and now you don't measure it that way? MR. WILLIAMS: No. It's always been per acre. 1,000 per acre. And that's the accepted standard for parks. MS. DOWNS: What's confusing for me is why you're not taking out the need from private communities who have bocce ball and swimming pools and -- and I suspect you've covered this before. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Several times. MS. DOWNS: Well, I said bear with me. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Not at all. MS. DOWNS: Why are they not -- if you're using a population count, why can't you have a weighted number to the population of people who live in private communities that have their own facilities? I'm not saying leave them out of the population count. But instead of one, maybe they count as .85. MS. RAMSEY: Let me help, first of all, with your first question. Your first question was: Do we designate by facility? Page 136 October 22, 2008 We have never done that. We've always done it by cost of so much per person, per population. So I think it was $240 of facility worth, never by independent, you know, ball field, et cetera. We've never done it as that element. It's been one big pot of money. These are the facilities. This is what they're worth per population. And then we divide that out and it comes out to like $240 per. So that wasn't getting us anywhere because in 2005, as you know, the prices of construction went out of the roof. And so I was getting, you know, a 5,000 square foot building for what we would normally have gotten a 10,000 square foot building. So the nexus to what was the benefit to the public just wasn't there. And no one else was doing it in the State. What we have now is a guideline. And let me talk a little bit about what is inside a PUD. The only thing inside a PUD recreationally, for the most part, is a clubhouse with a pool. They don't have ball fields. They don't have, you know, athletic facilities. They might have a basketball court. Usually not. So the facilities that we provide and count in our inventory as guidelines that go into our community and regional parks are larger in nature. Athletic fields, beaches, boat ramps, et cetera. So what we're finding is you could count those in some convoluted way. You know, there's 389 PUDs out there. And to try and capture all that information is daunting in and of itself. But most of them don't even have playgrounds for their children. So it's not really the same types of facilities that we are currently providing. And I'll give you an example in the guideline. Tennis courts. We might have one tennis court per 10,000 or whatever it comes out to be. If! add the tennis courts into my inventory, then my level of service, as it stands today, might be 1 to 4,000. Did that change my level of service? I'm only going to bid tennis courts when I have a Page 13 7 October 22, 2008 delta or a waiting list or a need in the community. I don't just build a tennis court because it says I put 10,000 people into my community I now need a tennis court. Same with shuffleboard or bocce ball. Things change, trends change. We don't build anymore shuffleboard. I haven't in the ten years I've been here. But we've been building bocce ball courts because that's the new trend. And so we look at it a little bit differently than just that there's that many people in there and all of their recreational needs are being accomplished inside that facility. And we don't believe that's true. MS. DOWNS: So you're not purchasing the land for tennis courts. Let's stick with that one component. MS. RAMSEY: Maybe not. See, North Collier Regional Park doesn't have any tennis courts in it at all. We didn't build any there. Manatee, which is on the books, has got, I think, four planned. Two to be built in the first phase, two more to come on later. Eagle Lakes was not built with tennis courts, but was brought on when the need arised, which we just accomplished about last year. So, you know, in a 60-acre facility we might have two or four tennis courts. MS. DOWNS: I'm not happy. I'm usually happy. It seems like it's a much more daunting number to break it down into each facility. But when you have -- just looking at this chart that you've provided, you have almost 600 hard surface you're calling them, bocce ball courts, swimming, whatever, tennis courts, recreational facilities, you have four or five times as many in the private sector as you do in the public sector. So it amazes me that that's not counted, taken away from the future needs of the County. And more and more communities are being built with more and more facilities within their communities. MS. RAMSEY: It's just the opposite of what you just said. We definitely have taken it into consideration. That's why we're not Page 138 October 22, 2008 building them. MS. DOWNS: So you've changed your need per thousand population? MS. RAMSEY: No. We don't -- these are guidelines. We use these as guidelines. We use them to say, okay, in this area there's about this many people. But we're not going to put cookie-cutter facilities out into the ground that says that every community park is going to have four tennis courts because it serves, you know, that many population. We look at the area that we are in and make a determination of what the needs are based upon what we see around the area. And if we have a neighborhood park or a community park or a regional park close by, then we look at the usage of that particular facility. In this case, let's look at East Naples. It has eight tennis courts. It was built back in the '80s -- late '80s. It's got eight tennis courts. But when we put on Eagle Lakes, we only planned to put on two. And we didn't put them on until two years ago because we didn't have the need because the community was either being serviced by their own gated community or they were being serviced by East Naples. So we didn't put the courts on. We don't look at these as set. You know, that I will have -- for every 10,000 people I will put in a tennis court whether I need it or not. These are guidelines. We use them to help us. This is one set of factors. There's a use factor. There's the calls that we get in. And Isle of Capri is an example of why there is now a court at Eagle Lakes Community Park because they were saying the closest ones are down on Marco Island and they are kind of private and we can't get on them. We would like to have a tennis court closer to us. We have worked with the Manatee Middle School to allow access after hours there, even though we don't have an agreement with that particular school, to allow them to play tennis there until we could Page 139 October 22, 2008 get the facility up at Eagle Lakes. So that Eagle Lakes tennis court came on about because the community said, I would like something closer to my home. MS. DOWNS: So you're not building the tennis court, but are you buying the land that -- are you decreasing the amount of land needed because you don't need that swimming pool or tennis court or whatever? You're buying the same amount of land per population -- MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. MS. DOWNS: -- regardless of what facility you put on it? MS. RAMSEY: We take the land within the population and we make a determination of what that community wants. And another prime example of that -- let's use Manatee Community Park. It's 60 acres, doesn't have a ball field on it because the community wants something different down there. And so they're getting a very passive park with some tennis courts and maybe a little pitching mound, a community building, a fitness center. And that's what that community that surrounds that area says that they want their park to be. And so we look at the guidelines, we say, hey, we ought to be having these things. They say, well, we don't want them here. We want these things instead. So we come to an agreement. This is what this park will look like based upon community input and the number of meetings that we've had with the people that are adjacent to it. MS. DOWNS: Okay. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Just to point out that it looks like there's very little purchasing ofland involved. We already have quite an inventory. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We do. MR. HARRISON: But I also recall that in this same venue last year we talked extensively about including not only the October 22, 2008 Delnor- Wiggins, but any Federal and State parks to which we have access to. And yet here we sit with the same measure on the question of facilities inside gated communities. We said, well, gosh, that could reduce the impact fee. Well, if I recall correctly last week the productivity committee has asked that no increases be considered by the commissioners on impact fees. I think it would be great to have one that went down. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I think -- just to make a comment. I think Mr. Williams said that, "A", he will go back and find out why he's being told we can't include State and Federal parks. Yet we know other communities are doing so. Because it was very clear last year that everybody in this room wanted to be able to include those in our inventory. Secondly, they apparently are also doing an analysis of their impact fee and their unit costs. So that apparently is happening now. And if you all will give us a date, maybe it'll help. MS. RAMSEY: I believe I heard her say about 45 days when I first came in. I think I heard something like that before that impact fee study would be completed. And the first one that you had -- I believe we got a letter that said that we couldn't do the inventory. So, Randy, is that correct or Michael? MR. BOSI: There's no letter, a specific conversation with DCA. If it's a State or Federal owned property, we can't include that in our inventory because that's not provided by the taxpayer base of Collier County, which is charged impact fees, which is directly related to why they can't be included within our inventory. Now, once again, this has come out of staff for the past two years. You can recognize the existence of Federal, State and neighborhood and privately provided recreational facilities and make the necessary adjustment upon your level of service. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Page 141 October 22, 2008 MR. BOSI: That's the statement staff has provided for the past two years. You can't -- you can't include it in your inventory because you can't charge people impact fees for something that you don't own. But you can recognize it and you can lower your level of service based upon that recognition. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, we had asked that definitely the records be kept. Because when we first started the discussion we didn't even have an inventory. We didn't have a clue. So they obviously have gone back and attempted to do this. And that's a good thing. We need to keep it up to date because we need to know where we stand on these things. As a basis for using it to lower our impact fees, I think that chomping at the bit to my right is Mr. Vigliotti, who is dying to make a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We're looking to make a -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: No. I just want to make sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. I wouldn't make a motion, just a recommendation. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I just want to make sure that everybody has spoken first before we go to that. Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: I know we're here to discuss the AUIR, but impact fees -- Ms. Ramsey, currently the impact fees that are collected in the parks area, are they sufficient for -- you talked about the cost of building these facilities. Have you been able to meet your level of service and acquisition and construction with the current impact fees that you have? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, I have. MR. FEE: And there's been no County general fund money that has come into that? MS. RAMSEY: Not on new construction. Only on repair/replace. MR. FEE: Okay. So if we change the formula on the land and the Page 142 October 22, 2008 level of service, you might have a concern as to the impact fees not covering your costs? MS. RAMSEY: I think that the Board will make a determination when they see the study, you know, whether we move forward and we're buying more beach lands or whatnot. That's very, very expensive, as is boat facilities. And we do have a boat facility coming up on the agenda on the 18th, I think, of November. So we still are buying lands with water access. And so, yes, we would need to be able to -- if we're going to continue to do that we need to have impact fees that are going to be able to allow us to continue to provide that service to our community. If we decide we're not going to buy beach and boat ramp facilities anymore, then you most definitely could probably lower the impact fees. And that's the decision that the Board can make once they see that. It is based upon priority. And one of the top five priorities that the Board has currently is beach and water access to the public. And I think the impact fees reflect that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Gina, you know, you asked the question about the level of service based on type of recreation. That used to be -- and Mike's right. In June of last year the Commissioners got rid of that. And I think maybe one reason is because that is a way that you could actually ask for impact fee reductions. Because if you are building a hard court, you could say, well, our population is not going to need a hard court. But now it's purely acreage and purely, you know, money per person to be used as seen fit. So I think it's going to be kind of difficult to get an impact fee credit for within PUD recreation. That's it. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Now, Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd just like to bring back up the Page 143 October 22, 2008 fact that I'd like to bring a recommendation before everybody and see where we go with it. That they do actually look into neighborhood parks and we -- if need be, change the level of service. And if we change the level of service, there could be a reduction in fees, correct? Could we reallocate those fees somewhere else? For instance, reduce impact fees in certain areas of construction and development. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, again, for the record. Regarding the level of service, a reduction of the level of service would trigger the requirement to relook at the impact fee calculations. It's not a guarantee that the fees will definitely go down. I mean, it's a holistic look at the entire study, all the costs, all the credits and everything else. It's all the components of the impact fee study. But certainly you could make the assumption that a lowering of the level of service could cause the lowering of the impact fees. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And if it does, can we reallocate the fees? For instance, give some reductions on commercial development to help create jobs in this County. MS. PATTERSON: Well, parks and recreation impact fees aren't charged against any commercial construction, except for hotels and motels. So relief on the park side is only going to help residential construction. It will not help commercial construction. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But they can be a credit towards that or a reduction towards that? MS. PATTERSON: No, no. The trust funds are all segregated. So a reduction to parks is strictly a reduction to parks. It wouldn't offset a reduction to anything else. . COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think this discussion about parks, if that's what you call them within private communities, is going to falsely -- it's going to give us some false readings I think. Because as it was stated, these facilities inside PUDs are not what we Page 144 October 22, 2008 look at. I mean, they're golf courses. They're clubhouses. They're -- you know, I think there's more parking lot in the private community than there are facilities in our parks. So, I mean, it's just going to give a false figure and I think ultimately it's going to hurt the financial view. I think it's going to backfire on us if we go that route. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Marla, I guess, or somebody, we have a price per acre. Does that have to be used towards purchase or is that a budget that we can use for purchase? MS. RAMSEY: You mean this pricing here; the price sitting here? The price in here means nothing to us. As far as I'm concerned, it is a placeholder because someone told me I had to put a value on a piece of property. I don't use that for anything that I do on a day-to-day basis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question is: In other words, you could buy something for less than that -- MS. RAMSEY: Most definitely. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- then use the balance of the money, which would be put in by impact fees for facilities on that acreage? MS. RAMSEY: We look at this as a shot in time, but that dollar amount doesn't have anything to do with my level of service. It's only the acres that I go by. And so if I'm able to get a developer contribution for lands, that just saved me whatever that land was worth. Not $230,000. I know it's confusing, but -- but we see that as a placeholder. I could change that to 100,000 or 50,000 or a million and it really doesn't make a lot of difference to what we do on a day-to-day basis. It's needed because he has to submit a number up to the State and the CIE that says this is what we're planning to purchase. But if I can get the land for $55,000 or a donation, then I'm going after that. Page 145 October 22, 2008 So it balances based -- I have to put a number in there because I have to show that I can balance it. It can be any number you want it to be, but right now the impact fee studies says that's just the average so we stick it in there. Some of the lands I buy are higher, some are a lot lower. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it washes because one -- you use the number for inventory, you use the number for future purchases. The 270, is that something that's in the CIE? 270 facility per capita? MS. RAMSEY: That's the -- that was the impact fee number indexed. And are you using that in the CIE? MR. BOSI: I think you're referring to the old -- our old category "A" facility, which was facility's value. The old facility's value was $270 per capita. That's no longer -- it's no longer a measure that's utilized by this County. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even though it's in your table one, you know. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, that was provided -- that was portions -- that was a portion of the study that went to the Board of County Commissioners that led to the -- to the revision. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So as far as we're concerned, the only thing we should look at is 1.2 for community and 2.9 for regional acres per thousand? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. I just look at acres per thousand and then I go out and find the best deal that I can, irregardless of what the State statement is in this particular element. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Do we have any more questions? Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: I've got one more question. On page 81 there's a map that has a legend. It has neighborhood parks, regional parks, community parks and undeveloped parks. And then you have school site. Page 146 October 22, 2008 My question is: I know what regional parks are. And that's in this 2.9 acres thousand population. But you also have community park requirements which says 1.2 acres per thousand population. Does that include your neighborhood parks, as well as your school sites? MS. RAMSEY: No, it doesn't. And neighborhood parks are not part of my inventory, as far as it goes to level of service. There are -- in order to have a great park system you need to have little pockets of parks that people can walk to. But our community didn't do that numerous years ago. And so the only ones that are really putting in pocket parks and green space for their communities are those new planned unit developments. But a lot of them used golf courses as that particular element, not necessarily pocket parks. So if I put that into my inventory, then I have to put a master plan up against it that says that I'm going to provide neighborhood parks to the whole community every half mile or something to that level of service or, you know -- and when you get out into the Estates, that's not practical. They already have five or two and a half acre parcels. So they have their own park in their backyard, as far as neighborhood parks go, which is, you know, where you would walk to and recreate. They just walk out their back door. So we don't count neighborhood parks as part of our level of service standard. We recognize it as something that we want our community to have because it's a better quality of life for our people, for our kids, but not necessarily something that we want to hold ourselves to because it's almost an impossible task. MR. FEE: Are the neighborhood parks -- they probably don't amount to that much, in terms of acreage? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I think our neighborhood parks average probably anywhere from a half an acre to maybe -- I think we have one that's four acres. Page 147 October 22, 2008 MR. FEE: And if you included it, it wouldn't probably change much the calculations? MS. RAMSEY: Probably not. But, again, in add the neighborhood park, then I've set myself up for another standard that I might not be able to make. I'd have to put a level of service up against it. How many acres per thousand would I be providing? Because it's a separate category. It's not a community park. It's not -- the definition of community park is drive to larger community facilities where you have larger functions. A neighborhood park is a walk to, doesn't necessarily even have a parking lot associated with it. And most times it's a playground, green space, maybe a tennis court or a basketball court, depending on what the community wanted. Our newest one that we're opening up is off of Oakes Boulevard. And it's a 5-acre parcel, but four and a half acres is wetland and a half an acre is basically a playground, benches, pathways, et cetera. That land was donated to us by the Golden Gate Land Trust. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We have begun, as the Planning Commission, to attempt to excise any commitment that was intended in PUDs for neighborhood parks, unless a credit is being given. And I will say that and then I'll say this. We'd be hard put to benchmark service to the community utilizing neighborhood parks, trying to figure out how they would, in fact, serve the community because many of them are unavailable to the community. And some of them have no facility to serve the community. So in my mind I adjust to this by thinking, you're dealing with a big pot. And you have all these ingredients and the neighborhood parks are like pepper that you add to it. That's how I manage to get it through my mind because otherwise it gets very convoluted, very difficult. Page 148 October 22, 2008 And it -- the only thing that it does generate for the mind is that -- you'll forgive me for this. Quote, unquote, "Are they trying to put something over on us," which is not what you're doing. But it is very damning. It's difficult at the least to try to figure out what all of this represents. I wish we'd take the neighborhood parks and just take them and put them as a footnote. Maybe that would solve the problem that we have here. Because we'll never be able to deal with this effectively. My statement. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Productivity committee, do you want to make a recommendation? MR. BA YTOS: Motion. Well, is there some discussion about they're going to look at something and come back to us about the State and -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Recommendation. Where are we on the recommendation? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I think that -- in point of fact, they are coming back with something in 45 days is what I'm hearing. Is that correct? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And will it address -- so that we don't run into this again, will it address all the issues that we have had, including why we're not using the -- like Delnor- Wiggins State Park? I mean, are we going to be able to have a comparison that shows us what happens if we use that as part of reducing our level of service? What would happen if we included that and what would it look like? I mean, you're going to have to give us something to go by. MS. PATTERSON: The impact fee study will not include Delnor- Wiggins or any of the parks within communities. It can't because we don't own them and, therefore, they cannot be part of the Page 149 October 22,2008 impact fee calculation. Same as the parks owned by the cities. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: But we can use them for lowering the level of service. MS. PATTERSON: And that would be-- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: That's what they're telling us. MS. PATTERSON: What you're going to accomplish with the impact fee study is it's going to address the cost per acre and the cost of providing parks per population. And whatever that number is, be it higher or the same or lower, will then be taken to the Board for their consideration and their review of the data. And then they will make the appropriate either adoption or adjustment to the impact fees. But whether they choose to adopt a higher impact fee or a lower impact fee then becomes a policy decision of the Board. Now, as far as the level of service, that's a different issue. There will be a level of service set forward in the impact fees. That's the chief level of service. That's what the impact fee study will set up. It's still a policy decision of the Board where they go, as far as their level of service for the AUIR. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Do these Boards want to recommend that some of these other items be included in order to lower the level of services? MR. HARRISON: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does that mean? I don't know. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, for example, if we are able to use Delnor- Wiggins State Park, for example -- I mean, the beach doesn't get any better than that. It is probably our primary area where people go to the beach. Yet, we're not able to count that acreage toward our level of service because it's owned by the State. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And because of that we actually create more parks for our citizens. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: We do. We create more. Page 150 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the problem? I'm missing here. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: There are those who feel that we have an abundance and we don't need additional parks. Or at least -- or at least it should be redirected in another place. It should go to ballparks as opposed to beach. MR. FEE: Statute. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I'm not sure. I think Marla has been taking care of that on their own. They've been -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the only way you could get to a little problem is maybe we could knock down some impact fees because we could prove to everybody we have an overabundance of parks. But I don't think -- is the impact fee that great, you know, for parks? I mean, if I'm building a -- you know, the table, are the impact fees for recreation a major part of that? MS. RAMSEY: We collect it in two areas. We collect it in regional parks and we collect it in community parks. And the regional parks one is higher because we have, as I stated earlier, been looking at trying to provide additional beach access with facilities and we've been trying to buy additional and expand additional boat ramps. The question comes into -- let's just use Delnor- Wiggins State Park as an example. Let's say that you want to put it into your level of service, but I can't count it in my inventory for land when I go to the CIE, correct? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Correct. MS. RAMSEY: So you can lower the level of service, but where's the growth happening? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, also that park fills up really quick. So, you know, is it -- you know, there's not that much access to it, in terms of parking. MS. RAMSEY: Well, the question comes in, all of the growth is Page 151 October 22, 2008 happening on the other side of 951 at the moment. And the level of service that we've been providing recently has been really toward athletics and to child care, after-school care and programming and that element of it. And, you know, our urban area is about done, as far as where we're putting facilities. And so we're looking at the 951. And part of that was east of 951 or Horizon Study that we've looked at. And, you know, they expect the same level of services they've been paying for for the last few years as they've been building their homes. So you lower the level of service and, yes, the next people come in will pay less, but then will I be able to -- you know, am I providing the same level of service that I promised those homeowners out in that area. And, yeah, we might be able to get that through Big Cypress, but we did not get anything when we did Ave Maria. There is no regional or community aspect. They took care of themselves and themselves only. So what do I do in the Estates and where do I get the lands to do that? And is it better that I provide the parks out on the east side of 951 or have them drive all the way in to the Vineyards or into North Collier in order to use those facilities. Or transportation-wise, should I be having a full-fledged facility out there for them to utilize so they can drive close to their home? So those are just -- it's not just about level of service and dollars and whatnot. There's a lot of things that go into the consideration. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Baytos can give us figures. MR. BA YTOS: The impact fees on combined parts is -- it's community and regional is $3,800 for a 2,000 square foot single-family home. And for a condo that is -- that is -- for a condo it's about $2,700. And from a survey we have from last year of other counties, it appears we have the highest in the state. Lee County has a -- charges a Page 152 October 22,2008 fee of about $1,500 for the home that would compare with our 3,700. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Yeah. But there's a big difference between Lee and Collier County. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one quick question, if I may. It really pertains to -- is there a tripping point on population? In other words, we talk about 1.2 acres per thousand people. Do we have a certain -- there has to be a certain -- there's a calculation up. There has to be a calculation down. The number of people -- as we lose population, would that be an adjustment? Whoever wants to answer that. MR. BA YTOS: Let me clarify that issue about population. It was talked about a little bit for transportation. It's not the people who are paying the impact fees. It's the unit. Now the people are gone. That unit still paid its impact fee. And at some point in time that unit is going to demand -- it will be a demand upon the system. So even if we have a higher vacancy rate, you still have units that are in the ground that have paid their impact fee for their -- for the demand that they're going to place upon that respective service. So all of a sudden if you create an artificial standard based upon the absence of people here, when those units fill up there's going to be a demand -- an increased demand is going to be placed upon each one of these systems. And there's going to be no corresponding impact fees related to that increase in demand. So each unit that has come on contributes to the demands that that unit is going to place upon the system. Now, the issue that we have today is we have a number of units that have been out -- that are out there have paid their contribution and no longer have the people that are placing demands upon the system. So be cautioned, always be -- recognize the point that Nick was so concerned about, meaning having an artificial level of background for your level of service when you've got units out there that have paid Page 153 October 22, 2008 into the system but really aren't contributing yet with the population that they have or not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, you make an excellent point. Maybe that's a basis to change this from -- I presume this to have been population, 1,000. Maybe we should be changing it somehow to units. Because based on your statement right there, it doesn't reflect the realities. Because if you're thinking population, you're not realizing the fact that if we lose population we still have the units. And that the units can be refilled, so to speak, again at a later time. So maybe -- is there any validity to that thought of going to units or would that create additional problems? MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, the units -- we have a persons per household and that relates to how we get the population. So that's how we express it. People understand the population side of it more. But it always relates back to units because unit is the basis point for population. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Let's see, where to start. Okay. The comparisons with other counties, we were the second highest. Miami had a park fee of $6,818. We were second highest with $3,299. That was for a single-family home. What I'm-- MR. BA YTOS: Is that before the adjustments last year? MS. DOWNS: Well, it's from your same thing. Having said that, there are -- I mean, I'm also looking at the whole list of places higher than Collier County. There's almost a $40,000 park fee in California. There's some in Colorado, 13,000; 5,000 in Virginia. But I'm still concerned -- I want the amount of parks and the amount of money we're spending for them to be very pure based on our need. And you keep saying, well, you have these developments with golf courses on them. Well, that's minimal. Most developments Page 154 October 22, 2008 still have swimming pools and tennis courts, at the least. One reason that I'm concerned is I go back to in 2006 the study I did comparing ten like-size counties. And in every area in 2006, according to the LCIR, Legislative Committee on Intergovernment Relations -- in every area Collier County was within the range of normal for the State and not too far off for like-size counties, except in the area of parks and recreation. The State norm was 6.3 percent of expenditures. Now, there may be -- there may be more expenditures than just what's for capital improvements, but there was already a flag raised with me. Expenditures for parks and recs was 10.8 percent of our total expenditure. And the normal for the State was 6.3 percent. We like to compare ourselves. The closest county in population and it's also a coastal county would be Sarasota. Sarasota was right at 6.4 percent. Now, I appreciate Sarasota has a one cent sales tax, so I fully realize that's not completely apples to apples. But four percentages points is a big difference between the two counties. So I'm very bothered by the lack of purity in the figures that I'm hearing. MS. RAMSEY: Clarification on my part. Are you talking about operation budget or are you talking about capital budget? MS. DOWNS: I'd have to go back to the LCIR. I did this two years ago, but it was just called expenditures for the -- I looked at ten counties. And I'm sorry I don't have tighter notes on it from way back then. You remember that presentation. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, but I don't remember if it -- you know, if it had land costs associated with it and the type of lands that we were purchasing at the time and -- MS. DOWNS: No. I don't know. MS. RAMSEY: -- for what year. In 2005 we bought a lot and I'm not sure what the data means. Page 155 October 22, 2008 MS. DOWNS: No, I'm not saying it may have other than capital element in it. But to me we have already -- there was a red flag up that this County was spending more money on parks and rec than what seemed normal. So that -- I've had my radar up ever since. MS. RAMSEY: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: I'm wondering if we're getting some things confused here. The AUIR, doesn't it point to the growth management plan where we have to have 1.2 acres and 2.9 acres? And that's specifically in the growth management plan, right? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. MR. FEE: Does it also state that it must be County owned land needed to -- MS. RAMSEY: Do you want to clarify? MR. COHEN: The conversations that I've had with DCA -- and you brought it up earlier, you know, why don't you include Delnor-Wiggins or other State and Federal lands. We're under County owned and we're not County controlled. They were very explicit about that. I think what's happening in Lee County is they're taking into consideration amenities that exist there with State and Federally owned parks and possibly by what's offered at them maybe having some type of corresponding reduction in their level of service. That's their choice. At the same time, you know, one of the other things that we take into consideration and Ms. Downs has brought up a point about the cost of the land and our impact fee being a little higher. Lee County, for example, you have a lot more public beach access where in this County you don't. And that's one of the major cost factors that goes into the impact fee study. So I think it's probably a real important thing when we move forward with the updating of the impact fee study is to have you really Page 156 October 22, 2008 take a good look at the components that go into it so you can understand how the recreation impact fee is calculated and why the level of service that's existing in the CIE has met the needs of Collier County. And what Ms. Ramsey has emphasized in a lot of instances is that a lot of the facilities that are in demand Countywide are really not set forth in your PUDs. They're the ball fields or the things that -- a lot of those types of developments actually do not want in their communities. They're lighted. They have noise, a lot of things along those lines. So I think it would be a really good part of the impact fee update for you to get an understanding of what's transpiring there. Also, when we move forward with the CIE coming up relatively soon you can include some of that information, as well. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Let's have a motion on parks. First, I guess, we have to put forward a motion on community parklands. MR. FEE: I make a motion to -- MS. DOWNS: You go first. MR. FEE: -- approve the recommendation in the booklet as stands. MR. BA YTOS: Second. All in favor say aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. MR. BAYTOS: Opposed? Page 157 October 22, 2008 (No response.) MR. BA YTOS: I guess it's unanimous. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So everybody is in favor. Okay. Planning Commission, same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm ready. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Make a motion, please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward with a recommendation of approval the community park and land 2008 AUIR as per the summary. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: It's unanimous, as well. I would really appreciate it if some of the issues that were brought up get brought back to us so that we don't have to keep beating this to death every year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This next one -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: That's exactly what it's going to mean. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Your problems seem to be regional problems. So if you do want to put a recommendation in the motion, this would be the one to do it. The one coming up. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Absolutely. Now, for regional parks, productivity committee. MR. BA YTOS: I'd like to hear what you're going to produce. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 158 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion then. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion -- we put a recommendation that they go back and try and maybe add neighborhood parks and maybe see if we can't change the level of service and how that will affect us and at least report back to us on that. MS. RAMSEY: Clarification. You want to add neighborhood parks to my regional parkland? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: No, no, no, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They don't correlate. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I can't put this in there, okay. MS. RAMSEY: I'm just clarifying. Because, you know, those are those half acre things that are walk-to neighborhood parks. Regional parks are beaches, boat ramps. You know, large athletic facilities like North Collier Regional Park, Sugden. Those are the regional parklands that I have in that inventory for you. So I just want to help clarify that element. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can cut the regional parks into small pieces and make it more -- MS. RAMSEY: I will move that land right over there. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So there has been a motion. Go ahead, make a motion, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my motion -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He needs to get a second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And before I do, my motion is going to be to approve it as is. So if anybody wants to make one that doesn't -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'll second your motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I move to forward with a recommendation of approval the 2008 AUIR regional park and land as per the summary form. Page 159 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I second it. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Opposed? (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you opposed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. MR. FEE: I'd make the same motion on this side. We follow the Planning Commission as proposed here. MR. BA YTOS: I'll second. All in favor? MR. BA YTOS: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Opposed? MR. HARRISON: No. MR. BA YTOS: Three to one. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Three to one. What is your vote? MS. DOWNS: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. So it is three to two. MS. DOWNS: No. Three nos. MR. BOSI: Can we clarify? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: That motion wouldn't carry. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: No. There were three of them that Page 160 October 22, 2008 were in favor. MR. BA YTOS: No. Three were no. MR. BOSI: Three were opposed. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. Three were opposed. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: For what reason? MR. HARRISON: Too late. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know, but I'd like to hear the reason. MR. HARRISON: I'll make a separate motion, if I may, that-- MR. SW AJA: Well, we've already voted on it. MR. FEE: Well, you can make another motion. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But the question was: Why did you vote that way? I just want to know why, why the dissension. That's all. MR. HARRISON: My view is we should make a separate parallel calculation to the effect on the service level of including those State and Federal lands and present that concurrent with the standard format review that Ms. Patterson says is going to done in 45 days. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. It think that's what we were trying to do. MR. HARRISON: So that the Commissioners can, you know, see the basis for an adjustment of the service level and the impact fee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you know what, I think that was the same motion we made last time or someone made last time. MR. BAYTOS: We did. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It didn't happen. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Last year, yeah. MR. SW AJA: It's like deja vu all over again. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know. I'm trying to figure out why it doesn't happen. And I'm wondering maybe we're not seeing something. Page 161 October 22, 2008 Is it we're not seeing something or it's not relevant? I mean, why is not action being taken? MR. BA YTOS: Because the State prohibits that action. The State does not allow this locality to include those facilities. We can document the acreage for you and then you can make your adjustment to the level of service, but that's been an action that both advisory boards have not taken ahold of. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Well, I personally feel that by doing it it will be a reduction in service. MR. FEE: And to go along with that, isn't this discussion done at growth management plan changes? That's where you have to submit it to the State and get it approved and then come back and approve your AUIR. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I think that the productivity committee having made that or will have made that recommendation, which is the right organization to make it, can get the attention of the commissioners, who can then initiate that and become a growth management plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because this isn't the right -- I mean, if you really feel we have too many State parks, then you can lower your level of service and use that as your reason. But you can't bring the State parks in as -- count them as your parks. MR. HARRISON: That's why I said as a parallel calculation. MR. KLATZKOW: Does the productivity committee have a motion for the Board? MR. BAYTOS: Yeah, they did. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: They did not. MR. BA YTOS: No. We disapproved the plan. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have an altered motion? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Do you have another motion? MR. BA YTOS: No. MR. COHEN: Just for a clarification point -- you know, Mr. Page 162 October 22, 2008 Klatzkow does raise a very good point. If it is the recommendation of the three dissenters that the reason is the same, that you would like those things to be considered, it would be appropriate to move forward with that. That way we could provide them with a recommendation based on what the rational was. MR. HARRISON: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: It's your time, Mr. Harrison. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're forced into it, aren't you? MR. COHEN: Twisting your arm behind your back. MR. HARRISON: We recommend a parallel calculation be made on the service level that reflects the access to Delnor- Wiggins and any Federal parklands in the County. We recognize this is not part of the inventory, but is simply a point of reference to adjust the service level. MR. BOSI: Are you making a recommendation to the adjustment of service level or are you asking the Board to make an adjustment to the level of service based upon the recognition of Federal and State -- MR. SW AJA: Reflection of reality. Citizens of the County -- MR. HARRISON: I'm asking the Board to make an adjustment. MR. BOSI: Okay. But you're not going to provide them any guidance upon what recommendation they should do with that? MR. COHEN: You are just recommending that the Board consider the impact of State and Federal lands on our existing County parklands, correct? MR. HARRISON: That's right. MR. COHEN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And, Steve, that would include not just the Delnor- Wiggins, but Seminole, any State Park? MR. SW AJA: State and Federal. MR. HARRISON: The next meeting they're talking about Port of the Islands, picking up that marina. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no. I understand. I wanted it to be all-inclusive. And the recommendation, as I understood it, was Page 163 October 22, 2008 take a calculation that would be proffered to the County Commissioners. You're not picking me up? MR. HARRISON: My recommendation was to do it in the next 45 days. So as the impact fee is updated and presented for their review, they can see what it says. MS. DOWNS: Second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good recommendation. MR. BA YTOS: All in favor say aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. SW AJA: Aye. MR. BAYTOS: Opposed? MR. FEE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So that's four to one? MR. BA YTOS: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Four to one. Now, we're going to take a break for ten minutes because the poor court reporter is probably going insane. Thank you. (A recess was held from 2:36 p.m. until 2:46 p.m.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Next up is County jails. MR. BA YTOS: I hope he doesn't recognize me. CHIEF SALLE: For the record, my name is Scott Salle with the Collier County Sheriffs Office. I serve as chief of corrections and judicial services. I know several of you on a familiar basis and a friendly basis, not on an intake basis, so you're free to go. MR. BA YTOS: Thanks, Scott. CHIEF SALLE: But to talk about the jails, some of the things-- the significant changes that have occurred. One, if you look at the jail population or the management of the jail inmate population has Page 164 October 22, 2008 decreased, which was a surprise to all of us. Probably that's related to two things. One is the economics, but probably more importantly is a program called CATF or Criminal Alien Task Force. And CATF, in may use that acronym, we are identifying and processing illegal aliens who have committed crimes in Collier County. And we are going through the process of transferring those individuals from our jail to Federal facilities and/or other jails. And to give you a snapshot, we always talk about snapshots in jail, so I apologize. Is there a question? Oh, you had a moment. I'm sorry. Basically during the last 12 months, we'll look at our fiscal year, we just did a quick count and we transferred 594 individuals to other facilities. And if you just take a quick direct dollar synopsis of those individuals, our average length of stay in our jail is between 20 and 21 days. Let's use 20 days. State average is around 40, 41 days. Times $92 a day for the incarceration fee. That's a little bit over a million dollars, $1,086,000, I believe. And that's just direct cost. That doesn't include someone who has to have medical care or surgery or litigation, something else that we usually encounter in corrections. So we're very pleased with the control, the decrease in our inmate population. And especially at a time where we're looking at the global economICS. Next year though probably will not have a picture to paint as cheery as this one. We're looking at mental illness. We're seeing an increase. Whether or not it's based on economics, people losing their job, whatever it may be, our medical wing is being utilized to full capacity. The assets that we have in our community -- and actually there's only two, the David Lawrence Center and the Naples jail. And that covers everything from the Marchman Act or the Baker Act. We try to use DLC, but sometimes we have to hold them and that does cause problems. Page 165 October 22, 2008 And jails were not really built, nor were we trained, to be mental health counselors, but we are flexible. Weare adapting. And we do have a mental health contractor/provider 24/7 and we are going through the training. At this time we have several of our deputies going through CIT training. And that is to learn how to deal with the mentally ill on the street, as well as in the jail. So we're pleased with that. But if you have any questions. I just gave you a quick snapshot of where we're going, some of the things -- the innovative ideas that we have infused during the last year. I tried to cover those. But this valuable time, do you have any questions according to your documents? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Question. Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sir, is this -- I didn't find much in here on operations. In other words, obviously you feed people, you house them in beds. Everything is about beds or units. Do you have any way to offset some of these costs? For instance, sometimes you see the weekend warriors, the people out there -- CHIEF SALLE: Weekend warriors. That's good. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHIEF SALLE: In may,.one of the programs we have -- and Skip Camp will probably address this later on -- is that we are reinstituting and revisiting the jail farm. Weare hoping to offset our costs by using inmates -- low-risk inmates that qualify and meet the criteria. They're not the hardcore ones. They go through our classification system. And instead of those individuals vegetating, we are planning to have a jail farm where we can raise basic crops that we can infuse into our kitchen. That's one. Other things are we are working with the County with animal control/animal services. Weare there every morning cleaning out the kennels and so forth. That does a couple of things. Page 166 October 22, 2008 One, inmates do not vegetate. Number two, it's a cost savings. Number three, and probably very important to us as staff, is that with inmates -- with those individuals who are incarcerated, many of them need something that is meaningful in life. This is not meaningful. We know that whether growing crops or working with animals what that does to help them as an avenue to begin our reentry work and sponsorship. So we're very pleased with that. The Sheriff -- Sheriff Don Hunter has rolled the dice with it and with our suggestions and we're progressing quite well, especially during the last year, two years. We have, as I said, have implemented some dynamic programs and they are cost savings. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's good. That's exactly the direction that I was going with utilizing them for County services. That's it. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the summary that you presented here, it shows a deficiency of beds. But you seem not to be concerned about it because you want to see how this program works -- this ICE program is working out? CHIEF SALLE: Yes. Now, the ICE program -- again, November 4th everything could change with new leadership in Washington, D.C. And that will cascade down to other ICE and Department of Homeland Services. Our 287(g), the way we see it today, could be altered or it could even disappear, as a worst case scenario. Ifwe do lose our 287(g), our partnership with ICE, we would-- our inmate population would go overnight. And they would be back on that upper trend. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what would happen then is that's -- obviously November you get comfortable with the regulatory status, Mike, would we then go back in and look at our level of service based on this program? Otherwise we're going to send up a $10 million deficit. Page 167 October 22, 2008 MR. BOSI: I mean, based upon what happens on November 4th, we're not going to go back and look at our level of service here. It would be next year. If we saw that there was significant changes within funding to that program that has helped the Sheriffs Department move individuals from the local institution -- penitentiary institution to the State and the Federal programs and that was having a negative -- that was having an impact upon our daily jail population, then we would have to look at our level of service standard and we would have to probably look with a heck of a lot more critical eye on where we were going to get the money to build the next band-aid to the system, which is the 64-bed expansion. But then also the next major solution, which is where that new jail facility is going to be needed, which we've pushed off -- which we've pushed out beyond this ten-year period. So we wouldn't -- it wouldn't be an immediate reaction, but it would be a reaction that would be felt by the Sheriffs Department over the course of the year. They would provide the -- what that has manifested to us within the numbers and then the advisory board and the Board of County Commissioners would take the appropriate action. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: According to these figures, midway through this fiscal year they're going to -- you know, we're not going to have enough beds. They're not excited about -- as the chart alludes -- because this ICE program is working. CHIEF SALLE: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Probably to the point where we could reduce that level. CHIEF SALLE: That's why I said next year it will probably not be a very pleasant presentation. Not like this one. It will take several months for us to feel the ripple effect. MR. BOSI: And I think that's why the original statement. You had mentioned or made a comment that the Sheriffs Department Page 168 October 22, 2008 seemed not as concerned as maybe the numbers would present themselves to you. But if you look at the daily -- the daily average inmate population, they've been able to bring that number down pretty considerable below what the available standard is. But I think, as Chief Bloom has indicated, ifthere's an upset into that apple cart that's allowed the Sheriffs Department to be so effective in moving these prisoners through the system, then we may find ourselves in a much more dire situation than what is presented today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mike, are you uncomfortable sending this report showing a deficit? MR. BOSI: During the seasonal population study in -- in July, the comment from Chairman Strain was he was a little bit incredulous that jails and law enforcement are Category Bs and only a local decision and have nothing to do with the State of Florida, in terms of concurrency management. So this is a local decision real strictly. So it's all local and it's the level that the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners would have in concert with the Sheriff and the incoming Sheriff. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Downs. Oh, I'm sorry. You weren't done. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what would happen if in the middle of the year -- let's say they cut the program and it was a disaster, in your mind. What would happen? Would we all gather again and figure out what to do or -- CHIEF SALLE: There would be an emergency contingency plan, of course. But basically we're looking at other alternatives, too. We have diversion programs. We have everything from mental health court to the juvenile judge -- a lot of different specialized, concierge courts. And so that we're looking at those individual -- we're looking at Page 169 October 22, 2008 weekender lockdown programs. We're looking at infusion of fees and fines that they've paid so they can have this privilege of not spending the entire time in jail and they can go on their off time. So we do have some plans. I did not share that with you. I apologize. But it's not just locking them down and warehousing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the thing you're saying is we need to build a jail real quick. CHIEF SALLE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: From what I'm reading, it's -- the cost per inmate is 60 to $70, in that range. And back to Commissioner Wolfley's suggestion on the jail farms/animal service, it seems like transportation has a huge need for landscape maintenance. Do you have -- do you want to give your inmates the privilege of going out and doing some landscape maintenance? Is that anything you have tried? CHIEF SALLE: No, ma'am. MS. DOWNS: Why? CHIEF SALLE: Because we can barely keep up with -- in our kitchen in the jail, I need every day, every meal 25 inmates just to serve the meals. Those inmates have to go through the classification process and checks and so forth. Between the internal demands that we must provide, plus going to animal services -- and we also clean the garages -- the public garages -- that has really tapped into us because we've lowered our inmate population by 100 to 150 inmates. So really today we have a very small pool that meet the qualification to go there. As we grow, I would be more than pleased to have those activities. But it is -- right now we're -- the obligations that we've committed to we're just now making that grade. MS. DOWNS: Well, that's great. Have you ever tried that Page 170 October 22, 2008 program; have you had inmates in landscaping? CHIEF SALLE: No, ma'am. I would rather have them at the jail farm so we can offset our costs in the kitchen. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHIEF SALLE: And grow row crops. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Having to do with the courts -- and we know we've expanded the building up there in the campus. Have we taken into consideration what the implications of that are going to be? I don't know when they're going to come on-line. CHIEF SALLE: Yes. They'll be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they undoubtedly will impact on you, maybe accelerate your receiving guests. CHIEF SALLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that something that's going to be a negative or a positive to you in the long term do you think; do you have any way of knowing? CHIEF SALLE: Sure, we do. We're planning for that. And that's a very good point. Probably next summer we'll expand, we'll add holding cells that the inmates are prepared to go into court. We will need three additional deputies. But we're managing that, as I speak. I feel very comfortable that we can handle that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the judges -- ifthere are more judges and there's more action, they will sentence more rapidly than -- because court will be held quickly. Does that mean that those prisoners if they are sentenced and they're felons they're shipped off fairly quickly to the prisons or do you still have to hold them? CHIEF SALLE: Nothing really happens that quickly. We have to go through the -- hopefully they will, but we are holding inmates now over 500, 700, 1,000 days. Through the -- there's a vehicle we use, Public Safety and Coordinating Council, PSCC, which is a Page 171 October 22, 2008 phenomenal group chaired by Commissioner Coyle. And in the last two or three years they have taken the time to understand our problems with the inmate population, what we need, what we don't need and so forth. And they've been helping us, giving us guidance. And, in turn, we're educating them. It's a two-way street. And I think that with that vehicle and other vehicles like that, we can talk about our problems and they help us find a solution, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And, finally, I remember -- it was several AUIRs ago that we questioned, you know, how long would it take to build a jail. And you folks had a very good presentation you showed us. The fact that you're always projecting out -- and I cannot remember whether it was 8 years or 11 years, but that you were very acutely aware of that. And part of your projection was when you have to start. And I presume that those plans continue, am I correct? CHIEF SALLE: Yes. You're absolutely correct. At 2015 we have 64 beds scheduled for nc. It's ready to go. And then in the future we -- I'm sure the County will be looking at another site very close to nc. One of the things that we have with any jailor prison or detention facility is that neighborhoods are not very fond of having that element in their backyard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Who? CHIEF SALLE: So what we have seen and observed is that once it's there, just expand on that location. It seems to be much more palatable to the public. And we can either expand Naples or go to Immokalee and expand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So basically some of the money that's in here, if I'm not mistaken, is intended for the future? CHIEF SALLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In other words, we can be assured that we're not going to have a problem even -- I mean, I'm sure Page 172 October 22, 2008 that if -- if the presidents change and there's a real negative change in the sense of what we're talking about, yeah, you would likely have a big problem. But you have enough to get started if you have to do it, correct? CHIEF SALLE: Yes, we do. And if I may just footnote that is that the State is trying to -- is petitioning for local jails to hold inmates or County prisoners up to 18 months, instead of the traditional 12 months. That means that now we're getting to holding felons. The safety of the community is at issue, the impact on our budget, the impact on the taxpayer. This is something we're watching very closely, especially this legislative session in the spring. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have they done that as an unfunded mandate? MR. HARRISON: Of course. CHIEF SALLE: Yeah. That's the magic words. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: The only question you didn't need to ask today, Mr. Murray. CHIEF SALLE: Yeah. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Do we have any other questions? I have a question. Your available beds have changed. CHIEF SALLE: Yes, ma'am. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And the one of -- the 1,444 has been like forever. I see the background information as to why you changed that figure, but I need to ask. First of all, are these jail standards and guidelines just that; standards and guidelines or -- CHIEF SALLE: That's right. It is -- in may, in the mid '90s the majority of the Sheriffs, if not all the Sheriffs, came together and said we need to establish jail practice and policies. That's where the Florida model jail standards was developed or originated from. So from that period it has taken us awhile to incorporate the Florida model jail standards. But every County in the State of Florida uses the Florida model jail standards so that we're just getting into that Page 173 October 22, 2008 loop. And with that, we have some rated beds and then we have a lot -- we may say we have 1,344 beds. Well, that doesn't mean we have 1,344 prisoners. The classification process is like a hospital, for analogy. It's that a hospital is full, but there will be empty beds. Because someone with a broken arm is not going to be in ICU. And with us with classifications we have to separate the juveniles from the adults, men from women, and so forth. Now, we're looking at variations with the increase of gangs. We can't have a gang member from another -- you know, that's becoming a serious situation of not mixing the population. So when I say 1,344 beds, that's how many beds we have, but full capacity may not be 1,344. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Right. I understand that. However, before we've been using 1,444. CHIEF SALLE: Right. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And the reasons for the change are based on things like square footage of a particular cell or whether it's an intent or whether it's not. I guess, a couple of things. First of all, how long do you have in order to implement these standards? There's no deadline, correct? CHIEF SALLE: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: So we don't necessarily have to take this complete drop in number of rated beds this year, right? Could we phase that in so that -- CHIEF SALLE: You could. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I mean that affects -- I mean, you're looking at a $10 million deficit here that perhaps we could ameliorate in some way by not taking the entire hit on day one on these beds. CHIEF SALLE: Uh-huh. Page 174 October 22, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I mean, have we always not counted confinement units, as well? I think I looked that up and we had not. CHIEF SALLE: No, we haven't. We have rated beds that we use and then we had the usable beds and utilization rate. And we've talked about this the last couple of years. Unfortunately, I think at one of our public safety council meeting I brought it up and it somewhat stirred the pot. And they said, okay, let's sit down and talk about it. We did and we came back with that recommendation of 1,344 beds. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Baytos. MR. BA YTOS: Do I understand that this standard of so many beds per population -- there's no reference to the level of crime in the particular community? CHIEF SALLE: Not for us. We're using the 1,000 population. MR. BA YTOS: So in some of these cities which have two or three times the amount of crime that we have, are they using the same standard? CHIEF SALLE: Yeah, they're using the same standard, but -- MR. BA YTOS: So they're doubling up presumably on prisoners? CHIEF SALLE: Excuse me? MR. BA YTOS: Would they be doubling up then in cells? CHIEF SALLE: They would be or they would overcrowded or whatever issue they may have. The County next to us is basically 700 inmates over because of that same issue. But basically the State average is around -- we're 3.2 per thousand population. I think the State average is 4.2, 4.4. I'm not really sure. I can't think. But we're below the State average. MR. BAYTOS: Yes. Okay. So that should give us a little more leeway, if you will, in updating the standard. Page 175 October 22, 2008 CHIEF SALLE: And it's also Collier County previously was an affluent community and the majority of -- a large group of the arrestees bonded out according to bond schedule. We're starting to see that not occurring as often because of the economics. But we're still higher than most areas in the State of Florida. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Nothing. Okay. Well, I think that there needs to be some sort of an adjustment made, rather than going from the -- last year's and past ever so many years of 1,444 and just dropping down immediately. That's obviously not a necessary thing. That we could do it on a sliding scale that would get us closer to -- I mean, when our original figures were in here, we were down -- revenues needed to maintain was some $3.8 million, close to that. Now we're up to 10.8. I mean, I would think that we would at least recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that we split the difference here or, again, just try to ease it in as opposed to take it all. MR. BA YTOS: But they're not -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think Donna -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, I'm sitting here looking at a deficit figure though. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I think this is a good deficit figure, unless I'm inaccurate here. If you were to make it 1,444, they would have less of a deficit and that would mean that they would have to have more money ultimately or they would get their money too late to build what they need. I understood it -- and perhaps I'm in error. I need confirmation. That they need to establish a deficit so that they can project for what they need and accumulate for what they need. So unless I'm wrong, that's -- CHIEF SALLE: Sir, that's -- Page 176 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that correct? CHIEF SALLE: Yeah. It's not a bad thing. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Well, you can say it's not a bad thing, but -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, you know, these end numbers are a disclaimer themselves. But, I mean, the point he's making out is that 3.2 beds we may benefit in Collier County from the work they've done with ICE to be able to drop that and that alone may bring them into compliance. So, you know, ifhe writes off 100 beds, I think what their in-house thinking is that -- in their true mind, in their true beds they would like to write off 100 beds and not count those because they're not good beds, for whatever reason. But I think that based on the fact that we really won't know how they're doing until next year, I really think we have to just let them slide, whether it's a $10 million deficit or a $3.7 million deficit. If it really is a deficit, we have to deal with it next year. If it's not a deficit, then we're okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I disagree. MR. BA YTOS: Excuse me. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Anybody else from productivity; any other comments? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Do you want to make a motion? MR. BA YTOS: I move that the plan be approved as approved. MR. HARRISON: I second it. MR. BA YTOS: All in favor say aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Aye. MR. SW AJA: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. Page 177 October 22, 2008 MR. BA YTOS: It's unanimous. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Five of you, right? MR. BA YTOS: Five. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make the motion. I would move that we approve the 2008 AUIR summary for the County jail facilities, Category B. Did I move that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Opposed? Aye. So it's six to one. Thank you. You're good. CHIEF SALLE: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Now we move on to law enforcement. Actually, yes, I will do that right now. We're going to be losing a couple of Planning Commissioners as of 4:00. Actually, Mr. Murray has to leave at 3:30, but Mr. Wolfley and Mr. Vigliotti have to leave at 4:00. So by 4:00 the Planning Commission will not have a quorum. So we will be ending this meeting at 4:00. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's make it easy. We'll move to approve. CHIEF BLOOM: I second that. All in favor? For the record, Jim Bloom, chief of operations, Collier County Page 178 October 22, 2008 Sheriffs Office. Commissioners, board members, good afternoon. I'll make this quick because I'm supposed to be leaving with Bob Murray, too, and then I'll be happy to answer. Because I sit on the same board as he does actually, but I'll be happy to answer any question. I'll just cover in a thumbnail sketch real quick some of our accomplishments that we've done as a result of the AUIR, along with Skip Camp and Manager Mudd over the last few years. As you've seen, the special operations center has come on-line, which has added space for us now to work in a more efficient, effective manner with all of our elements for special operations, which is comprised of SWAT, K-9, marine, ag, aviation, DUI, bomb squad, hostage negotiation. COURT REPORTER: Slow down. MR. BLOOM: Sorry. I'm from Kentucky. I apologize. Dive team and so forth. So those specialty elements, along with all the necessary equipment that comes with that, along with some specialized investigative units that are also housed there. So that has helped us significantly from past years, as far as our staffing and allocation space when it comes to that. And as you have seen from the chart that you have in front of you or the information, we have two facilities, both fleet that will be coming on-line this year, I believe, in March. And also the emergency operations center that will be coming on line. We'll be moving our communications center over there, along with our District -- East Naples District substation element will also be moving there. So that has also assisted us tremendously. Some things have been pushed off, such as the Golden Gate Estates substation to the future, which we understand the needs of that due to the current budget constraints of the County. But we would ask that on an annual basis we continue to look at that. As was stated very eloquently, things aren't driven necessarily because of population, Page 179 October 22, 2008 even though a lot is driven by population. This year on foreclosed homes, for example -- that's the meeting that Bob and I will be going to. Mr. Murray. And the effects that foreclosed, vacant homes have had on Collier County. Just because someone -- population is not here does not mean that it doesn't have a significant impact on us and what we have to provide for the future for the safety of our constituents that live here and visit here. So these are some of the accomplishments over the last year. I'd be happy to talk about operations, if you'd like, as far as our crime rate, allocational resources, CA TF. Chief Salle hit on that very eloquently. We also have a contingency on the law enforcement side of the house. We have 18 members that do conspiracy and historical case review. And we made our 100th arrest yesterday, which means that not only people that come to this County that are arrested or processed, we also go back and work with career criminals, County and State probation, anonymous tips that we receive and we do historical research. And the numbers are very significant. We actually have on an average of the people we are arresting that are illegal foreign nationals here in this County that are preying on our community members, they average 3.9 felony arrests and roughly five misdemeanor arrests per those individuals that would not have been picked up if we wouldn't have had that element. So I think between what -- we are the only agency, to my knowledge, that has both the law enforcement and corrections side in the entire nation right now. So it has had a significant impact on keeping our community safe and also alleviating the bed space. So is there any questions that I can help with? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Do you have any questions Planning Commission's, Productivity? Page 180 October 22, 2008 MS. DOWNS: I have one. CHIEF BLOOM: Yes, ma'am. MS. DOWNS: Your expenditures side is very heavy on commercial paper loans. CHIEF BLOOM: Yes, ma'am. MS. DOWNS: What interest rate do you have factored in for that? CHIEF BLOOM: I would have to -- as far as that, Mike, can you advise on that aspect because I really don't know? And I am standing in for Chief Smith, so I apologize. He would be able to answer that more eloquently from the administration side of the house. MR. BOSI: Those are -- those are existing commercial rates, which I'll have to check with Susan Usher. I'm not sure if they're a variable interest rate. I imagine they would have been established as a fixed interest rate as was commonplace in times of lending to a jurisdictional municipality. But I would have to confirm that with Susan Usher from the offices of -- MS. DOWNS: With that amount ofloan, you could be looking at an extra half a million just on interest rates. MR. BOSI: If it was a variable annuity. MS. DOWNS: If it is, yes. MR. BOSI: Being not involved in the finance department or budget department, I wouldn't want to overstep my boundaries or speak for them in a manner that I'm not 100 percent certain. MS. DOWNS: Okay. CHIEF BLOOM: Sorry. I'll be happy to look that up and get back to you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Your cost expenditure amount this five years is so much less than -- you were at 43 mill and now Page 181 October 22, 2008 you're at 29 mill. What happened in one year that would cause the next five years to be so less? MR. FEE: Population. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you teach all of us how to do that? MR. BOSI: The projects that were on the books last year as an expense have come off of the books because they're completed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. BOSI: That's the direct way to do it is retire -- retire your projects. But those projects still show up, in terms of your debt obligations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So last year was an expensive year. MR. BA YTOS: The fleet facility and the emergency operations center came on. CHIEF BLOOM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Let's take a vote, motion. MR. SW AJA: I make a motion that we accept the operations budget for the -- MR. BA YTOS: I second it. All in favor say aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Aye. MR. SW AJA: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Thank you. Unanimous. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would make a motion that the law enforcement category as presented for the 2008 AUIR summary Page 182 October 22, 2008 be approved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. MR. SW AJA: The Sheriffs Department does an outstanding job. CHIEF BLOOM: Thank you. MR. FEE: Quick and easy. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Now we come to Ms. Matthes from the library. MS. MATTHES: Thank you. For the record, Marilyn Matthes, library director. It's been a bu~ year for the libraries. Your operating statistics that are shown in the booklet are printed before we complete the fiscal year. So I'd like to update you a little bit. This is the first year that the library has circulated more than three million items in one year. And the exact number was 3,394,000, but we're thrilled to have made that much of a gain in one year. We also increased in door counts from about 1,802,000 to 1,810,00. And if you've been anywhere near any of our libraries that have early voting, you can see that number going up exponentially for the following year. And some other numbers have increased over the last year and some have decreased, as we have fewer staff members to take care of things like children's programs and answer reference questions. So there's a tradeoff. We're circulating more items. We're seeing more people. We're seeing more people come to use our computers. We're seeing more people come to use our pre-wireless Internet in our facilities. But some Page 183 October 22, 2008 of our more staff-intensive programs have decreased in participants in the number of programs we put on. We just aren't able to put on as many of those programs as we have in the past. As to the AUIR, we use impact fees to build library buildings. This year we've completed the construction of the Golden Gate branch library, adding 17,000 square feet of service space for that community. Weare about to complete the South Regional library with an anticipated opening of next spring sometime, depending on when we -- we do have budget to run the facility for seven months and to buy books for the facility and to staff the facility for seven months. We're still in the process of purchasing furniture and equipment for the building. After that project is completed, we hope to -- still hope to build an addition to our Marco branch library. A meeting called Rose Hall with donated funds. And it's looking better actually for that project, but those funds are all donated and grant funds not affected by the impact fees or other County funds. And the second element that we use impact fee funds are for our books for our libraries. And our standard is 1.87 items per capita. As you'll note, I'm sure, the general fund has lent the library a lot of money to pay debt service of these costs. And it's probably projected to do so in the short-term. Any questions that you have? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Ladies and gentlemen, any questions for Ms. Matthes? I just have one question. Do all counties -- actually, you won't know this. Mike will probably be able to answer this. But do all counties use a peak season number for the library? MS. MATTHES: Could I answer part of that question? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Sure. MS. MATTHES: Not too many libraries have a significant impact fee for library services. There are a few that do, but not many. Page 184 october 22, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOSI: And with that, I would -- I would have to look at our comparative study. And ifthere's not impact fees being charged against -- or there's not impact fees being charged against the building permit, then there would be no discernible way to -- whether they evaluate and whether they even have a level of service standard, let alone whether it's against a seasonal or a permanent population. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Thank you. Motions? MS. DOWNS: Just curious. I was surprised to see there was not more grant money. It's only a half a million to South Regional. MS. MATTHES: The State and the library is a public library construction grant program. And the maximum you can ask for is $500,000. And we maxed out that grant. MS. DOWNS: For the whole County? You can't do that for -- MS. MATTHES: For a facility. We received 500,000 for our Golden Gate branch library; 500,000 for South Regional. And we've requested 500,000 for the Marco addition also. MS. DOWNS: Okay. MS. MATTHES: In the past we've received about 340,000 for the Immokalee addition. But it was built when construction was much cheaper and that was about half of the total construction costs. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: On page 118 you have loan from the general fund and loan from the general fund to assist with the bond paper loan. How will you be paying that back? MS. MATTHES: We hope the general fund will grant us time until impact fees start coming back in. But that's the only way we can pay that back is through the impact fee collections in the future. MR. FEE: Do you anticipate that's what will what? MS. MATTHES: I sure hope that will happen. Page 185 October 22, 2008 MR. FEE: That you'll get enough impact fees? MS. MATTHES: Yes. Everybody says that the economy is cyclical and we're looking for the other part of the cycle. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just -- VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Am I missing it or somewhere did you outline the expenses for the next five years? MS. MATTHES: That's expenses -- operating expenses, no. That's not part of this. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 14 million is not? MR. HARRISON: It's buildings. MS. MATTHES: Construction, debt service and book expenses are part of this report, not operating expenses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that 14 million is your inventory of buildings at the end of that five-year period? MS. MATTHES: What page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 183. MR. BOSI: It's the cost of construction for South Regional. MS. MATTHES: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Expenditures. First item on expenditures. MS. MATTHES: Expenditures, yeah. That's the construction expenditures. MR. BA YTOS: And that's for the South Regional library, correct, which is -- which is about to open? MS. MATTHES: Right. MR. BA YTOS: It's not money that's not been approved-- MS. MATTHES: It's not additional money. MR. BOSI: The only proposed improvement they have in the library bonus portion is the South Regional Library. That 14 million is already allocated for the construction of that improvement. Page 186 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one question. I think you're doing a terrific job, so don't take this the wrong way. Can we not get more people who are willing to volunteer to man the operation without creating a problem for you? MS. MATTHES: Actually, that's one statistic I can share with you. I was just looking at the final stats this morning. And last year we had the equivalent of 9.4 FTEs volunteering for library activities. And this year we went up to 10.75, so we are making some progress. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's great. MS. MATTHES: We're making some progress. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you constrained in any way? I know you have your operational norms and your desires. And I know that services now when the folks come back from the norm demand services. And some of those people can even be volunteers, I presume. MS. MATTHES: Many of them are. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I'm just wondering -- because I think at one point there may have been a misperception that you or somebody was disinclined to utilize volunteers. And I can't believe that would be true. MS. MATTHES: No. We always welcome and recruit volunteers. Unfortunately, we cannot always take everybody who volunteers. For example, this summer at the Estates branch we had a number of people who volunteered -- students who volunteered. And volunteers take staff time to train, supervise and evaluate. And we didn't have enough work to keep five students busy during the same time period, so we had to say, okay, we can take three at this time, the other two will you call back some other time. We just don't have time right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's prudent management. I don't see a problem with that. Page 187 October 22, 2008 Okay. Thank you. MS. MATTHES: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I vote okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think we have this. As you go through the future you see a growing list of volumes, which is your denominator. What do you see those to be -- or items per capita, what do you see those to be in the future? I mean, this seems odd that we're still -- I know we used to be books and we -- MS. MATTHES: Some of us are still books. But, yes, audio/visual materials are increasingly important in a public library collection. We have downloadable audio books. You can go to the Internet through our web site and download. And that circulation count is captured in our circulation annual statistics. We also have print books that you can download to your computer and use those on-line. Certainly the market is saying that we want to have downloadable video cassettes in the future and DVDS in the future. And some libraries are already providing that kind of service. We have not started that yet. (Mr. Murray left the hearing room.) MS. MATTHES: But those items when circulated are all part of our usage. We have a very popular program of foreign language instruction. Instead of buying the cassettes or CDs that sit on our shelves, we have places where you can go to download them and use them, instead of us having to repair or replace broken media items. It is a very efficient way of working and it's been very popular. In one month's time we had over 500 uses of that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For example, let's take the Rosetta Stone program. If you use that -- somebody is using that, is Page 188 October 22, 2008 that one item or is that -- MS. MATTHES: Every -- I'm not sure how the Rosetta Stone counted it. Actually, none of these figures include the Rosetta Stone because they've stopped selling their product to public libraries. They found they weren't selling to individuals and decided to get out of the library market. We have a product called Mango now instead. So is -- not each time they log on, but each lesson they complete or each discreet unit that they use is a usage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let's say that somebody downloads a podcast or something like that. You'll consider that to be an item then? I mean, in other words, the denominator is starting to not make sense agam. MS. MATTHES: No. These are things that we pay for that could sit on our shelves. A podcast really wouldn't sit on our shelf. If we had downloadable DVDs, that would be a discreet title that could alternately sit on the shelves or be downloaded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, it's we needed a denominator. We used to call it books and now we call it items. MS. MATTHES: Items, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wonder ifthere's a better way. We won't figure that out today. Thank you. MS. MATTHES: You're welcome. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: On page 118 there's a line that says carry forward of 1.358. Is that only because it went over the fiscal year? Do you expect to spend it? MS. MATTHES: It went over the fiscal year. The 1.358 were -- it was actually impact fee budgets over in 2008 that there was no money behind it to spend. Because we hadn't gotten the loans from the general fund to actually put money in that budget. So we would have Page 189 October 22, 2008 gone in the hole if we had been spending that money. Weare buying more books right now -- MR. FEE: I notice -- MS. MATTHES: -- to go on the shelves of the South Regional library. And that's why that number is 30,000 on the current '09 projected for needs. MR. FEE: I notice on page 123 that under the library materials you also have a carry-forward of 1.3 million. Is that -- is that what you were mentioning -- MS. MATTHES: Yeah, yeah. MR. FEE: -- that it will be? VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Any questions? (No response.) VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Motion. MR. BA YTOS: I move that the library AUIR be approved. MR. SW AJA: Second. MR. BA YTOS: All in favor say aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Aye. MR. SW AJA: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. MR. BAYTOS: Unanimous. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tor had a question. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yeah, I had a question. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I see that the level of service here is the same as last year, .33. MS. MATTHES: Correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: My recollection is that someone from the productivity last year in reviewing this questioned other basis Page 190 October 22,2008 of you developing a level of service. And I wondered have you explored any other possible means of level of service? MS. MATTHES: We did look at other levels of service, but there really are no other levels of service used by any public library that we could find. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It seemed to me you had some suggestions here. Do you remember that? MR. HARRISON: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I remember that. MR. HARRISON: We talked about door count. We talked about peaking of scheduling as to when people were needed and facilities were used. A number of operational measures. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was the reason for not looking at this primarily because nobody else is using it? MS. MATTHES: Partly. All of our libraries -- we did use door counts as we had to decrease hours throughout the last year. And we tried to determine the least used hours in which to cut service. And since our door count did increase from '08 from '07 -- over '07, we think we did, you know, an okay job in making those decisions. We do use operational data to make that kind of estimate should we need to close hours or whatever. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All set? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward the 2008 AUIR for library buildings with a recommendation of approval as per the summary. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 191 October 22, 2008 VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward 2008 library materials to the BCC with a recommendation of approval as per the summary form. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: You will have to do the same thing. You're right. MR. BA YTOS: What he said. MS. DOWNS: Second. MR. BA YTOS: I move the second and it's unanimous. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: It's probably a good thing we're leaving at 4:00. MR. BA YTOS: My ADD is kicking in. MR. FEE: That's a good motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. We're good. Thank you. Okay. I think -- yeah. Mr. Vigliotti has just said that he would be able to hang in with us in time to get our last two items done. So Mr. Page -- Chief Page, you're up. CHIEF PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services. Just to give you some background, during the 2007 AUIR the level of service standard was changed from 1,000 -- or one unit for every 15,000 of population to 1,000 -- or I'm sorry. 1 to 16,400. Also the response time goals were changed. Previously we had Page 192 October 22, 2008 an eight-minute travel time County-wide. That was changed to 90 percent of the time looking at an urban response of eight minutes and a 12 minute response in the rural area. This year we're not really asking for any additional units. In fact, based on the recommendations of the productivity committee and our EMS advisory council, we've reduced the inventory by two units bringing it down to 24.5. And based on the current adopted level of service, there would be a deficit in FY13 of four units at that time. MR. FEE: Motion to approve. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: The productivity committee has been working with Chief Page religiously here and done a great job. MR. BA YTOS: As well as EMS. It was a joint venture. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Great. MR. BA YTOS: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: We've got a motion on the table. MR. BA YTOS: All in favor say aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BA YTOS: Aye. MR. SW AJA: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. MR. BAYTOS: Unanimous. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Planning Commission. First of all, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Move to approve the recommendation of approval to the BCC the 2008 AUIR for emergency medical services as per the summary. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you. Do we have a second? Page 193 October 22,2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. FEE: We can just skip this next item. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Poor Chief Page has absolutely been through the ringer on all of this, so we appreciate it. But now we come -- MR. CAMP: For the record, I'm Skip Camp, the facilities management director. We're not going to do a whole lot for a long time. But I will be happy to answer any questions. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: You've done your damage already. MR. CAMP: That's fair. MR. FEE: You put us there. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Do I have any questions by any of the Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Schiffer, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think, Skip, the only thing is that as we go into the future, which this thing does go quite a bit into the future, is square footage still going to be the reasonable -- I mean, isn't there a lot of services not going to be square foot oriented? MR. CAMP: Honestly, sir, to be really fair from a functional perspective, we build on need. We have a master plan. And that's how Page 194 October 22, 2008 we build buildings and space. And because we're so siloed, the courts may need space, but the jail may not. Or, you know, the tax collector may need space, but the property appraiser may not. So it's very difficult to correlate the two. Basically we have -- we hire a professional architectural firm that does a master plan. And that's pretty much what we follow. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Any other questions? Mr. Fee. MR. FEE: 156 you have, again, a loan from the general fund annex and a loan from the general fund debt payments. When will you be paying that back? MR. CAMP: Susan is our financial adviser. MS. USHER: Hi. My name is Susan Usher for the office of management and budget. As soon as the economy gets better, impact fees start coming in, these will be paid back with impact fees. MR. SW AJA: We trust you, Susan. MR. FEE: Do you have any bonding capacity? Not that you're looking for this right now, but do you have any bonding capacity left? MS. USHER: We have quite a bit of loans out there right now in commercial paper. We can -- there is the possibility of refinancing all that commercial paper into a bond, so yes. I mean, we'd have to switch them out. MR. FEE: Okay. Thank you. MR. BA YTOS: I had one thing. Earlier this year we did some studies with the County staff. And I happened to be assigned to Skip's area of responsibility. And he shared with me the 300 page or so study that their consultant has prepared. So that they have really gone into a lot of detail. But the big thing for me is that he doesn't want to spend any money for at least eight years. So I didn't think I want to get in any more detail today. I don't think it's necessary. Page 195 October 22, 2008 But, you know, along the way there will be funds. It depends so much on these population projections, which are shaky. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Mr. Harrison. MR. HARRISON: Skip, let's go the other way for a minute. Do you foresee any surplus property that the County owns that we might turn into cash? MR. CAMP: I don't, as we speak. But, remember, that we'll be working with other organizations very closely. Ifwe somehow, for whatever reason, find that opportunity, we'll work with the other municipalities. Weare retiring leases. That's going to be a $2 million a year savings. That's been our focus as it relates to space. And then I'll just remind you that we also are obligated to by law -- by State law to supply the space for those constitutional officers of which we have no control over. If the tax collector takes on -- MR. HARRISON: And a question for Susan, if I might. At some future date could we see a schedule of maturities on all this commercial paper? MR. FEE: If they're paid off early. MS. USHER: I do have such a schedule, but I don't have copies with me. MR. HARRISON: Maybe sometime at a productivity meeting. But with the banking situation where it is, it probably wouldn't hurt to take a look. MS. USHER: Okay. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Good idea. Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: For either one, maybe Susan. Do you know how much rental space are you occupying or land; do you have buildings on rented land? MR. CAMP: We lease about 75 percent or 76,000 square feet. We hope to retire most of that within two years. Page 196 October 22, 2008 MS. DOWNS: What about land? MR. CAMP: Not for the purposes of office buildings. We do lease some awkward items like space on towers and things like that. MR. HARRISON: Airport. MR. CAMP: Yeah. Property on the airport will be a long-term building on there. 50 years. MR. FEE: And that's low dollars. MS. DOWNS: Very low to the public. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Are there any other questions? I'm sorry. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On page 164 there's a list of government buildings, but I don't see anything for the supervisor of elections. MR. CAMP: She's an owned property. The supervisor is an owned property. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay. Thank you. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: We don't want to leave out Jennifer. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Entertain a motion. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: I will in a minute. And we'll start with the productivity committee. MR. HARRISON: Make a motion to accept. MR. BA YTOS: Second. All in favor say aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. BAYTOS: Aye. MR. SW AJA: Aye. MR. HARRISON: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: And, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. Page 197 October 22, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion that we forward to the BCC with a recommendation of approval the 2008 AUIR for government buildings as per the summary. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: All in favor? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I wanted the opportunity to make a motion. I move that we adjourn. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. And thank you everybody for working through this in a day as opposed to three days. You have the next two days off. ***** Page 198 October 22, 2008 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DONNA REED CARON, Vice-Chair These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected. , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND KELLEY MARIE NADOTTI Page 199