Loading...
CCPC Minutes 12/09/2008 S December 9, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HORIZON STUDY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida December 9,2008 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 in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Karen Homiak Donna Reed-Caron Tor Koltlat (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer (Absent) Robert Vigliotti David J. Woltley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Michael Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, School District (absent) Page 1 HORIZON STUDY SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., DECEMBER 9, 2008, AT THE. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3Td FLOOR BOARDROOM, LOCATED AT 3301 EAST T AMlAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO~1TFS ON ANY ITEM INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ONL:JBEOOF 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 GRAPIDC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN TIlE CCPC/PC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF IO DAYS PRIOR TO TIlE 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 CCPC/PC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO TIlE 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 TIlE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WIDCH RECORD INCLUDES TIlE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WIDCH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Introduclion and Overview - Mike Bosi 3. Presentation from Horizon Study Master Committee - Mr. Bill McDaniel, Chairman, East 951 Horizon Committee 4. Commentary on Horizon Study Public Opinion/Data Colleclion - Mr. Chuck Mohlke, Fraser & Mohlke Associates, Inc. 5. Presentation of the Bridge Study - Mr. Nick Casalanguida, Direclor, Transportation Planning Department 6. Presentation of the Collier Inter-Active Growth Model (CIGM) - Dr. Paul Van Buskirk, Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. 7. Public Comment 8. Adjourn 1 December 9,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the absolutely packed room of the December 9th Collier County Planning Commission meeting for the review of the horizon study. I'm not sure it's a review, but we'll find out what Mike has in store for us as we get into the meeting. If you'll all rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Michael, before you start in with your overview, I want to understand. When this was sent to us by the Board of County Commissioners, what was their expectations of what it is that we would be doing for them today? And then having reviewed your staff report, and noticing you asked for three specific points from us, and I've gone through the book and trying to understand how those points can be articulated today, I would like you to explain to us, and it would be under the recommendation sections, your three paragraphs, each beginning with the word for. Explain to us exactly what you expect as a response out of those paragraphs so we know the direction we should be heading in today. MR. BaSI: Thank you. Good morning, Commission. Mike Basi with Comprehensive Planning. When the BCC reviewed the Horizon Study on the 29th of September of this year, basically at the end they had asked for comments or recommendations from the planning commission upon this document before the BCC felt that they were able or equipped to make recommendations on the three components of the Horizon Study, within the Horizon Study, as Chairman Strain had indicated. There's three components. One is the public participation phase, which was a two-year effort led by a committee of 15 individuals to go out and communicate with the public about their preferences in terms of level of service for various infrastructure and service providers, as well as what they envisioned the opportunities in some of Page 2 December 9,2008 the areas of concern, as growth moves towards the eastern portion of the county. The second component is a bridge study. The bridge study was an effort that resulted from the transportation planning services department's interaction with the Horizon Study committee where they identified the need for increased mobility within the Estates. And from those meetings they developed the bridge study, which you'll hear the specifics about. And then finally was the development of the interactive growth model. For each one of these components, we're asking for a specific recommendation. For the growth model we're asking the planning commission to evaluate the value of the growth model to the county and offer a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners as to whether you see the value of the county to utilize the growth model as an additional planning tool for infrastructure and service provision modeling, not only as part of the AUIR process, which is, you know, the five-year capital improvement programs that are presented on an annual basis to the advisory boards, to the planning commission and to the productivity committee and ultimately decided by the Board of County Commissioners, but also for the long-range planning aspect of the individual infrastructure and service providers department. Within the growth model presentation, you're going to hear of the incorporation or an aspect of bringing the land use modeling efforts of the growth model and bringing it to the long-range transportation planning aspects so we can have a little more consistency within our transportation planning and our land use planning on the long-range scale. F or the bridge study, the transportation services department is asking for the acceptance -- recommendation of the acceptance Of the bridge study. And as the details are contained within that bridge study, Page 3 December 9,2008 when the funds are available to initiate the construction of the bridges within the priority rankings that you'll see -- and Nick will expand upon the methodology that they utilize to prioritize the bridges and the benefits that each one of those bridges in terms of will provide and how they establish the rankings. And the first portion of the report is the public participation process. And within their -- within the public participation process, the committee had identified a number of individual position points that were derived from those series of public meetings over the course of the 24 months, what the committee heard the general public saying that they would like -- or where their concerns were as county government moves forward, the areas that they would like to see county government maybe improve upon or maybe pay more attention to. So within those position points, they're not offered to specifically create a specific policy within the Growth Management Plan or a -- or initiate amendments to the Land Development Code, but they're really -- they're really proffered from the committee to let the Board of County Commissioners, let advisory boards know that this is what the general public was expressing concern about. And as you're deliberating over whether it be an individual land use decision or whether it be an infrastructure project, or whether it be whatever improvement potentially within that eastern land. But remember and take into consideration what the individual public was saying in terms of their areas of concern and their areas that they've identified as opportunities. So those position points really were offered as informational pieces for consideration as you're making decisions on your routine and regular basis. From the planning commission, whether it's an individual endorsement or comment upon each of the position points, that would be dictated by the course that the planning commission would like go. Page 4 December 9,2008 They're broken down within sections. And how you'd like to handle the first portion of the public participation phase will be the deference of the commission. But with that, I guess that's the overview marks. And one thing I will say, and I was speaking to Mr. Vigliotti before, if you look at the report, there's not an aspect or a central component that, well, this is what is we really need to do. I mean, this is -- if we follow this step, we'll ensure that we have a balanced and sustainable future in a community that provides for the needs and the goods that are required for the individuals who live within the area. But there is an underlying tone. And the underlying tone is communication. One of the things, if you remember, this study, the Horizon Study, it started in 2004. In 2004 the amount of communication and the amount of attention that was paid to the capital improvement programming within this county wasn't at the level that it's at today. So there's been aspects of improvement within the communication, not only between the inter-departments within the county but within departments inside the county and outside the county. And those lines of communication I believe are the central benefit that this Horizon Study will provide, has provided and will provide into the future for the county. One of the -- another example that you're going to hear of, and it hits that communication theme, is the -- one of the greatest unknowns within the eastern portion of the study area was the overlay district. Well, where are those towns and villages going to transpire? If we're going to do a good job of infrastructure modeling and making sure that we are gaining the greatest return on our public investment for where we place these infrastructure projects, we need to know a little bit more certainty towards where these towns and villages are going to come. The Horizon Study and the communication, the lines of Page 5 December 9,2008 communications that have been established or augmented by the Horizon Study has led to the property owners within the eastern lands to provide a little bit more specificity towards where they envision those towns and villages to go. Those are the type of benefits I believe that the Horizon Study has provided to the county and will continue to provide to the county. And to me, even though it's not a tangible hard physical aspect, it is something that the county benefits from. And as you'll hear through all the presentations, especially within Mr. McDaniel's presentation, those lines of communication, the public is very adamant that those lines of communication are continued. And I know that that's a statement or that's a policy that the planning commission most certainly does endorse. With that, I guess I would offer any questions or -- from the committee regarding some of the remarks that I had just made, or would you like to just go straight to the agenda? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know I have a couple of questions of you from a generic viewpoint. I think your explanation was helpful. Because when I read this, I was trying to find the recommendations more or less that we normally see, and there weren't recommendations from -- mostly. They were mostly very generic statements about how people think. And most of them were on lines with what I would agree is probably anticipated for out in that area. But there are some that were -- I want to understand the magnitude of this area. You were talking -- this talks about everything east of 951. It doesn't necessarily mean just Golden Gate Estates; is that correct? MR. BOSI: Absolutely. And we tried to stress that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because some of the recommendations and position points are not applicable to Golden Gate Estates in any manner whatsoever. And others may be and Page 6 December 9, 2008 written that way. Some don't use the word Estates in them. So then I'm assuming those that I think are inappropriate for the Estates must be because it was other parts of the study area that it was referring to in general. And the also (sic) thing, you mentioned the RLSA. Well, that map that I distributed here at this committee, or this panel what, a month ago, showing the 22 new towns -- by the way, they aren't towns anymore. I will stand corrected, I got a new memo that says they're traffic centroids, they're not towns, so we don't call them towns. But these 22 new traffic centroids, did the committee take those into consideration or did they have any part of that map? And if not, then what map did they study for the RLSA? Because that's an issue that we've repeatedly been trying to bring up as to a need to understand what the RLSA can and can't do. MR. BaSI: The committee did not have the opportunity to review that map. That map was proffered to the county only about two months ago. The committee had wrapped up their monthly meetings, their last meeting being in September of this year. What the committee utilized was the projections and the allocations for where development was going to go, produced by the growth model. What we have done since is taking the projections of the growth model -- and Dr. Van Buskirk will explain much more articulately and technically than myself -- but has taken those centroid traffic nodes, which aren't towns or villages but are I guess the centroid for where they expect the activity to be, which is another name for a town. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you said that, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Mike. MR. BaSI: Have taken those, compared that against the projections of the growth model and utilized it as a calibration tool. But no, the -- and what you'll hear in one of the early portions of the struggles of the committee, as Mr. McDaniel will explain, at the Page 7 December 9, 2008 beginning part, it was tough to get the public to understand it wasn't just a Golden Gate vetting process. One of the toughest obsticles we had as a staff and as a committee was going out asking what do you want to see in 25 and 30 years for people who aren't here yet; to people who will be here but aren't here? So trying to find out what preferences are for a group of individuals who don't -- who are going to live in an area that right now is for the most part an agricultural community. So trying to stress to the public that it wasn't just the Golden Gate Estates that we're talking about, it was the entire eastern portion of the county. So some of the recommendations you are to focus center upon the Golden Gate Estates. But we've always -- because those were most of the residents who showed up at the meetings were member of the Estates. But we really tried to make sure and pull back whenever those statements came, that this was an encompassing study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if this model that you're promoting was supposed to predict or show growth patterns in this area to help the committee understand what's going on, why then didn't the model reflect what you got -- what you just saw from the RLSA committee? I mean, what did they use that's different than the model? How better is theirs or how less accurate is theirs versus what this model may produce? MR. BaSI: Well, I will defer to Dr. Van Buskirk for that. But that's like you can't -- I couldn't tell you which one's right or which one's wrong. That event's 20 years from now from happening. So the exact manifestation of how that materializes, I couldn't tell you. What I can tell you, that there was very close agreement between what the modeling work had done before the eastern property landowners had provided those 22 centroids and then towards where those locations had been allocated by the eastern property owners. So there was a pretty high degree of agreement between the two Page 8 December 9,2008 projections. So what the committee was utilizing and had worked towards was in agreement with what the RLSA committee had arrived upon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying that the Van Buskirk model that the comprehensive planning department's apparently endorsing, his are the same basically as the Wilson-Miller model that showed the 22 new town traffic centroids out in the eastern lands. That's an interesting correlation. If you all did it independently before they came out and they now have come out with that, that may certainly help this board understand the magnitude of the RLSA changes, if both professionals now agree that 22 towns are a likely scenario for occurring out there. MR. BOSI: Well, I have no idea what methodology was utilized by the eastern property owners and what Wilson-Miller had utilized to arrive upon those 22 locations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they both got there through some method. MR. BOSI: Exactly. What I know is we provided in the summer -- in the summer the growth model was basically completed through interaction and review with the Horizon Study Review Committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's interesting, because it takes the RLSA comments on that as a worst case scenario more as the most likely scenario for development of the eastern lands. So since two now professionals, one done independently by a non-special interest working with the property owners, saying outside the property owners, came to that same conclusion on their own. Interesting information. So thank you for that. Nick, you jumped to the plate. Are you going to tell us what a traffic centroid is? MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida. I don't think that they've come up to the same conclusion. What they've used is the same parameters. In other words, this is your Page 9 December 9,2008 control total. You get "X" amount of units, "X" amount of industrial. Dr. Van Buskirk looks at the land availability, and correct me if I'm wrong, but says you can put these in these locations, because they'll fit, the land would support that. ECPO, the Eastern Collier Property Owners Association, said we have a better feel for what we want to do with our land than just arbitrarily trying to load up the models and using your best guess. Let us provide you this information. I've been asking for that information about six months. As part of the RLSA we want to with compo planning a vision buildup plan and get as much accurate information as we can. That was provided to us to give to Dr. Van Buskirk and say to the Doctor, take a look at it, see if you feel comfortable with what they've said their best guess is. So the control totals were the same. So they would use the ultimate same number that Dr. Van Buskirk would use. It's just that locations may vary based on their information versus his. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just a little scarier knowing that two now professionals see the growth out there getting to that climatic point. Because I don't know if we ever were prepared for that until these maps have recently come out. And now a validation of the original map done by a more or less consultant for the special interests out there. So that's an interesting scenario to learn prior to our January 28th meeting. Thank you. MR. BaSI: And with that, would the commission like to move on to the first presentation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless anybody else has any questions of Mike. I know you'd probably like to get off the hot seat as fast as possible, so -- MR. BaSI: I would like to add one thing. In 2005 -- and the basis for the Horizon Study, the first part within the Horizon Study Page 10 December 9, 2008 was projections of cost by each infrastructure and service provider. And those were based upon a 2005 build-out study that was proffered by comprehensive planning, spearheaded by Mr. David Weeks. And he really looked at a maximum extent. What is the maximum extent of development that could go forward, based upon the limitations of the regulations. And what I will say, the amount of development that was projected within that 2005 study was actually a little bit higher than what was projected by the growth model and also the projection from the eastern property -- coalition of property owners. And it's not at criticism of the 2005 study, but what Mr. Weeks did not have, he didn't have an SRA already established -- a number of SSA's already established to base those projections on the number of credits that could be generated and a number of credits then therefore would be able to be spent. But the first part of that model was based upon a population projection that was done in 2005 that said here's the cost that we have to -- that we're going to have to incur to provide the level of service that we currently have within our GMP. And we identified that we really don't have probably the necessary revenue to completely meet those projected costs. And the study was an effort to start the dialogue to say what are our priorities and how do we make those priorities towards where we're providing the greatest service for within the limited revenue that the county's going to face coming into the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The one 1,000,066 is out now officially and the 950,000 odd is in? MR. BaSI: Neither are officially endorsed. The 2005 build-out study was a projection that still might remain valid. But there's been adjustments based upon historical trends and facts that have allowed us to calibrate those projections downwards a little bit, revise them a Page 11 December 9,2008 little bit. Whether it's the 2005 build-out study or whether it's the growth model projections that ultimately is going to be the more accurate, I can't tell you that officially. We think that we'll refine those projections with the growth model to be more within line with the realities based upon the past trends that we have seen. But whenever you're 25 years out into the future, it becomes pretty cloudy in that respect. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, some of the conclusions reached here and some of the data are not supportable anymore relative to the decline. So we're looking at, you know, something that was a point in time that's no longer valid, and I just -- my one question, how much did it cost for the crystal balls that we had to buy for all of this? Because you're talking about the east -- I forget the -- EVOC (sic) or whatever it was called, the Eastern-- MR. BaSI: Eastern Property Owners Coalition. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I never even heard of those people before. Are those people, have they even proffered anything that represents what they project? I know I heard Nick saying they've been waiting for six months, but do we have any -- the reason I ask this question is because you spoke of communication. And when you were asked about RLSA, there's clear evidence there's no communication. Not for lack on your part, I'm not-- MR. BaSI: There is -- when you receive the Phase II report for the RLSA, you'll see a spreadsheet that will have comparisons between what was provided by the growth model, what was provided by the Eastern Properties Owners Coalition. There's comparison, so you can look and see that they've taken all that information into account and they're going to put it forward to you when you're going through that review so you can better evaluate some of the proposed policy changes that are going to come forward during that process. So Page 12 December 9,2008 that information will be presented to you. Actually, I was within a meeting just yesterday with staff reviewing the information that's going to be proffered to you, and that type of information is contained within that report. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All of this information ultimately is intended to effect policies, which ultimately effect GMP, which ultimately effect LDC; am I right? MR. BaSI: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we have a broad -- we have a menu to pick from is what you're effectively telling me. MR. BOSI: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. Then we'll figure out how much the crystal balls cost and buy some here too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? MR. BaSI: And with that, I will introduce the chairman of the Horizon Study Committee, Mr. Bill McDaniel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who walked in late. We understand. MR. McDANIEL: Did you just say I was late? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I sure did, Bill. Why not? Someone's got to start this out right. MR. McDANIEL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bill McDaniel, and I am the Chair of the East of 951 Horizon Study Committee. I'm getting some technical instruction on how to run the Power Point presentation. When's it going to pop up on the screen? And if I might address a couple of the comments that Mike made early on in regard to some of your questions, and as is typical, please feel free to interrupt, to ask questions, suggestions as we go through this presentation. This isn't a static presentation, nor is it a static analysis. The dynamics of what are going to occur within our county are such that Mr. Murray, too, in order to ascertain with specificity Page 13 December 9,2008 exactly how many people are going to be able to reside within our community, as you said, the crystal ball is such. And extremely foggy. The realities, Mr. Chairman, are maturity is coming. And I would like to suggest that we talk more about maturity than a specific build-out time frame, and have a plan for reaching that maturity. That's the impetus behind the East of 951 Horizon Study Committee, the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay Committee, the interactive growth model, which you're going to hear about. These are all planning tools for us to lay the road map to get to maturity. Maturity is inevitably coming. How we get there and what we do interimly (sic) will be impacted by the dynamics that you folks have talked about, the realities of the marketplace, the entire economic circumstances of the global economy that we're all having to deal with. These are all going to have long-term implications as to how and what we do in order to ultimately reach maturity, okay? With that, as a thought process -- and one statement that you made earlier, Mr. Chairman, also is there's opinions about everything with respect to growth and development. Our goal throughout the process in assimilating this information was maximum allowable or maximum attainable populations, not necessarily worst case scenarios. It could necessarily be derived as a worst case scenario, but we were looking to reach to ascertain what our maximum capacities were with the allowable land uses within the existing comprehensive Growth Management Plan and the existing Land Development Code. With that in mind, there are opportunities to effectuate changes in the comprehensive Growth Management Plan, and ultimately into the Land Development Code that will allow capacities in other areas other than just east of 951 to support the ultimate growth and development that's inevitably going to occur in our community. And I'm not going to -- if it meets your pleasure, I'm not going to read these -- I believe they have a copy in your book. You have a copy of the Power Point. Page 14 December 9,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be fine. We can read as -- MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. Absolutely. Bottom line with respect to our study, there was -- as Mr. Bosi shared with you early on, there was a -- David Weeks within our staff did a build-out study that had a time line with specificity and a comparison of the infrastructure necessities that are going to be required in order to ultimately support that build-out or maturity population that would ultimately be here. Utilizing the best data that he had available, he came up with certain parameters, and then ultimately went back to the individual departments within Collier County to ascertain the projected costs associated with those infrastructure necessities. Candidly, those projected costs far exceed the available monies, imagine that, that we have available. So with this information, with this planning, with these planning tools, the funding capacities that are available to support the construction of the -- did my timing buzzer just go off? I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have one of those here. MR. McDANIEL: Okey-dokey. With that in mind, we're going to have to explore alternative funding methodologies in order to support the future growth and development. It's a nice thing to say to let growth pay for growth, but in reality everyone at some stage of the game is going to have to share in the expenses of the upcoming growth and development that's coming to our community. And Mr. Strain, this refers to the map that you were talking about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. McDANIEL: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, not the map that I was talking about. MR. McDANIEL: I understand that. This refers to the area with Page 15 December 9, 2008 regard to our study. And you brought up an interesting subject, and we the committee were tasked, as you're going to hear in a little bit, with polling the populous that exists east of 951, lives -- I shouldn't say just exist, they live east of 951. And truths of the matter are the largest populated from a density standpoint area is Golden Gate Estates. So it's inevitable that several of our subject matters and opinions with respect to growth and development in eastern Collier County came from those folks that live in Golden Gate Estates. But the entire area land mass east of 951 was included in our survey and in our -- as our study area. The truths of the matter are, of that entire land mass some 1.2 odd million acres, approximately 350,000 acres is available for development in support of the growth and development that's ultimately going to occur east of 951. And it is encompassed by multi -- I want to -- say maybe jurisdictional is probably a good way to do it. But you've got Golden Gate Estates master plan, you've got the Immokalee overlay, you've got the rural fringe overlay within the comprehensive growth management plan and you also have the rural land stewardship overlay. Those mechanisms are out there for -- and attempting to govern what occurs from a growth and development standpoint in eastern Collier County. And as Mike said, the exact amount of people is going to be determined based upon sustainability is the bottom line. And socio- and political decisions that we implement today or going forward based upon the best available information. Round numbers, whether it's 950,000 or 1,200,000 really is not necessarily the specific case for today. The bottom line is, is the growth and development is inevitably coming to our area and we have to plan. If we don't plan, then as the adage goes, we can then plan to Page 16 December 9,2008 fail. And we'll have a heck of a time on our hands supporting the ultimate growth and development that's coming to our community. If these projections are in fact correct, and I believe them to be, at least at best sustainable with the information that we have, the populous, this million some odd people that are ultimately going to be here in Collier County, approximately 70 percent of them are going to reside east of 951. Which you're going to see a shift from the -- what we now currently designate as the urban area into the more rural area. And that is part and parcel to what came about from our study. Here's the population breakdowns, as best as we can. And this again outlines the four major governing groups, if you will: The Immokalee overlay, the rural land stewardship overlay, the rural fringe and then ultimately Golden Gate Estates, and the estimates of the populations within those areas. And this goes back to what we talked about at the beginning. The bottom line is there is an expense associated with growth and development, and we need to today start to explore alternative funding methods for sources of payment for the capital improvements that are going to be required to support and sustain the growth and development that's inevitably coming to our community. The commission was made aware of this -- the Board of County Commissioners was made aware of this, and that was what motivated them to establish the East of 951 Horizon Study Committee, who were then sent out to hold public meetings and poll the folks that live out there to ascertain what level of service they were looking to have provided to them. And there's your committee right there, made up of a very interesting group. I had an opportunity to spend what, two plus years with these folks. A lot of different ideas, a lot of different thought processes and community leaders from all over our county. Not just large landowners, but folks that like me are just regular people that like to have a thought and a say-so. Page 17 December 9, 2008 And as I shared with you earlier on, we were tasked with these particular duties to go out and poll the public that reside east of 951. And I believe as per the charge from the county commission, that our committee fulfilled those tasks that we were sent off to do. Our report today will summarize the findings of the polling, the community meetings that we had, the public vetting sessions that we had, and ultimately have hopefully assisting (sic) you in implementing the interactive growth model, ultimately impacting the Comprehensive Gr:owth Management Plan and then flowing through to the Land Development Code. We offer up position points for consideration for the Board of County Commissioners, and they basically come as follows. The interactive growth model is one of the most phenomenal planning tools that I've had the opportunity to experience and have a review of. It is an unbelievably dynamic piece of work. It takes into account so many things that are going to allow us to provide a plan that has fiscal responsibility, that has accountability to appropriate the dollars for the infrastructure. And as you said, Mr. Chair, early on, I mean, there's a lot of information that's flowing out now through these individual committees. But with this model we're going to be able to ascertain from a timing standpoint a proactive status for the ultimate growth and development that's coming to our community. These are some of the things that we did in the two-year process. The last three things I'd like to call your attention to there. We had what we felt was a high success rate. We polled some 2,100 household in the area of our study area and received just shy of 30 percent response, which -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whoa. MR. McDANIEL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know how many of that was from Estates people? And the reason is, if this study was supposed to Page 18 December 9,2008 be more than just Golden Gate Estates -- and I'm reading it and it seems really focused on Golden Gate Estates, which I have no problem with since I live there. But I would really be more concerned that the other parts of the county who are part of this had an equivalent balance of say-so in your public participation. MR. MOHLKE: They did. And I will comment on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Mohlke, you know better than -- you've got to be at the speaker, you've got to identify yourself in the front of the room, so please refrain from any comments from the audience at this time. Do you have any idea what that is? MR. McDANIEL: On a percentage basis, not off the top of my head, Mr. Chairman. I can share with you, though, that there was an effort to be equitable with the responses and how we acquired the information from the folks that live in eastern Collier County. I mean, and Mr. Mohlke, when he does come up, will I'm sure be able to give you the exact percentages on the responses. And as I shared with you, it's inevitable. I mean, we -- I can assure you personally that we made an effort to not have this process be another Golden Gate Estates master planning committee. I mean, we were very considerate with respect to -- but also being aware that your highest populous, your greatest density of people residing east of 951 are within the already subdivided and set up Golden Gate Estates, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's just temporary. Because based on the chart that you just had here, the RLSA section of the county will far surpass Golden Gate Estates in population. MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. Absolutely. Without a doubt. But on the same token, our charge -- and we had a rather interesting adventure, but our charge was to poll the folks that live east of 951 and ascertain the level of services that are going to ultimately Page 19 December 9,2008 be required by that group. And as Mr. Bosi shared with you, the majority of them aren't here yet. So we did the best we could with what we had to work with, and endeavor to not have this be another Golden Gate Estates master planning committee. So again, these are -- I'm going to get into the position points here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wish to -- I don't mean to keep interrupting you, but -- MR. McDANIEL: No, please -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I want to make sure we're being -- MR. McDANIEL: -- I asked you to early on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as productive as possible as we move forward. It seems in Mr. Basi's discussion with us in the beginning, one of his recommendations was for the public participation process. The committee requests that the CCPC make a recommendation on the individual position points advanced by the Horizon Study committee when appropriate. And there's three pages of those. And based on what you're heading into, it looks like you're going to bring up those issues now. And I was wondering if we want to take them as we go through them now, ask questions about them. I'm not sure we want to take a position on them till the end of the meeting, but at least we will have our questions up front and done while you're trying to discuss them with us. Does that work for you, Bill? MR. McDANIEL: I'm all over it. That's fine with me, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. It will take a little longer for you to be up there, but if you don't mind, it might expedite the process. MR. McDANIEL: Mike was kind enough to bring me a cup of water, so I shouldn't run out of too much wind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what I'll do is if you don't mind, at the -- each time you get through with a couple bullets, I'll ask for Page 20 December 9,2008 comments from the panel. MR. McDANIEL: And that's fine. And please, I welcome those -- this interactivity. I mean, you folks are going to be an integral part of the ultimate growth and development that comes to our community as anything. And with that water, there was in fact an overwhelming opinion there that the extension of utilities into Golden Gate Estates is not a warranted or required or even a necessity at this particular stage. There were experts that were brought in, and to the best -- with the best available information that we had there was no need for the extension of water and sewer into the Golden Gate Estates area. There was a concern -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you said there were experts brought in? MR. McDANIEL: From Collier County. And then we had on-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Water and Wastewater? MR. McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: They were brought in and they are telling us that based on build-out for the Estates there still is no need -- it's not a health, safety, welfare issue, we don't need to put water and sewer in the Estates. MR. McDANIEL: At this particular time with the information that we have available to you, that is a correct statement, yes, ma'am. There are opinions that are -- that folks have that ultimately could have an influence on that, but the information that we have available to us at this particular stage, there is no health, safety and welfare issues in regard to that. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bill, while we're on this subject, about a month ago in front of the Board of County Commissioners under a citizen's request, a gentleman spoke through an interpreter to Page 21 December 9,2008 the commissioners asking why when he lives in Golden Gate Estates he was charged, I think he said, $6,000 for water and sewer impact fees when there's no water and sewer available out there. And I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman's position. He says why can't I have my money given back to me. And of course the board was given an elaborate excuse that because the water and sewer district boundaries were shown east of 951 that by law the water and sewer district could ask for impact fees, even though they are clearly never going to use them within the 10-year time frame. And the commission clearly did not favor having those impact fees apply, but they were convinced by the water department that those fees were needed, by state statute. My suggestion, I was wondering if your board would have taken this up, is that if this is a true statement in regards to the fact nobody out there really wants water and sewer -- I shouldn't say nobody, but the majority -- and from what I saw on the board that the day, not one of the board members expected that to happen within a 10 or a 20-year time frame. They didn't see it either. Would your board consider recommending a reduction of the water and sewer boundary lines back to the 951 corridor demarcation point instead of going out into the Estates to provide an excuse to collect fees that will never be used? That's a leading question. MR. McDANIEL: Boy. That's an understatement. And I'm going to say this, Mr. Chairman, with respect to that: You're talking about specificities in regard -- and granted, ultimately we're going to have -- this information that is being provided to you is ultimately going to have impacts on the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan and ultimately the LDC. That was -- the question that you specially asked was clearly outside the guise of our charge in regard to utilization of impact fees. Page 22 December 9,2008 But it does bode the question of ultimate funding sources. I can say, ultimately to answer your question, we still are in existence, the committee, for about five more days. So we're about done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Bill, I --let me tell you something too. When I read this, being on this panel for the length of time I have been, I always look for very specific issues and recommendations. I was a little frustrated after reading this, because it really isn't specific. And now that it was explained to us this morning by Mr. Bosi and as well as yourself, this is more of a generic expression of the mindset of those living east of951. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really need to step back and figure out a different context in which to understand this at. So I guess in reaction to some of these, maybe the planning commission could recommend to the BCC considerations that these are purely more esoteric comments of the people's feelings out there than it is of specific changes to anything in particular. MR. McDANIEL: And agreed. And if you go back to the actual charge that was given to this committee by the Board of County Commissioners, that's what we were charged to do. The -- right. And with that, and Mike just reminded me, and again, it's a two-year process that we went through here in order to be here today to offer you this presentation. We were very, very careful to stay away from specific recommendations with regard to the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan or with regard to the LDC. Our goal, our charge was to poll the populous to ascertain the viewpoint of the level of services that were to be provided in eastern Collier County, not to actually decide whether or not one particular fee structure was fair or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 23 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I need to go back -- MR. McDANIEL: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to my original question. Because everybody here knows that there's a difference between the water/sewer boundary and the east of951 boundaries, did Water and Sewer tell you that at build-out for the Estates there would still be no need for water and sewer? MR. BaSI: Phil Gramatges from public utilities offered no comment upon that issue. Strictly what utilities was charged to do was to look out, study what was the cost of extending the water and wastewater to the Estates that are in the district boundary but are currently not provided wastewater water. They identified a price tag of $111,000 per parcel for the extension of that water -- of that service. They -- COMMISSIONER CARON: They made no comment on whether that was going to be -- MR. BOSI: At the public meetings, the majority ofthe public said we do not want that price tag raised. But what they did express in the last two meetings, there is concern. Whether -- there's not a study as to full build-out. There is some concern from the residents out there about potentially having an influence from ultimate build-out to the availability of wastewater and water. So there is -- there is some concern. And as you'll see within the second bullet point and the third bullet point in water, there is a component of the public that is somewhat concerned about the long-term viability of the system. And between utilities, between the health department, you know, the DEP, there was a suggestion that potentially we need to get these groups together and look at this subject in a little bit more intensive manner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but Mike, having followup to you Page 24 December 9,2008 and then Mr. Murray, I've lived out there 30 years, and you're right, we have some concerns about water, but it's not the use of the water we're doing, it's the use of the water that's being sucked out of the ground that's lowering our water table, causing higher droughts and more fires out there and our wells going dry because all the cities and municipalities are taking our water. So that's our concern. MR. BOSI: And that was a concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Boy, the scope of this is really JUICY. First of all, I'm not sure that we can effectively make a recommendation on several points without really breaking it into increments of time. Because this is all relatable to time. For instance, in terms of water and wastewater, those who are not here yet will want services and will need services, clean water and sewer. Otherwise, we poison the ground. And they're not here to talk about it. So we have on the one hand you're seeking the information from persons who are living here, those are the ones you have to work with, about what the future will be, and they haven't got a clue. And then we have a group of I guess some people in government who are indicating whatever they're indicating. And I find it too open-ended, quite frankly. MR. McDANIEL: And if I may interrupt you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR. McDANIEL: And it's very specific. It was the folks that we spoke with in the Golden Gate Estates area that currently live there today. There was an overwhelming resounding no to the extension of utilities into Golden Gate Estates. The other areas that are encompassed within our study area, the Immokalee overlay, the rural fringe overlay, the rural lands stewardship overlay, those bodies, from the best that I've been able to ascertain, are required to have clean sewer, central water, clean water, Page 25 December 9,2008 clean sewer systems that are provided within their development codes before they can ever go to the dance -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, and I think I understand that. But that would leave this very large tract of land, although parceled for single-family residents and a few commercial enterprises effectively absent any kind of sanitary sewer and freshwater other than pumped from the ground, correct? MR. McDANIEL: At this particular stage, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, that's the point I'm trying to get to, this particular stage. I just got the impress that ad infinitum these people generally and anticipatorily people who will come and occupy will also have the same mindset, which I doubt. MR. McDANIEL: At the expense that's associated with the extension out there, unless there's a proven methodology or a proven issue with respect to the sanitary capacities of providing clean water for the folks, I can assure you that there will be a resounding no to the extension of the Estates -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I recognize that individuals will express their preferences to avoid cost and certainly satisfaction with what exists. But it would not be unusual for a government to subordinate that and say you cannot have an unhealthy system. MR. McDANIEL: Of course. Now, if there's information-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I think that has to be part of this. MR. McDANIEL: Well, at this particular stage it can be part of this. It wasn't part of what the East of 951 Horizon Study committee was charged with. We were charged with ascertaining as to whether or not the folks that currently live there today would be in favor of and support the installation of utilities in that area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that, sir, but we're going out to 2055 on this study. Page 26 December 9,2008 MR. McDANIEL: We're going out to a time that is yet to be determined. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. McDANIEL: The maturity of what's involved in the growth and development of eastern Collier County. And as I shared with you at the beginning of this, there's a lot of information yet to be ascertained. There may be a new technology that none of us are ultimately aware of that will assist us in determining the impacts of the sewer and septic systems that exist in Golden Gate Estates that we don't even know about yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not going to try to make a determination on what may be in the future when I know something exists today. All I'm saying is how much weight -- and you're strong about this, you're saying the weight of those who have answered today with regard to the future with regard to water and sewer are the dominating force and that the judgments, that's the inference I'm getting, the judgments that we're supposed to align with is that that's okay. And I find it extremely difficult to accept that premise. So that's going to be a real sticking point for me. It was when I read this. You know, we build latrines in the service because we know better, right? MR. McDANIEL: And Mr. Murray, you bring up a very good point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. McDANIEL: But in may, again, the global aspect of what's been encompassed by the East of 951 Horizon Study committee was utilization of the information that we have available to us today and the polling of the folks that live in the study area. And as I shared with you at the beginning, by populous, by density, the large majority of those folks live in the Golden Gate Estates. It's the platted plotted subdivision that currently exists out Page 27 December 9,2008 there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? MR. McDANIEL: As we go forward, better and more information will come about. And I'm sure that if it's ultimately determined that there is a health, safety and welfare impacts (sic) that are derived from the septic systems, we the community will make the necessary adjustments accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mike, I have a question; I don't know if you can answer this. But you had mentioned that Phil had mentioned 110,000 per parcel? MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir, that's correct. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Parcel being what, quarter acre versus a hundred acre? MR. McDANIEL: It was on a per unit basis, irrespective of the size of the property. Because Golden Gate Estates has very specific densities that are allowed within the parcels. So it was a per parcel, not a per land mass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did anybody in your discussions with your group, did anybody bring any testimony forward or any discussion forward that the septic systems or water systems out there in the Estates were unhealthy in any manner whatsoever? MR. McDANIEL: Not that I have any recall on, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I've lived there 30 years and I can tell, from a fact I can tell you that's not the case. MR. McDANIEL: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. McDANIEL: And as Mr. Murray spoke of, as time goes on and more people ultimately reside in the area, and there are larger demands on our entire ecosystem and resources that are available to support the growth and development and ultimate new technologies, we way be able to determine and have new information that will better Page 28 December 9, 2008 assist us in making those decisions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would just add, quite frankly, you can't use the past to prove the future. MR. McDANIEL: Well, I'm going to go to the next slide. And I skipped the last paragraph there. But one of the suggestions that the committee would like to have as a recommendation is there were some concerns with the rehydration of the -- I backed up on you there -- the rehydration and restoration of the eastern Golden Gate Estates and Everglades. There's been some flooding concerns that have arisen with closure of canals and manipulation of water in eastern Collier County, and we would -- it was suggested that an independent study be utilized to ascertain the impacts of what's going on out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did your committee set up any criteria that you wanted looked at specifically? MR. McDANIEL: No, ma'am. It was -- the issue was raised. And it was ultimately part of our report. And other than the fact that we thought that an independent hydro geologist should be involved with respect to those impacts, there was no real parameters established. There is an issue -- and I believe, Mike, when you and I met -- there is an issue with ultimate availability of sustainable potable water for the community at large. And I think -- has that information been ultimately determined as to what capacities we have? That's a really good recommendation that could go to the Board of County Commissioners. And it's almost a bottom up analysis, but a determination of our availability -- the availability to provide potable water to eastern Collier County and ultimately sustain whatever population that ultimately is going to be residing here is a huge question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 29 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Why we have wasted time, money and effort on any of these other studies without doing that one first still boggles my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bill, I think we had fun with water. The next one ought to be a lot more fun, transportation. Nick's -- MR. McDANIEL: There you go, transportation. One of the things that was brought up and vetted through our committee was the installation of a bridge network in the eastern Collier County to assist with the emergency medical services to provide better care and assistance to the folks that reside in eastern Collier County. The bottom line determination, and I think you folks have all seen that ultimate bridge study that transportation, Nick and Lisa, put together for eastern Collier County. Big picture, multiple bridge locations without negative impacts to a few to support the many is the bottom-line decision that was arrived at. As far as the physical road structures go, functionality is the key to success. The folks in eastern Collier County aren't really looking for an urban cross-section. A rural cross-section will more than do. Multi-use paths, sidewalks and bicycle paths on the same path. Reduced expense. Provide functionality. Maintain lighting to major intersections to assist -- because as one of the resounding statements that came from the folks that live out there is they want to maintain the rural characteristics of eastern Collier County, and the ambient lighting is certainly an issue and observance of the dark skies policies are what we're looking for. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR. McDANIEL: Any questions there? (No response.) MR. McDANIEL: Again, this is just a reiteration of what I Page 30 December 9, 2008 shared with you. The bottom line is rural cross-sections, functionality, cost effectiveness, multi-use paths for both pedestrians and bicycles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, before you go on that one, the bottom one, the future roads in the RSLA, the rural cross-section design shall be the first option considered. MR. McDANIEL: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to understand what you mean by that. Because there are a lot of roads going in the rural area. For example, Oil Well Road's going in right now. Is that a rural cross-section? MR. McDANIEL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What did you mean by that? Because the rural lands that are being brought in to us for discussion and all these town traffic centroids that are going to go in out there are being done by developers. And generally when the development community does something now, they're required to have all the amenities, water, sewer and roads, and roads have to be up to our standard. So I'm wondering if this recommendation as it materializes into a GMP or LDC would counter the standards we utilize or would be used to counter the requirements we utilize for a full road system as we currently do for subdivisions that are brought in through development processes. MR. McDANIEL: And I'm going to suggest that -- remembering the ultimate charge of the East of951 Horizon Study. We had a very viable interactive public session with transportation. Nick and his group did a phenomenal job. It was a touchy-feely hands-on you build your road systems and then back into the expense and the capital requirements requisites in order to get the road systems in place. And the resounding statement across the board was the rural cross-section was the best suited for our particular area. Now, whether that's ultimately going to be in contradiction -- Page 3 1 December 9, 2008 probably is going to be in contradiction with some of the standards that have been established to date. But it's ultimately adjustments are going to be requisite there in order to facilitate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick was indicating he'd like to say something, if you don't mind. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The comments that Mr. McDaniel n I can echo them to a certain extent. What they said was the roads that were on the map that were more outlined on the urban area for future urban Immokalee, make them a rural type section, we'll say pathways and open drainage. And there were comments that as you come into the downtown to increase the amenities a little bit in downtown, you know, Immokalee or surrounding that would, you know, support where there were more densities. But his comments are correct, to go to a more rural cross-section with more limited amenities. They all agree to a base line amenity like a multi-use path in that rural section was supported. And as you get towards that downtown area, to consider putting sidewalks on both sides as needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Nick, is this to assume then that when we get reviews of, say, Big Cypress, because I know that's the one coming up, the cross-section of the roads that can be utilized in the Big Cypress town would be a rural cross-section? MR. CASALANGUIDA: And for that it wouldn't make sense, because they're a downtown area. That road network that they're going to build is going to be a downtown shopping commercial area, so you'd want an urban section in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if this evolves into some kind of process that implements new language in our codes, I'm assuming then that those definitions of when it applies and when it does not will be clearly defined. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Page 32 December 9,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because general statements like that could be used by some to provide less intense needs for expenditures in the rural area if they wanted to, when that may not be the intent that your department may have had. MR. CASALANGUIDA: One road to SR 29 bypass, if that comes to fruition. That was a strong resounding make it a rural section. Don't need to put a lot of amenities on that road. It's primarily a carrier facility from around, so don't put the bells and whistles on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for my clarity, because I know he's quite familiar with all these details and I am not. But do I understand you to say that we have a rural road, that means that there would be no bike path on it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd a paved shoulder on a rural road and you might have a one multi-use path on one side. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. But we do have facility for people who are on bicycles or walking -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to be able to safely traverse that road. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all I -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your urban section might have bike paths on both -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand the balance of the rest of it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. McDANIEL: Thank you, Nick. That was a fine clarification there. Page 33 December 9,2008 Any questions on the road systems that we talked about? (No response.) MR. McDANIEL: One of the things that came out during the transportation process was ultimate land use changes in the rural area of Collier County to effectuate providing services for the folks that live out there to reduce trip times, impacts on the level of service of the infrastructure, the road systems that we currently have in place. We were very careful. And during the one-year review process, I came and gave an update to the Board of County Commissioners, and one of the commissioners asked me with specificity with about the loop road that Nick just recently mentioned. We were very careful to stay away from specificities in our study as to whether or not the loop road's a good thing or not; whether or not an expansion of a one particular commercial node is better than another. Only to the extent that a review of the services that are provided for the folks that live in eastern Collier County is a must. And utilization of this interactive growth model is going to assist us in promoting land use changes in eastern Collier County that are going to better service that community and ultimately reduce the impacts on our road systems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, that last sentence you have here, and I'm just curious, this is one of the sentences that kind of got me trying to figure out what it was your committee was doing. I now know better, but that last sentence triggered it. The public has expressed a need for more consideration of emergency evacuation routes and future roadway planning. Any member of the public and any piece of anywhere of any living piece of Collier County is going to have that same sentiment. What made it so different that it had to be included in your report? That's a given, I would think, for all of us living in a hurricane zone. And I just saw that and I couldn't figure out what the purpose of it was, other than saying the obvious. Page 34 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He was saying the obvious. MR. McDANIEL: That we were saying the obvious. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what it seemed like. MR. McDANIEL: And with that, again, it's not a new thing, Mr. Chairman. I mean, it's something that is a necessity. There is a deficit in transportation systems in eastern Collier County. And as the populous grows, as the shift from the current designated urban area is moved into the rural area, there will be impacts associated with the ability to move our people and do evacuations. And so, you know, it was a statement of the obvious. But on the same token, it is part of the process of the shift of your population moving to the more rural areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. McDANIEL: And I must say this: You know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with the statement, I just kind of thought it was odd to see it there. MR. McDANIEL: It's not anything to disagree with. If you were concerned about what we were actually doing, I wish you would have called me a couple of years ago, I probably could have helped line you up a little bit more on what we were actually all about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can only do so many committees, Bill. MR. McDANIEL: No doubt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Bill, do you feel that the bridges are an important part of the evacuation or more for the EMS and fire department and so on? MR. McDANIEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which? MR. McDANIEL: Yes. Both. There was -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a follow-up, too. Page 35 December 9,2008 MR. McDANIEL: Do what? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a follow-up too, but go ahead. MR. McDANIEL: Okay. But getting me to pick is going to be a difficult thing. And you have to understand, I have a lot of opinions. I have lived in eastern Collier County the majority of my life and I'm endeavoring to speak for and on behalf of the committee as the chair person of the committee and not necessarily interject my personal thought processes. So there are health and safety issues that travel around residing in rural Collier County. And one of the fellows from the emergency medical services talked about what level of service is that is satisfactory. If you're the fellow that's laying there and can't catch your breath, having a heart attack, three to four-minute response time is too long. But on the same token, if you fell off your bike and broke your arm, what's an acceptable level of service? The realities are the Golden Gate Estates area is predominately where we're talking about the installation of the bridges. There are some easily ascertainable, just on a viewpoint, holes in the transportation network out there, and we feel that those bridges can help fill those holes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And in all of your community meetings, the people that live on the roads where the bridges are proposed, what were their feelings of those? MR. McDANIEL: Basic sentiment was we didn't want to travel down the happy path that we did when we interconnected. I think it was 23rd-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: 13th? MR. McDANIEL: 13th. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Was it 13th? MR. McDANIEL: 13th or 15th, whatever street that was out Page 36 December 9,2008 there in Golden Gate Estates. We didn't want to travel down that happy path. Actually, one of the commission -- or one of the committee people, Christian Spilker (phonetic), lives on one of those designated streets and received the notices, attended the public meetings. There was quite a bit of public vetting that went on. And ultimately the bottom line is if the greater good is going to be served, and it's not just going to be a hodgepodge or stick one in here, that sort of thing, the necessity for having multiple bridges will release the pressures from one particular area, one particular street and those impacts on those folks. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. MR. McDANIEL: You're welcome. Fire suppression. One of the overwhelming viewpoints was some extension of fire suppression into the eastern Collier County will be a huge benefit to the masses, to a lot of folks that live out there. The suggestion of a well-fed draw type hydrants in lieu of the very expensive loop system was a suggestion. And ultimately placing of hydrants along the existing raw mains that are currently out there would help facilitate fire suppression in eastern Collier County, more specifically in Golden Gate Estates. Yes, ma'am? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And you had the fire district out there to speak to your group and were there -- were they fairly simpatico or not? MR. McDANIEL: Were they fairly what? I didn't hear you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Were they fairly simpatico on-- MR. McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that kind of-- MR. McDANIEL: Yes, ma'am. Again, there is an issue with fire suppression in the Estates area. Page 37 December 9,2008 A lot of the communities that are going to come along in the rural fringe and the rural land stewardship area will have those services available to them within those individual communities, and that will ultimately assist in the fire suppression in the Estates proper. But currently right now other than swimming pools, there's not a lot in Golden Gate Estates. And we've had those issues with insurance in eastern Collier County, more specifically the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Just from clarity, raw water in this case is water drawn from the well going -- and we're talking about -- MR. McDANIEL: The actual water mains that come from Collier County into -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, in that -- MR. McDANIEL: -- and along our canal, that's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- area intended to be brought in for processing. MR. McDANIEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those are large pipes. MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that would handle that. Thank you. MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. Yeah, it was determined that there wouldn't be a negative impact on that for the ability for the utilization of those for fire suppression. Moving forward, as Mike said to you early on in the introduction portion, we found that it is getting better, but there are several disconnects in the development process with multi-departmental . reviewers. For instance, fire districts and fire -- specific fire districts weren't or aren't ultimately consulted until later on in the process when someone comes in with a site development plan request to have their opinions. And one of our suggestions was just to enhance the Page 38 December 9,2008 communications of the interdepartmental communications in Collier County as we're moving through the department processes. We found that there was a huge lack of communication amongst the departments. It's gotten a lot better. Transportation, fire and EMS and so on and so forth have really stepped up and been working a lot with one another in order to effectuate a far more smoother process for implementation for these permits. This comes back around to EMS and the co -- from an economical standpoint, collocating the EMS and fire district, sheriffs departments and those sort of things seemed to be one of the most viable alternatives to extending these services into eastern Collier County, and far more cost effective at the same time. Maintenance of the rural characteristics of eastern Collier County are one of the things that we would like to see promoted. As far as parks and recreations goes, larger regional, larger community parks as opposed to a lot of smaller community parks of hodgepodged around the area seemed to be what the folks in eastern Collier County currently are looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, you mentioned regional parks. When I read it, it talked about larger community parks. MR. McDANIEL: I misspoke. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I understand that. And I'm not trying to pick on that. I'm trying to understand, what are larger community parks? Because there are specific criteria set for parks for size and distance. MR. McDANIEL: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm trying to understand, when that recitation was made, are we going to create a new -- MR. McDANIEL: We have that designation from a larger community park standpoint. That was one of the choices that we were offered from Parks and Recreation. I misspoke when I said larger Page 39 December 9,2008 regional park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not picking -- MR. McDANIEL: I know you're not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what I'm trying to ascertain, my central question is really about a larger community park. Because it's a new category, as far as I can tell. And if they've given you that kind of information, I think that needs to be something we can n MR. McDANIEL: As an example, sir, Max Hasse is a perfect example of a larger community park. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A larger community park. MR. McDANIEL: Of a large community park. And again, Max Hasse is a good example of what was designated as a large community park, as opposed to a neighborhood park which is a smaller two and a half to five-acre park with swing sets and that sort of thing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I think we're getting close to where I need to understand. I think we need to do away with the term, unless it's meaningful, larger. Because a community park does have specific sizes and amenities and so forth that are base. And then there are additional amenities that may be added associated with particular needs of the community. I worry about the initiation of a larger community park. That creates a whole new set of boundaries. MR. McDANIEL: Forgive us. I mean, again, we developed this Power Point presentation to get across the gist of what was discussed. And the bottom line is large community parks are the requisite for the folks that reside out there, not the neighborhood parks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. I think neighborhood -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, the first sentence refers to the Estates. Does the balance of the paragraph refer to only the Estates? MR. McDANIEL: No. I mean, the -- with respect to the-- Page 40 December 9,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, the new communities going in out there would have the broad base of parks like we have throughout the urban area. So I would assume then this whole paragraph is really talking about the Estates; otherwise you're going to be saying that the new towns and everything should only have larger community or regional parks. MR. McDANIEL: And again, Mr. Chair, a large portion of the populous that was polled with respect to the parks reside in Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. McDANIEL: And so then to -- so you're not incorrect in your statement with respect to some of the newer communities like Big Cypress and that sort of thing should be allowed to make the determinations as to how they wish to handle their parks and services departments along those lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's where I was going. MR. McDANIEL: We weren't actually polling those folks. They're not there yet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But since your last statement says that results expressed only limited support for new park facilities. That would coincide with my understanding of what the people in the Estates mindset generally is. Because we have such big lots out there parks are not essential. MR. McDANIEL: That's correct, we have one in our backyard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what is a level three option? Isn't that your most expensive option? MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that mean we're going to be able to have $54 million water slides and splash lagoons in our parks out in Golden Gate Estates like the rest of the county has that doesn't really need it because they're close to the beach and we're not? MR. McDANIEL: Is that another leading question, sir? Page 41 December 9, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not at all. No, just -- no, I was just curious if you thought about that or not. But anyway, we can go on from parks. MR. McDANIEL: And with that in mind, I have had a thought or two about that particular statement. But the bottom line is the parks and recreational facilities of Collier County are determined by population densities and growth rates and then ultimately are spun off from the Parks and Recreations Department for the capital improvements necessary to provide the parks. The main point here is large community parks in lieu of neighborhood parks are the requisite at this particular stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be looking for the water slides. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that reminds me, on the AUIR, I mean, they present to us and when we've gone in depth, and I think we did that in a year as well, we determined that they've acquired park land out in the boondocks for many years to follow. Were those parcels taken into consideration in any way as being applicable to the location. Because we're talking about a study that pinpoints appropriate locations. You know, they took what was available to them and they bought it on speculation that in the future with that mindset at that paradigm that was what was going to happen. How does that correlate now, if you've explored it? MR. McDANIEL: We did to a certain extent. Parks and Recreation did take into consideration the existing facilities, the federally held lands, state held lands, those sort of things are all part and parcel to their ultimate determination of where in fact parks are to be -- park and recreational facilities are to be located. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did it jive? MR. McDANIEL: Pretty close. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really. MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. Page 42 December 9,2008 And again, one of the things I would like to clarify, and it's just a point that you made, is out in the boondocks. Ain't no more. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Compared to where I live, they're in the boondocks. MR. McDANIEL: I understand that, sir. And it's something that we need to take into consideration as we're moving forward. It's not out in the boondocks anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, in your last sentence about the limited support for new park facilities, if that is true, how did you get to the second to the last sentence which says the provision for level three was desired? If that's the highest and most expensive level, yet there was limited support, how did you correlate that? How did that come out of that? MR. McDANIEL: I'm going to let Mr. Basi -- I have a thought there with respect to that, but I'll refer to the expert that was in amongst us. MR. BaSI: Mike Basi with Comprehensive Planning. During the two sessions that we had, in each one of these areas that we go through, there was two public presentations, one official public pre -- to the public from each individual department. When Parks and Rec. came out and spoke during the two visits with the public, during the two public meetings, the people who attended those meetings had expressed a desire for the same level of service that was provided within the urbanized area for community parks. But the survey results portrayed a little bit of a different mindset towards -- in relation to support for new parks. So the people who actually attended the meetings weren't 100 percent in agreement with the responses that we received from the survey. That's why you have two not contradictory but somewhat-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or could it be that if you're going to spend the money on the parks, do it right. Otherwise, just hold off Page 43 December 9,2008 until you can. MR. BaSI: Well, that was one thing that overwhelmingly came out, not only just parks. The voice of the public came out, and I think that's probably at any public -- but the one benefit that did come was the public was provided an explanation towards how the amenities are located within each park, how the park system goes out, speaks with individual -- the populous within the geographical area that it's trying to serve and specifically trying to ascertain from them what they wanted to see, whether it be a water park or whether it be ball fields or whether it be soccer fields. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What parks? Not in this county. What county are we talking about? MR. BOSI: This county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? MR. BaSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our parks department goes out and gets an opinion on what the local people want. And we all want soccer fields, apparently. Okay. MR. McDANIEL: We're not going to go there. We're not going to go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Bill. Little editorializing. I can't resist. I'm sorry. Oh, by the way, at 10:00, we will be taking a IS-minute break, so you can have all the water you need. MR. McDANIEL: All the water I need? Good. I think we'll move on to the next slide. I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: General. MR. McDANIEL: Parks are -- if you want to go ahead and take a break now and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Ten after 10:00 we'll resume. MR. McDANIEL: -- at a change of pace, we'll do that. Okay, thank you. Page 44 December 9,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take a break. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bill, it's -- we're back from our break. And before you go into your continued discussion, one thing I did forget in the early part of this meeting, and I don't know how the court reporter can move things to the front of the minutes when she does, if she can, but Mr. Vigliotti, can you do roll call, please, as our secretary . COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Commissioner Kolflat is absent. Commissioner Schiffer is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Midney -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, Commissioner Midney is also absent. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's real absent. You didn't even know it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Caron is present. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the school board representative, Mr. Eastman, is not here as well. Thank you. Page 45 December 9,2008 Now, Bill, it's yours again. MR. McDANIEL: Very good. With that, I'm going to revisit one of the subject matters that we talked about early on and that's the communication. A necessity of communication, a dialogue amongst the state, federal and local government agencies. The area that we're talking about here is extremely voluminous, and it's going to require communication, a multi-jurisdictional communication, multi-community correspondence. What Collier County is doing with respect to their impact fees has a direct impact on Hendry, has a direct impact on Lee, on neighboring communities. And those are -- what Collier County's planning on doing with its transportation, with its utilities are going to have impacts on the neighboring communities. And one of the things that we -- it was discussed at length was the necessity for fortifying and promoting communication amongst multi-agency governments within the particular area. We did speak with some of the larger landowners. Some of those had representatives that actually sat on our committee. Mr. Chair, you spoke about that ECPO group, or whatever their name is, that continually corresponds with the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay Committee. The sub-elements that exist within the East of 951 Horizon Study area, those sub-elements, the jurisdictional sub-elements, the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan, the Rural Fringe Overlay, the Immokalee Master Plan and then the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay, there needs to be connectivity amongst those, there needs to be communication, there needs to be impacts derived from one to the other. And I believe -- we believe that one of the integral paths to get there is through this new interactive growth model. That's going to allow us, you ultimately, to see where, for lack of a better term, bridging of gaps exists to support the ultimate growth and Page 46 December 9, 2008 development that's going to occur in our community. There was a consensus amongst the groups that came to the meetings and in the polling process that the consolidation of fire districts and emergency medical services was something to be explored, and potentially could have benefits both fiscally and service availability to our community. And ultimately, and it goes -- there again, this is kind of one of those Mr. Obvious statements, Mr. Chairman, but support of the growth and development of the Immokalee Airport is going to assist in a lot of regards to our community at large. These are some of the final points. Maintaining -- obviously maintaining the semi-rural character of the Estates was an important, overwhelming, continuing effort that came to our organization, to our group. The utilization of the interactive growth model, you're going to get a presentation from Dr. Van Buskirk on that in a few moments, so I'm not going to take that all that much of his fire. But as I shared with you early on, the planning tool that's being afforded to us through the utilization of this interactive growth model is going to assist us for many, many years to come. Its maintenance, its upkeep and its utilization are paramount. And this is one of the specific -- Mr. Chair, one of the things that you had asked about, one of the things that we would really like to see as a committee of citizens, doesn't necessarily have to come off the East of 951 Horizon Study Committee proper, but necessarily an oversight group that are going to work with staff to assist in and report ultimately to the Board of County Commissioners that the interactive growth model which we have ordered, which has been done and ultimately can be implemented and assure that it's being utilized and not just shelved. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 47 December 9, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, I recognize the implications of my question, but I want to further -- I want you to think about it a second. We have government staff. That's the continuity. But even they change over time. You're talking about three to five people over a prolonged period of time. Is there enough there with those three to five people to keep the dynamic going? Is there enough there to be able to supervise all of -- and understand and work with all of that communication and Hendry and all the rest of it that you cited earlier? Is that plausible? Should three to five -- or should it be more in order to take the guts of it going forward? Did you think out the process of three to five? MR. McDANIEL: Actually, we did. And really, you intertwined several thought processes there, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so. MR. McDANIEL: No, that's okay. There's an overwhelming need for communication on a multi -- and we have those things through the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the regional planning organizations and so on and so forth. But it's imperative that communication be fortified and fostered going forward in order to support the growth and development. Because it's not just Collier County that's impacted. We're talking about Hendry, we're talking about Charlotte, we're talking about Lee at large. One: The suggestion from our committee is to -- and not to slight anybody or make suggestions in any regard one way or the other. We value the importance of the interactive growth model and its utilization and its ultimate implementation. And staff-elected and appointed officials come and go, both in the future planning department as well. And maintenance of this inter -- when you see the intricate detail that comes out of this interactive Page 48 December 9,2008 growth model, you're going to see and understand why we think that this group would be of a benefit to the community at large, ultimately to the commissioners and yourselves, to ensure that it's being utilized, it's being maintained and updated and so that it can ultimately be utilized as a tool. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you think out the process to the extent of qualifying who all are to be the representatives so as not to cause it to err on one side, so to speak? MR. McDANIEL: Sure. And with that point in mind, in may. I mean, we left it fairly generic. Did you provide a slide for the specificities for what we -- the task of this group? Okay, we have come up with a, if you will-- this group is an oversight group at large. It's not going to be influencing the information. It's not going to be making determinations with the utilization of the interactive growth model. This group is an oversight group to work with staff to ensure that the census data that comes in gets implemented into the interactive growth model, that the AUIR information gets implemented into the interactive growth model, that the zoning changes that are effectuated on an annual basis are implemented into the interactive growth model and then ultimately reported over to the County Commissioners that those things are in fact being done. This isn't an advisory group, this isn't a polling group, this is an oversight committee. And three people, candidly, would be enough. And they don't really necessarily require any real expertise other than a working knowledge of what the interactive growth model encompasses and how it's to be utilized. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think I now understand what you're really saying is you don't want all of this hard work to go on to the shelf. Is that what you're really saying? MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. Page 49 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. McDANIEL: It would be our preference to not see it go on the shelf. We believe that you have one of the most powerful and a phenomenal planning tool that can be availed to us as a community to assist us in the future growth and development of what occurs in our county . COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Then I concur with you. MR. McDANIEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, if your report goes on to the Board of County Commissioners and they accept it, it becomes direction to staff. Staff then has to implement it. Staff being probably Mike Bosi, Randy Cohen and whoever else in the department oversees those things. What is it in this paragraph do you think they wouldn't do? And I'm just puzzled, because unless you're going to replace them with these three to five people, why do we need more people overseeing something that's already directed and done by a professional staff who we are supposed to have hired for their professionalism and expertise? And I certainly doubt that you're going to find three volunteer members of the public who won't have self-serving special interests in mind by taking a position that's being offered here versus the ones that staff take. MR. McDANIEL: And with that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to suggest again that this is an oversight committee at large. It's not an influential group from that standpoint. Their job is specifically to ensure the updating and utilization of the interactive growth model. It's all public information. And Mr. -- Commissioner Henning and I had a little discussion in my first presentation to the Board of County Commissioners with regard to this. There was a perception that there would be information available to a specific few that wasn't available to the general public. And I want to assure you that that's not the intent here. Page 50 December 9,2008 And with regard to your statement, we do have very qualified staff today. We do have very qualified appointed officials today. The premise behind this group was to ensure that as those very qualified appointed officials and staff change, that this particular information that we have available to us as a planning tool doesn't get shelved and doesn't get lost in the wake of some other political process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I guess we can agree to disagree, but I understand your statement. Thank you, Bill. MR. McDANIEL: And I yours, sir. Last but not least: We were charged with polling the populous that reside east of 951. We were charged with coming up with suggestions to you to take to the Board of County Commissioners. And we would ultimately -- we thank you for the support that has been provided to our committee throughout this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bill. I did notice you failed to put on the last paragraph of your positions. MR. McDANIEL: Yeah, that was I think in your printed report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. McDANIEL: And that had to do with I think where Commissioner Henning and I -- where there could have been -- we had suggested two committees in our original report: One was an oversight committee, which is what I've been talking with you about. It's been decided by our group that the second of those two committees might be a little more controversial than what we're actually looking to do at this particular stage of the game. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are you withdrawing that from the final -- MR. McDANIEL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then I don't need to comment on it, because it will be controversial if it was left in. MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. And therein lies your thought Page 51 December 9,2008 process with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't feel the need for either committee. But especially the last one that you're withdrawing is more irrelevant than the one you previously presented. MR. McDANIEL: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But thank you. MR. McDANIEL: Absolutely. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your time. Any questions from anybody before we go on to the next presenter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Bill. Mr. Mohlke, I believe, is going to talk to us about Horizon Study public opinion and data collection. MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Chuck Mohlke, representing the firm of Fraser and Mohlke, that under the committee's guidance and direction prepared some survey instruments. I use the word plurally, because several, not all, but several of the public participation meetings there were distributed surveys for those in attendance to respond to. And it was in effect an opportunity to determine whether or not certain research methods would be better equipped to discern public attitudes than others. I could comment at whatever length the Planning Commission desires, but at this stage I think perhaps it would be best rather than listening to prepared remarks for you, Mr. Chair, and your colleagues to simply say that I have these areas of interest and would you comment, Mr. Mohlke, please, and I would be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for myself, anybody else, I have one question and that is I think there were around 21 or 2,500 surveys sent out, somewhere a number -- MR. MOHLKE: 2,150. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And of that, 28 percent return rate? Page 52 December 9, 2008 MR. MOHLKE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's approximately a little less than 600. MR. MOHLKE: 598, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Of the 598, how many of those were from Estates residents? MR. MOHLKE: 64 percent. And there were 57 percent that were in the sample. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the vast majority of the response to the survey was from Estates residents. MR. MOHLKE: Because the vast majority of the population to be surveyed, drawn carefully, ifI may expand on that, if you wish, were in the very area where the greatest extent of responses came. But as an example, Mr. Chair, in the area south ofI-75 and east of951, in the studies tables you'll notice that as zip code 34114. It constituted 17.91 percent of the sample and 19 percent ofthe responses. So with a single exception, the responses were proportionately the same as the sample indicated. And I'd be pleased to talk about the sample, Mr. Chair, if you want me to. I'd be happy to share with you the basis of the sample's construction and so on, if that's the committee's desire. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read the information provided. I'm not -- anybody else have any other questions? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to reacquaint myself with something I thought I knew a long time ago. Mr. Mohlke, in the world of survey, a two or three percent response is considered a good response, is it not? MR. MOHLKE: Well, if you're talking about a mail survey, any mail instrument, whatever it is, a marketing tool or a survey, it's astonishing that you can produce a viable result for the sender of the Page 53 December 9,2008 marketing piece if you get a one and a half percent response. If you're talking about a mail survey, we have done a number of those -- and Chairman Strain is aware of some of the other work that we did in regard to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy -- you feel fortunate if you get a 15 percent response. Apparently there was a sufficient incentive for the people who responded to bring us up to the level that we did. And as members will recall from reading the results, that we asked for responses by the 31 st of May. Of all the responses that we got -- we had to have a cut-off time, so we cut it off at July 1 st. And only 40 people responded after that time, indicating -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Indicating? MR. MOHLKE: Only 40 individual persons after the cut-off time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Cut-off of July 3rd. MR. MOHLKE: After July 1st responded. And the -- that was a level of comfort that someone like me feels that we did two things: We organized the response vehicle in a manner that made it relatively straightforward and simple for people to respond, using a 10-point scale and so on; permitted us to get good discrimination in terms of responses and a few other things. And I think that induced people to respond to what was a fairly straightforward four-page survey, 11 by 17 folded. And the responses were uniformly not only complete but did from time to time, and it was not reported in here, induce some people to write in responses and say this is why I circled number nine and not number two. Now, that is not a direct quote, but it basically indicates that had we had an opportunity for people to write in responses, we may have gotten some interesting commentary. If there are not a lot of questions from the committee, let me make -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Mohlke, I just wanted to n Page 54 December 9,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A few more questions. Mr. Murray, then Mrs. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to continue, because I want to ascertain something. MR. MOHLKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You received 40 that were to be excluded. Were they in fact excluded from -- MR. MOHLKE: They were. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Did you nevertheless look at them or did you just discard them? MR. MOHLKE: No, we kept them, but we did not open the envelopes or count them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you don't have any view as to what they might have been -- MR. MOHLKE: I do not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- anyway. Okay. MR. MOHLKE: If the committee would be interested in what happens customarily with a mail survey, particularly if you're asking very direct questions, what do you think of this, would you spend money on this, our experience is that when you ask very direct and specific questions like that, seeking guidance from the people that you have responded, within the first seven to eight business days in which mail is delivered back to the person doing the research, if you hit 40 percent during that period of time, predictably -- of all those that you're going to get, predictably 80 percent of those are negative on the issues that you've responded to. And the remainder then is in the hands of those who are the late responders in terms of generating a result that either will affirm the hoped for response or not. That tends to be the pattern. That was not the pattern here. As people responded -- now I know you only have me saying this. But as people responded, basically the responses were fairly uniform day after day after day inn Page 55 December 9, 2008 terms of where they came back from by zip code and the demographic characteristics of the folks who were there to be sampled and who were kind enough to return the studies. Mr. Chairman, ifI may, after -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had one question. Let her-- if we could ask -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, could she ask her question first? MR. MOHLKE: Oh, please. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go forward, could you just run down the rest of the sample? You had said within your sample you were trying for a 58 percent from the Estates and you got 64. From south and -- south ofI-75 and east of the study area you got 19 percent. MR. MOHLKE: And there were 17.9 percent of households in the total sample from that area. COMMISSIONER CARON: And you got back 19 percent? MR. MOHLKE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. Can you run through the rest of the areas and -- like for example, Immokalee. MR. MOHLKE: Well, Immokalee, our hope was that we would get somewhere in the area of 5.6 percent. And as you can see as you look at the study and you're looking at responses from the Immokalee zip codes, 34142, 34143, we did not achieve that level. COMMISSIONER CARON: What was it? MR. MOHLKE: What was it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, what was it? MR. MOHLKE: Well, a scrutiny of any of the tables will give you a reasonably good response. I could total it up, Commissioner, and give you that response back. But if you just simply looked at the tables and look for 34142 and 34143, there's 57. And we sent out a total of 123. So we got a Page 56 December 9,2008 fairly good response from that particular household group. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I don't have my calculator here, Mr. Mohlke. Do you have the percentages? That's all I'm asking. If you don't know them off the top of your head, just say -- MR. MOHLKE: I don't know them off the top my head, Commissioner. I will be happy to do that for you and repeat those to you before the conclusion of my meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chuck, do you want to continue what you were -- MR. MOHLKE: I have a response that I would like to make, Mr. Chair, at the time that Dr. Van Buskirk has completed his remarks, in could be recognized following that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, not a problem, sir. Okay, next, Nick? Since you're on a six-lane road, you want to build bridges, huh? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I love this job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's good seeing you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. First I want to thank Mike Bosi and Chairman McDaniel and the committee. They did a good job working with us. And sad to report, Lisa Koehler, who did a lot of work on this project, her last day is tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Lisa's leaving? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, she's going on to the BCB to work with Clarence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, congratulations to her new position, and good luck in finding someone to fulfill her place. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, that's a different story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it will be. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We won't get into that. The spin-off of the bridge study and how it happened, we took what the comments were from the Horizon Study literally and quickly, Page 57 December 9,2008 their comment about communicating and working with different departments. We had in our budget money already allocated for bridges to about two million a year in the first year and growing up to five million a year. And it gave us the opportunity to accelerate the bridge study and bring it into the East of 951 study as well, too. So it was a good timing issue and it gave us, you know, a good chance to really reach out to the public and communicate with the different groups, especially fire, EMS and the first responders. Through the process, staff just took the natural grid system in the Estates and evaluated that and said what's missing. When you look at Golden Gate Estates and all of east of 951, you can see that they laid out a roadway grid network, and much of that network is missing because of just that simple bridge connection. It was easy to see where they were when we looked at the map. So with staff, it was a good first review. We did an interave (sic) process with the agencies. We went to fire, EMS and the first responders, we went to the folks that were identified in the study and said take a look at what we've identified on the map and see if you have comments that we should be looking at something else, and give us your first review of priorities. We broke it down into four groups: Emergency response, mobility and evacuation, service efficiency and public sentiment. After doing that process, we went to the public. It should be noted that we had a very extensive public involvement program with this project as well too. That's Lisa's background. So there was mailings to the people that would be affected directly, public meeting, posting in the newspaper, as well as an interview with Lisa that kind of brought a lot of light to this. As Mr. McDaniel pointed out, quite a lot of response to this. So we went through this interive (sic) process and we looked at the different bridges that were involved. Page 58 December 9,2008 We also want to note that we did a quick cost analysis, and the cost analysis is like anything, on a cursory review of a bridge, until you do that detailed analysis of that location, you're going to get at rough number, from a million to a million and a half to put up a bridge, depending on span width and what you find for materials. I'll take you to the map, because that's probably the easiest thing we can talk about and make this fairly brief. The bridge locations that are identified and numbered, we have one which is at the end of 23rd at the western side of your map towards the middle. And that ties in 23rd to the White deadend. It's already in your Growth Management Plan as referenced. And what we're planning right now is part of the White bridge replacement, we have to replace the bridge that's existing on White Boulevard. The maintenance of traffic cost alone if we don't put in a bridge on 23rd would almost equal the cost of the bridge, because you have to maintain that traffic while you're redoing the bridge location. So it made perfect sense -- thank you, Mike -- perfect sense to have that be one of the first bridges installed, and since it was already referenced in our Growth Management Plan and the compo plan here. Then we looked at 8th and 16th, bridges two and three. North/south roads, you have Wilson, Everglades and DeSoto. And even 16th, even on the right-of-way for the plat of Golden Gate Estates there were 100 feet of right-of-way. There was set up to be that grid network of roads. So those made sense right there as well, too. Going east/west you have bridges six and seven, and that ties in that natural bridge location or east/west road in between Randall, VBR Extension and Golden Gate Boulevard. So you're getting that east/west progression. Bridge four, as you can see, it ties into that spot where Everglades extends, and I don't have that road name, it's kind of tight to read. I can't read it on even my copy right here. Bridge four. Page 59 December 9, 2008 I'll get back to the key road name. But you can see where bridge four is. Bridge five is the Wilson extension to the north and it ties in those groups of folks over there. Bridge twelve at the northeast corner was recommended by the fire districts as a way to get back into that area. It may not be a connectivity bridge, it may be a single lane emergency access bridge. Bridges eight, nine and lOon the periphery of new roads and existing roads were kind of located where -- bridge eight, for example, where a school would be located and a park would be located at the end of 13th. Bridge 10 is the Wilson Boulevard extension. And bridge nine ties into several new schools in that location. And those are what we call opportunity bridges. You wouldn't even put those bridges in until those projects come on-line. Bridge 11, it was interesting when we had the public meeting, a lot of good comments came out of bridge 11. And we're going to revert bridge 11 back to a study area. It was noted that there was already an existing structure there that might service emergency access on one of the east/west roads. And that as we get further information on those school locations where they might warrant a signal on Everglades Boulevard, might make sense to put a bridge extension on there. So we renotified those people with postcards and said to them, you know, this is going back to a study area, that we'll look at this in the future again. It was a fairly easy study to do in terms of where we thought the bridges made sense. We got a lot of good comments from the responders about time. They told us how having certain bridge connections would make more sense and those first responders could get to people quicker. As you could expect, anybody that lived on some of these Page 60 December 9,2008 dead-end roads had concerns. They liked their dead-end roads. But a lot of the comments were that they supported the connectivity, it made sense to them, and we really didn't have that overwhelming objection to the study that we thought we would have when it originally came out. With that, I can answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one. You use the term overwhelming. How significant is it? I got the impression from reading that there were a number of people, especially through the media -- of course that's an echo. But that's an interesting point you made that you didn't get the overwhelming response that you expected. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it was interesting, because we thought, you know, whenever you come up with any sort of new road project and you lose your dead-end. The concern was, as Commissioner Strain pointed out, or someone, putting one bridge in one spot and then flooding that road. So we talked about even with the board when we discussed it with them doing them in groups of two and three. In other words, putting bridge two and three together, tying 8th and 16th. You'd have several roads in parallel that would be kind of sharing that burden. And that was one of the concerns. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes sense. Would you have the funding potential to do this or -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do health -- I want to say health, safety and preservation of the existing bridges is our number one priority. Right now we'll go through and saying let's take care of the bridges we have first, and as that funding starts to free up in our outer years, we'll start prioritizing these or bringing these into the plan. Page 61 December 9,2008 So as we do our annual bridge evaluation, we spend the money first on maintaining the ones we have and then we start to come up with the money together for future bridges. So I would say as we get into the third or fourth year of our current five-year plan, we'll have probably money available to start construction on some of these bridges. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You gain that money from impact fees? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a capacity improvement, so impact fees I think might be one we could use. We may need some clarification on that. But general fund money or in our budget as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Any grants? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're going to apply for grants. As the study gets adopted and goes through the MPO process, we'll apply for federal money and state money. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, do you have -- you originally said these were a grid pattern that you saw on some early plan. Are the right-of-ways already platted and in place so you're not taking any land, or you have to go through the land acquisition process as well? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Our early analysis requires no land acquisition. You're going from existing right-of-way to the canal easement and then crossing within that existing right-of-way and putting the bridge in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The language in the canal easement is flexible enough to allow access as well for a road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're still going to have to permit through Big Cypress if it's a primary canal, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as funding goes, now, if it's not impact fees, which as you have experienced and are now experiencing are severely cut off compared to what they used to be, Page 62 December 9, 2008 and they'll probably be that way for a long time to come, that means your improvements would have to come out of ad valorem general fund. And I would hope that since these have existed out there in all these years, that before we would raise taxes to create ad valorem taxes to pay bridges, we wouldn't do that. We would just simply wait until the tax base materialized or impact fees could generate and be used. I don't see this as a necessity to rush on. I just want to make sure you're not prioritizing it to a point where we're going to see this use as a need to raise ad valorem taxes, because I don't see it that way. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not our plan, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Other than that, I don't have any other questions. Anybody else have any of the bridge part of this? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I do-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Follow-up to that, because I appreciate the Chair's view on that, and it is a very viable statement there, it is correct. However, what weight then do we apply to the desires of the respondents to have emergency medical services to have fire apparatus get more quickly to their burning house? And evacuation routes, which we've discussed, what weight do you put to that relative to what the Chair has just indicated, which is -- I complimented. So what do we do there in the balancing act? What's your view on that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe stay stable with our funding right now, we'll have some of these bridges in place within our five-year plan. Right now, as you pointed out, funding is tight. Our biggest issue is cost of ownership, when we had a workshop with the Board yesterday. We're struggling with, as every other department is as well too. The capital projects that we have in place right now as they Page 63 December 9,2008 come on line, they have to be maintained. And they weren't on our maintenance rolls before. So we're going to see what we have for funding. We're going to evaluate that. Priority is always to maintenance, similar to what the state does. But our goal is to have some of these in place within five years with existing plan monies. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you don't anticipate raising ad valorem taxes, and we know impact fees are down and all other means of -- interesting conundrum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nick. I think we-- we're fine. Thanks. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Are you going to take action independently? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the end I think we'll probably go into -- we'll discuss our actions all at once and go through them at one time. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Does the committee need me here for the rest of the meeting, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would the commission like me to stay for the rest of the meeting or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- your stuffs pretty straight and simple. I don't see any reason for you to spend taxpayer dollars sitting here today when you -- without Lisa gone (sic), you're going to have to work. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You all have a good day. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Nick. Okay, Dr. Van Buskirk, please. MR. BaSI: Mike Basi with Comprehensive Planning. First, the second principal within Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Carlton Ryffel, will provide the introduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. RYFFEL: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. Page 64 December 9,2008 I'm Carlton Ryffel. I'm vice president of Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates. My partner is Paul Van Buskirk to my left. We've been looking forward to doing this presentation for you on the growth model. And we think you'll find it interesting and informative. And we also look forward to your questions at the conclusion of the presentation. From the perspective of community planning, Collier County is very complex, especially the area east of 951, which was our study area. And that area is slightly larger than the State of Delaware. In addition to its size, there have been many studies, area studies, planning applications, master plans done of this area over the years, and we analyzed all of those. And as you will see, many are incorporated into the interactive growth model. And we estimate that the growth model has approximately one million bits of data in it in information. And with the growth model, in a nutshell, you'll have the population and distribution -- and its distribution to build out in five-year increments of the study area; the supply, demand and distribution of land uses needed to accommodate your future growth in five-year increments; and finally, when and where any deficiencies are likely to occur. But before we begin the presentation, I think it's fitting that we acknowledge some of the people that helped us so you have some sense of the participation of the various county departments and constitutional officers that worked with us very closely on developing the model. First of course is Mike Basi, who was the appointed planning manager and worked endlessly with us throughout the process of developing the model. Beth Yang in Mike's department helped us with mapping and data challenges. And like Mike, she was always there to assist us. Community Development Director Joe Schmitt and Director of Page 65 December 9, 2008 Comprehensive Planning, Randy Cohen, were our first contacts with Collier County and who we first met with to discuss the growth model. And they saw the value of a planning tool such as this. And ultimately we entered into a contract with the county to create it. And your County Manager, Mr. Mudd, supported the model and helped us get the staff support we needed across department lines and when and where we needed those. And a final thank goes to Chairman Bill McDaniel and the members of the Horizon group to provide us with valuable insight of the study area. There were many questions of us and us of them, resulting in the growth model that will serve you well over the years to come. With that as an introduction, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Dr. Paul Van Buskirk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you, Carlton, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm just going to take a second here to get organized. Now, the first question is why a Collier interactive growth model? And there are several reasons. And one of those reasons is the population growth and large-scale development that's occurring east of 951. The comprehensive plan updates, the growth model provides a tremendous amount of data to assist in updating a comprehensive plan. Often with growth scenarios and impacts, see, the growth model is not a static model, it's a dynamic model. So as changes occur, those changes can be incorporated into the model. The model will process that data and then produce new output data. And then the portion of land uses that are necessary to support the needs of the population. And that can be parks or commercial centers or fire stations and schools and the other facilities as well. And then we want to maximize public investment; we want to Page 66 December 9,2008 get the maximum return on public investments, particularly for the capital improvements and infrastructure. What we initially did, we always develop a team of the consultant staff and the consulting the staff from the county, because one, it saves money. Staff has a lot of insight to where data is and has access to this data or readily access to this data, as well as insight to all the activities in terms of the county in terms of development and growth. Then staff receives a knowledge of the model and the model's working in this applications (sic) and what its capabilities are. And we had a lot of input from not only the staff but also from the Horizon committee. We met with them several times in reviewing the development of the model itself. And then hopefully as a result, the studies won't sit on the shelf but will be useful. Now, for the -- there are actually two models. One is the population forecasting model and the other is the interactive growth model. The population forecasting model forecasts population in the aggregate for the study area over time to build-out. And it's general done in five-year increments. And then (what) the interactive growth model does is distributes that population growth over time in five-year increments throughout the study area. (What) I wanted to do is kind of talk about the fundamentals of the model and do kind of a brief overview so it gives you a feeling for what the model's capabilities are. In the development of the model, our first step is that we disaggregate the community or the study area into zones. And I'm going to talk a little bit about that in the following slides. Then we got to inventory the current development and the demographics for all those zones, those disaggregated zones. And then we have to determine and estimate what the build-out Page 67 December 9, 2008 inventory would be of development for the forecast and the demographics of those zones as well. And then we need to do -- with that information then, scientifically we can do an accurate population forecast, once we have all that information. This illustrates the study area and the zones. There's about 173 zones in the study area, and they're the same as the traffic zones. And that was decided by staff, because what we wanted to do is to be able to translate this data to the traffic models and then traffic models can produce their output. And we'll have a really kind of comprehensive standard databank that can be used for all the different disciplines so we have some consistency. The other thing we can do or the model can do, I should say, is that we have these zones. We can aggregate these zones by clusters so that we can get the data from the different -- not only from the whole study area and not only from the zone but from the different clusters. And if you'll look at your future land use plan, they're essentially the subdistricts. We have the Immokalee urbanized area. So now we can get all the data through the Immokalee area, for the urbanized data, separate from the study area. Likewise for the stewardship area and also for the Golden Gate Estates. And then from the fringe mixed use district, as well as the residential fringe district and the coastal fringe district and the rural sediment area, and industrial area and the conservation areas. So now we can break all this data down by all those clusters, so to speak, within the model and we can do all the analyses for those different clusters as well as the study area and the activity centers. So this is the future land use plan. And we did a survey early on in the project to determine what were the best planning tools to determine future development. And we looked at the utility plans and the traffic studies and the master plan for Immokalee and the master Page 68 December 9, 2008 plan for the Estates and all the planning tools. And the general consensus is, is that the future land use plan would be the best tool to interpret what future development would be east of CR 951. The other thing here is, you know, sometimes you get the question, well, is the growth model pro growth or is it anti growth? Well, it's neither pro, it's not anti. The model really doesn't think and it doesn't have prejudice. But what the growth is based upon in the build-out scenario is on the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan. And (what) we have to do then is look at each one of those different districts and their rules and regulations for development to determine development yield at build-out. And some of those districts are relatively straightforward in determining development yield. Some are a lot more complicated, like the stewardship area. And I'm going to go into detail on the stewardship area and demonstrate how we arrived at what would be the development yield in that particular area. Also, each one of these districts have different demographics. There's different demographics in Immokalee than there's going to be in Ave Maria and there is in the Estates and et cetera. First thing we did, we had to establish the baseline inventory. We had over 70,000 parcels out of there that we had to query each one of those parcels to determine the number of single-family units, multi-family units, square foot of building area for office and services, square foot of building area for retail space, for industrial space, and the square foot of school plants by type of school plants: Elementary, middle and high school. And the square foot of fire stations. And acres of park by types of park: Community parks, regional parks. And then the sheriffs substations. So once we inventoried all that data, and that baseline was 2007, then that's our baseline data for the model. Page 69 December 9,2008 And the next -- oh, I wanted to just show you here some of the data output. There are several data outputs that the staff can enter into the model and get all the data in terms of the baseline in 2007 and the build-out. And it can be done by clusters. And this illustrates it by clusters. And this -- I'll just kind of page down here a little bit and show you how the clusters work. (What) we're showing is the urban fringe and the coastal and their subtotals. Now we come to the stewardship area. And we'll demonstrate the clusters here to have the inventory for the stewardship area. Likewise for the fringe area, mixed use fringe area. And then the industrial area, Immokalee, Golden Gate Estates, and then the conservation areas, and then we have the totals. If I pan back up I'll come across -- just show you briefly what they're inventorying of course is the zone acres, the study area here. This was 2007. Number of single-family, number of multi-family. The school plants, the elementary school and its acreage, middle schools and their acreage, high school and their acreage. Right across to the parks, community parks and regional parks. And then the acres and retail trade and the square foot of building area and retail trade. Likewise, offices services and industrial. Hotel/motel is there because the traffic models need the hotel/motel data. So we incorporated that in there. Fire stations, the number of acres and their square foot. So that will provide us all the information that we need -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, one of the commissioners has a question. Ms. Caron? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, you may have gone by it too quickly. But are there ago acres here? Page 70 December 9,2008 DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No, they're not. We didn't inventory the agricultural acres. That takes place really when we get into the RSLA (sic). We'll talk about the credits that are generated from agricultural to development and translated to the development itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are acres of ago outside of the RLSA. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you haven't-- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: We didn't inventory them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: We could, if that's what you wanted to do. Because when we query the datas, they do have the acres in there. They could be queried. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, one of our charges is to protect ag., not only in this county but in the Estates. So if we don't even inventory it, I don't know that we're doing our job -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, we inventoried-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in terms of future growth. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: -- the conservation and of course preservation. We determined the preservation of the ago lands in the RSLA (sic) and in the mixed use -- the fringe mixed use areas. In those two areas we do. COMMISSIONER CARON: But the -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: But outside those areas -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- conservation areas are not ago areas-- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No, but they can be. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- they're two different things. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Uh-huh. They could be. COMMISSIONER CARON: Two different definitions and everything. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just like NRP A's.n Page 71 December 9, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Our base zoning is agriculture. So when you're looking at subdistricts, you're looking at what is designated. But in fact much of that land may very well be ago in zomng. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So are you saying you haven't included it or that you -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, we include it in terms of the yield in ago as it's provided under the future land use plan of the baseline. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm not hearing you because I never finished my question -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I'm sorry. Let me formulate my question, please. What I'm trying to ascertain is whether or not you took the subdistricts, irrespective of whether they contained any number of variables of type of zoning, and used that as your plan. If you did that, that may very well have included the ag., which under the subdistrict is projected to become something else. But if you've eliminated ag., then I don't know that we have a complete model to work with. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: I didn't eliminate it in that respect. We determined the development yield from the agricultural lands based upon the future land use plan, which was what, one unit for five acres? So we did determine what the ago would develop -- what you could develop on the ago land in terms of what the future land use plan rules and regulations allow. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's at the earliest and then with the understanding -- I guess you don't need that for the model. The fact is, as it's developed, it will be modified accordingly and Page 72 December 9,2008 rezoned, and you don't concern yourself with that part of it -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No, no, we go strictly -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- that's transactional. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: n strictly by what the guidelines and the rules and regulations say in the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just trying to get a -- I think Commissioner Caron brought up a very good point, though, I do really think you need to -- you know, you're working with this apparently large bundle, but you have an apparent large bundle that -- and looking at some of the maps as we project out showing in the years further out how the density of population is based on the coloration here, it looks like we have nothing left in ago DR. VAN BUSKIRK: That's not a density of population, that's really a percent of development that's allowed to develop in those particular areas. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it virtually covers almost all of the area. And that's what's -- I think in the absence of the ago in there, we don't -- and it looks like to the average person I would think it looks like oh, my God, that's all going to be populated. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Especially if we're thinking smart growth principles, as I think it said at the outset. We'd be talking about moving zoning density numbers up, so -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think some of the ago land that you may not have considered is considered by the mere fact you have facilities in here for future schools, middle -- and parks. That's currently ago So if you're really calculating ag., you couldn't -- you're basically showing that where the ago is where your schools and parks and places like that will go. That's the conclusion -- that's what Page 73 December 9, 2008 evolves out of ago Everything in Collier County at one time was ago So your base map is all ago So all these additions then would be items that are used in place of the ago zoning that's there now, wouldn't it? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Let me try to clarify. We incorporate all the land in the study area. The agricultural land that is put into preservation through the RSLA (sic) and through the mixed use district, the model incorporates that and determines that yield, and then determines the development in those areas that may be currently ago but will be a town or a village or a hamlet or what have you. Those areas that aren't developed according to the mixed use district and the stewardship area end up what we call on the baseline, which is one unit per five acres. And that can be ag., and that's allowable under the future land use element of the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I understand a little bit more what you're saying. I was just -- the screen you have on here right now you show schools, middle acres, you show 92. That school probably isn't built yet. But when it does -- DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No, these are all built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, those are all built. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: This is an inventory of 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you utilized the future schools on the school master plan? DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Yes, and I'll go into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's fine. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: It's just this was just the first step, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, I'll just wait till you get through. Mike, just out of curiosity, when we did the RLSA study five years ago, we were given active working documents of the FlAM so that each of us could sit there, modify inputs to see how it reacted, Page 74 December 9,2008 how the document worked. We didn't receive any similar document in this regard to understand how this works so we could have come back with more prepared questions for the Doctor today. Do you know why that is not occurring in this particular scenario? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have a follow-up question to that, Mark, get it out of the way. I asked for that months ago. MR. BaSI: The FlAM is a portable computer model -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. BOSI: -- the interactive growth model is -- it's housed at Van Buskirk's web base server. We interact with their web base server through individual queries upon that. I guess what maybe would have provided you a better benefit would have been me providing you a password and access to the Van Buskirk's website to run individual queries on their website. But I'm not sure if -- I'm not sure if that was something -- I guess early on without an explanation of how this works or why this works or any of the underpinnings of it if that would have been of value to the planning commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then that brings up another scenario of questions. And I know one of your points today is that you want us to provide some kind of recommendation involved with the ongoing use of this tool. What was the contractual cost to initiate this involvement with this tool by the Board of County -- I mean, I remember hearing it. MR. BaSI: It was $200,000 for the development of the interactive growth model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: $200,000 bought the taxpayers a web link to use the model on their computer? MR. BaSI: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't give us -- for $200,000 do we Page 75 December 9, 2008 have any physical piece of infrastructure to show for it? MR. BOSI: The ability to log on to their server and utilize the growth model whenever we see fit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what if we don't renew the service? MR. BOSI: If we -- we can still utilize the model in this current version, but it will never be updated with current information. Therefore, each passing year that would go by, the information that would be produced by the growth model would be compromised because it's still stuck with the baseline of 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the things you didn't -- I didn't see in the report was the cost. The yearly ongoing cost now to get back into the game. MR. BOSI: Well, that hasn't -- we haven't identified that specific cost with a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how could we make a recommendation in these times when we don't even know what the cost is on a model that isn't on one of our computers and that we have to rely on somebody else's server for. That's real-- I didn't realize that. And FlAM was so handy because it was distributed as a model to function and use individually. This is a different twist. I didn't expect this today. MR. BOSI: Well, I would think, and it was my purview that you would review the growth model, see the output of the growth model, make a determination as to whether you believe there's a value within it, regardless of whatever the monetary association would be with the update. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, Mike. In these times nothing gets valued without knowing the monetary association. I can tell you for sure, there'll be no recommendation personally from me as a voter on this panel without knowing the implications to the taxpayers for the cost. So I don't know where you think you're going to go with this today, but that won't be one place for my consideration. Page 76 December 9,2008 Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which begs the other question, that what -- these are two gentlemen who operate this business and they're the principals and they're the ones who are the entrepreneurs and perhaps the only ones who know the secret rules and code. What do we have for the future? We're talking about a projection going out in the future. What do we have as a structure that can -- I don't say guarantee but certainly reasonably assure that in the future we continue to receive the opportunities to do our hocus-pocus? MR. BaSI: Well, I would probably have to take exception to the term hocus-pocus. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry, I didn't mean it in ridicule. MR. BaSI: There was a scientific -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, let me qualify that, I -- MR. BOSI: -- approach that we took with regards of this model in that regard. And I understand, I understand, it was just a terms of phrase. I would have to defer to Dr. VanBuskirk in terms of the viability of his firm and his firm to service the model on an annual basis as sees fit. I couldn't comment upon that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, and I understand. And I'll say out completely that I was not using that in a derogatory way. But I will say to you that it is an imperative that the left -- right hand is how much today and the left hand is how can we be sure that we're going to continue to, if we go forward, continue to benefit from it well into the future. And that's a question I think needs to be answered, as well as the first question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, thank you for your patience. You were next. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Mr. Strain, you covered about 95 percent of what I was going to ask regarding that. Page 77 December 9, 2008 A couple of months ago when I first saw this model, or different parts of it, I expressed a similar concern. I didn't get into as much depth about money and so on. I noticed here that it has a trademark on the interactive growth model, which made me think that we paid for something that we'll never own and never be able to use. Whereas here on -- well, the RLSA or the planning commission it would be very convenient to be able to pull up here while we're talking about something going on, say Big Cypress or something like that, it would be interesting to be able to put five years of non-growth into it and see how that affects it in 50 years and whether or not we're planning the correct way. I initially thought when we saw this at a committee some months ago that we would actually be able to use this interactive growth model, thus the term interactive, and we could -- the people who paid for it could actually use it. And that was my concern. MR. BaSI: The people who paid for it, the Board of County Commissioners in controlling of the direction to the county manner and the staff associated with comprehensive planning, we've already processed a number of requests for output for within the growth model. So we definitely have the utilization of the growth model firmly within our control. Whether the viability of Van Buskirk going forward is the question that you would like to address, I would have to defer to Dr. VanBuskirk upon that. But we have the ability to manipulate and ask what if scenarios, I mean, right now. And we've already done that a number of times through the web base server. What I hear is there is a reservation because there's not a tangible physical model that's in your hand. And the requirement that you have to go through a web base server to run inquiries within the growth model has caused a sense of discomfort for the planning commission? Page 78 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, let me clarify what my concern is. I think it should be housed in the county website. It is a county -- it's for us. It's for us to use. It's like going on the appraiser's web site and looking for the cost of a -- or the last sold on a home as an appraised value. It's that. It's about our future. It's what we do. I mean, we need this kind of stuff every time we open up a packet a week before a meeting. And I just don't know why it's not available to us. MR. BaSI: And it's specifically and it's clearly articulated for individual land use decisions on a small scale. It's not intended to be a model to address that. It -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think it's broad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I think there's two concerns. You did articulate one, that we don't -- it's not tangible, we haven't got our hands on it. And the second is you're asking for some support on something that we haven't have a cost for either. That will become an issue before the discussion's over today. So there are basically -- there might be now two issues, so -- MR. BaSI: And I would ask that Dr. Van Buskirk, who I'm sure who's ready to approach both of those subjects -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll go on -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Before you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with the presentation after Mr. Murray has his question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's relevant. You may not think initially relevant, but I think it is. It's my understanding, by the way, that the state statute requires we use the BEBR to do our planning for projection of population, is it the intent ultimately to find a way to get away from that and utilize this projection of population? Because the term or the word accurate is used here frequently. And that's good if we can do that. We don't think Page 79 December 9, 2008 BEBR is necessarily accurate because of its lag. This being dynamic, this might very well be more accurate or accurate. So -- and also, it's in increments of five years, but they're in one-year series, are they not? They're updated each year? MR. BaSI: Each year you update your baseline conditions with the changes that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. BaSI: -- have happened in the past year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words you'd have a parallel. You'd have the BEBR and you'd have this information together. Which one would we have to use? MR. BOSI: Until we would change the Growth Management Plan, we would utilize the BEBR numbers. The intent of comprehensive planning was to introduce this planning tool, provide it to the planning commission and the Productivity Committee and the Board of County Commissioners within its first year of development to utilize it as a planning tool. And then as the comfort level with this model became more engrained within the system, then we would begin a deliberative process as to whether we saw value and whether it was something within DCA's purview towards where we could substitute the utilization of BEBR within our capital improvement program processes, to utilize the interactive growth model. But I didn't want to suggest, oh, here's a planning tool, let's change our Growth Management Plan to utilize this right now before a level of familiarity was provided to the planning commission. So within the first year after its development, comprehensive planning's purview was just to allow you to become familiar with the processes, how it works, what the outputs are associated with the growth model, and then see where the conversation -- where the Commission and the Board of County Commissioners would like to take -- would like to see that conversation go. If they see the value towards it, maybe expand the reach and the Page 80 December 9, 2008 utilization of the growth model. But that would be determined based upon the receptiveness that each of the bodies would have towards the interactive growth model. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, Michael. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Let me explain the web base use of software. The web base use, the county has complete access to the software. It's no different than Bill Gates' Word or Excel. It's copyrighted. You have a license to use it. But you can't produce it and give it to somebody else or you can't reproduce it and sell it to somebody else. Obviously it's the intellectual property. Bill Gates' intellectual property or our intellectual property. On the website, he has a password for security. He can go in, he can make all the changes he wants on a baseline, do all the what-if scenarios, make all the changes that he wants on the build-out scenario. The model will reprocess the data, it will produce all the data sheets. He's got access to every one of those data sheets. He can reproduce them and bring them out into Excel for him, and he can go in and manipulate them all he wants to as well. The advantage of the web base is that when there's updates, the updates can be done easily without having to travel down here and have to pay that cost. Ifthere's any problems that they run into, they can be resolved immediately through the web base by contacting us and having our software designer make a system in correcting those problems. And most of your software today, particularly your customized software, is web based software because of that purpose. The key to it is security, to maintain security on it that they have a password that the county can get into. Because if anybody can get into it and starts playing with all these numbers, they're going to screw up your databank. So you want to be sure that whoever has access to the databank Page 81 December 9,2008 to make those changes, you know who they are and it's secured. Now, the results are available to everybody. Anybody can have the results; there's no problem there. And, you know, that's basically the way the industry is operating today with customized software. You've got complete access to it. What role do we play in the future? That's up to you. You can run that thing yourself. He can update it himself. He can make those changes and those what-if scenarios. Where we come into play is when you want to do some other things with the model, you want to expand the model's use. One of them is, and I'll talk about it -- I was going to talk about it, is we're doing all the traffic data now for the traffic for the -- traffic zones for the MPO. When it comes into -- and I'll talk about that, when it comes into analyzing a DRI, which is a large-scale project, you know, and the model can provide all that data to analyze that DRI and its impacts and effects, and it has all the supporting documentation for testimony. So there's a lot of things it can do. So anyway, that's essentially how it works. And it works well with all our clients. We have Auburn and we have other clients as well, and they like the web base, using the web base system. And they have complete access to that system. And you have a license for the software. So I just don't know what else we could do. Would you like me to continue, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Please do, thank you. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you. After we had inventoried all the development and for the baseline data all the development activities via dwelling units, commercial, office, schools, parks, et cetera, then what we need to do is we need to determine the yield at build-out. And here's where we used the future land use plan. And we look at each of -- all those subdistricts, and then using their guidelines, rules and regulations determine what the development Page 82 December 9,2008 yield would be for all those subdistricts by those zones. This is kind of an example. And some of those zones yields are relatively straight forward, like the Golden Gate Estates. But the RSLA (sic) is a little more complex. And I'm going to talk about that a little bit more what the -- what we did. Actually, the staff did an analysis based upon historic data they now had for the credit yields from the habitat and from the flow ways and the water resource areas. And then translate that through a series of algorithms into what would be the most likely numbers of towns, villages and hamlets and the baseline and the ago land as well. Now, what the model can do, if decided that hamlets are going to be dropped from the regulations and then the model can drop that and incorporate it into the villages and towns and what have you. So any changes that take place are very easy to enter that data into the model and then the model reprocess all that data in producing a new output. So I want to illustrate again here one of the printouts that the county staff can easily do. And this is for build-out. And here again, at build-out these are by the different clusters, so they'll show the single-family, multi-family, the schools -- here now is where the schools come in that are required to meet the demands of the population, the new schools. And by school -- plan type, the amount of retail square footage required to serve that population. Offices and services square foot space is required to serve that population. The industrial acres and industrial square foot. Hotel/motels, fire stations, et cetera. So now that we have the build-out scenario and it's -- all that data is by zones and by clusters. I just want to -- now that we have all this data, we can do a population forecasting for the study area. And we found in south Florida that the most accurate method is the logistic curve. And we've done a lot of that research on that, and I'm going to Page 83 December 9,2008 talk about some of that research that demonstrates the accuracy of the curve. But what I wanted to point out here, you know, traditionally in Florida the population growth has been underestimated using BEBR's numbers. And BEBR has consistently underestimated population growth. And that's been pretty well documented. But if you do a straight line extrapolation, that's the lower line here, the lower purple line, it's kind of linear from the beginning, you're going to underestimate growth. And if you underestimate growth, you're going to over-utilize your infrastructure and you're going to wear your infrastructure out before its useful life. And that's a very -- and you don't get a return on your capital investment. When we get past the inflection point, which is kind of -- is the midpoint of the curve, if you extrapolate then, you're going to overestimate growth and you're going to underlies (sic) your infrastructure if it's based upon growth. And then again, you don't get a return on your capital investment. So once we had determined the build-out in detail and we have historic data, we can then -- scientifically and through the computer models, we can then forecast the population growth over time in five-year increments. And if you're familiar with statistical analyses, if you have an R-square of .1, that means that every one of those historic points fell perfectly on that line. And here we have an R -square of about. 81, which means we had an R about .9. And that's pretty accurate in terms of forecasting. And we're using a 95 percent confidence in the rule. We can use a similar analysis to forecast for the study area, but we also could disaggregate it [rom the county's curve as well to validate it. Now, build-out of study area is about 442,000. And the current population is about 80,000. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? Page 84 December 9,2008 DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you say current population, are you referring to the study period or are you talking about today? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: 2007. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. DR. V AN BUSKIRK: So what we did in order to validate the Collier curve is that we looked at communities that are in south Florida that are most similar to it. We're looking at in terms of simulation models and series of simulation models and forecasting models. And I'm going to show you that shortly. This is Collier County and that's where you currently are on your forecasting curve. Now, we looked at Broward County, Palm Beach County and Sarasota County and Collier County. And we wanted to look at their mathematical expressions to determine the growth coefficients and see if they make sense. And I'm going to show you here. We can see that Collier County's growth is faster than Sarasota County's. And it's slightly slower in Broward and somewhat slower than Palm Beach County. And that makes kind of sense if you look at the history of growth of those counties. So we felt pretty comfortable with the Collier County growth. And then this is the forecast for the county, and -- well, around 2006 there was around -- I think it's 333,000, (33)4,000 today, something in that order. And build-out it's 950,000, which is lower than what your 2005 study called for. And this is for the study area. In 2007 you had about 80,000. In the build-out it's 442,000. And the model's forecast again is lower than what the 2005 forecast was involvement. And I'll explain why the difference. Page 85 December 9,2008 The other four steps we need to do is the criteria and the formulas for spatial distribution of development over time. And I'm going show you a print-out that shows all that development for each one of those zones over time in terms of number of dwelling units. And we developed a series of sub-models. The future land use plan is really a supply model that tells us what the supply of land uses are. And the sub-models -- or the demand models, they'll determine what are the demand for elementary schools, middle schools and high schools, what's the demand for commercial space, what's the demand for fire stations, what's the demand for community parks and et cetera. So (what) we're going to do is we're going to take those supply models and those demand models and see what deficiencies we can identify . And the data output is in five-year increments, and it's on those big spreadsheets that you see. And having a lot of data, you can't expect the policy makers to be able to take all that data and to analyze and interpret it. So we take that data and we translate it to graphic interpretations for the policy makers in order to get an understanding of a -- and an interpretation of the results. This is the development schedule. And (what) the development schedule shows is the distribution -- no, is the -- I've got to go back. There we go. And here again, it's the -- these are the zones here under the zone name. And then here again are the clusters. And then over here would be the number of dwelling units, the total number of dwelling units each year for those five-year increments that would be in each one of those zones over time. And you can see for the RSLA (sic), you know, it starts out with Ave Maria in about 2007, and then 2015 some of them are coming on line, and 2020 and 25 and 30 and et cetera, and all the way to build-out in five-year increments. Just to talk a little bit about how the population model interacts Page 86 December 9,2008 with this model. This development model is a whole series of algorithms, both to the growth rates, the distribution of population based upon a bunch of coefficients. Its proximity to transportation corridors, utilities, proximity to current development in terms of gravity models. And then also there's a series of algorithms that as these zones come on line for development, if you look down at the bottom here it says the grand total is 32, 781. Well, the total under the population forecasting model was 33,712. And what it does, it arranges these until they best match that population model. And it's as close a match as you can get. This is the sub-model. This is the series of demand models. And again, they're by clusters. And they're for each year for five years in the forecast. And what they'll do is they'll determine, based upon the population and its demographics -- and I'm going to talk about demographic models too shortly, because the demographics change over time as well. But what it will, it will forecast the number of elementary students that are generated, middle students that are generated, high school students that are generated, the demand for park acres according to your level of services from your AUIR, and likewise -- and by type of parks, be it a community park or regional park. The demand for retail space, offices and services. And industrial model is not a demand model. That's a design model that's based upon the policy makers in terms of how much industrial development they want in their community. So there we will be each one of these for five years out to 2080. There are a lot of other models besides those demand models. The demographic models -- the demographics change over time. But the demographics in Immokalee are much different than the demographics in Ave Maria. Immokalee has almost four persons per household. And they're much different from the Estates which is Page 87 December 9, 2008 around about 3.3,3.4 persons per household. It would be much difference from the rural fringe mixed use district. So what we did is if you look at how do you determine the demographics, you have to look at similar type of developments and different stages of development. For example, in Ave Maria, we just completed the growth model for Auburn, Alabama, which is the university community, and did an analysis of the university community's demographics. We looked at Georgia, at Athens, we looked at Gainesville, University of Florida, Corvallis in Oregon. So we can see the change in demographics over time as the population now becomes a greater percent of the total population from the university population and et cetera. So we applied different demographics for each one of those clusters that you saw, and the change in demographics over time as well. Economics. There are economic models. The demand for retail space increases as the population increases. And there's a relationship between the critical mass of population and the amount of retail space. So we need to look at those models as well. The socia-political. Socio-political is zoning. That's a socio-political activity. Future land use plans are what we call socio-political. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that economic model that you're referring to, you talked about retail and we talked about earlier, we talked about agricultural, which converts into call it production which is somewhat -- it's not retail but it's not industrial either per se. But that's part of the economics that are associated with the area out there. That's not included? Do I understand that then that that's not included? Because that's a work product from a large surface area that we do have some -- Page 88 December 9,2008 DR. V AN BUSKIRK: It's included where the agricultural -- it's classified as food processing and those type of activities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it in our models? DR. V AN BUSKIRK: It's in the model and it's under the industrial aspect, because that's the way the feds classify it when you do the old SIC or the NAC codes. So it's incorporated in that industrial part of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, at least we got captured some of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doctor, so you can -- up here, sir. Hello. Doctor? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not a problem. Just so you can time yourself accordingly, we take a lunch break at about 11 :45. I didn't know we'd have to take one today, but it looks like we're going to need one, because we have still a lot to go over. So about 10 more minutes we'll be taking a break for an hour. DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Okay. Of course land resources. And we talked about in terms of how much land to require for middle schools, high schools and elementary schools for community parks and et cetera. And I'm going to get into that into detail. So the Collier interactive growth model is (an) extremely complex model, and is a very complex environment we're working in. But also has its limitations, and I'll talk about that too later as well. The model's essentially a series of algorithms. And I just want to describe briefly an algorithm, and then I want to show how we apply the algorithms to the model. An algorithm is a procedure for solving a problem that has many solutions. But when you define the parameter, it produces a solution. And I always use the analogy of when you go on Map Quest and I want to go from Naples to Orlando and it comes up with three Page 89 December 9, 2008 different routes, so it has three different solutions. So you choose a parameter. I want the shortest route. Gives you the shortest route, that's the solution. I want the scenic route, it gives you the scenic route. That's the solution. We have the same thing here. Our algorithms are things like what are the -- what's going to be the school plant capacity of an elementary school. Is it 900 students? Well, then that will produce an algorithm. That will produce a solution in terms of how many elementary schools do we need, knowing what the elementary school population is. So we have a whole bunch of these parameters. Now, these parameters can be easily changed on the model. If the school district says well, it's not going to be 900, we want to go to a 500 module, we can go in and just change the nine to 500. It will reprocess all the school data and then produce all those spreadsheets on schools where the elementary schools come on line where they will be when they're needed. So here's some of the basic parameters we use in terms of the study area. And then we have the real specific parameters like school plant size. But we applied the study area limits and we used the future land use plan, the Growth Management Plan for the guidelines rules and regulations for future development. Now, if the policy makers change those rules, regulations and guidelines, we can go in and change those zones those changes occur in determining the new development yield that would be at build-out. And the staff can do that. They can go right in -- they don't need me to do that, they can go in the model and do that. They can make all those changes they want to make. And we use your current level of services, you know, for parks. We use your current level of services also -- we use what we call the ISL standards for your fire stations and we use the Class I when we did that as a standard. The standards for the commercial, what we did, we did an Page 90 December 9,2008 inventory of all your neighborhood shopping centers in Collier County and all your community shopping centers and all your regional shopping centers and then determined the average service area and the average market to support your neighborhood, community and regional, and then applied them to the model. And here again, if you want to change that data, you want to change the service area or the service population in terms of a parameter, we can just go in the model and we can change it. The type and intensity of development, according to the existing zoning for Immokalee. We found out in Irnmokalee that in your 2005 study you used the 1991 Immokalee Master Plan which had extremely high densities, and it produced a population in your 2005 study of 100,000 people at build-out for Immokalee. We used the zoning, because the zoning was more in line with the market and what's going on. And we come out with a build-out population of 60,000 instead of 100,000. So that's one of the reasons why we had a differential in the 2005 forecast, in our forecast. We used the ratio method for demographic trends. And I talked about one of them is that we looked at -- for like Ave Maria, we looked at university communities and looked at the development over time to look at what the demographics would be and the demographic changes over time. And we do that for other developments of similar type developments. And as a result we developed a set of demographics for each one of those clusters that are in the study area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Based on that, you're using the ratio method is what you're saying. Okay, and that also suggests to me it's a good proof of the projections as you're going along. That should follow the curve. DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's correct. Page 91 ---.-.....-.. ~ .......--.---- December 9, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's a good check, I think. Because otherwise, the projection, what you had said before, anybody can go in -- you know, the persons who are authorized go in and modify something. And particularly when I heard you qualify the retail, the retail that exists in any given place mayor may not serve the area, and that's proof over time by those that go out of business and are replaced by something else which mayor may not serve the area. And then to take an average of that, I'm sure it's good science, but I find myself confused by how that can give us a realistic projection. So you used the ratio method all through this whole thing? Okay, thank you. You do understand what I was projecting then, right? DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Sure. And you have different markets for commercial, for schools and for parks, et cetera. Different service areas. For example, for the commercial you had three neighborhood centers that are right on 951, so half of them serve the study area and then they serve the areas west of 951. At different markets there. So I want to talk a little about the specitivity (sic) of the model, because the model has its limitations, just like anything else. And essentially I kind of describe it is that, you know, they can specify the number of children are generated in the elementary school age or middle school age and then one of those five-year increments. And it can provide the data that we're optimally to locate those schools that are near where these children are generated. So you can do some smart growth in terms of trip generations and that good (sic) things. But the one thing it can't do, it can't tell you what their FCA T scores will be in 2035. Just won't do it. Or if you want to do it, it would cost a lot of money and might not tell you nothing. But I get a lot of crazy questions about, you know, what happens if an atomic bottom falls and all kinds of things. And the model Page 92 December 9,2008 doesn't have that level of specitivity (sic). So what we want to do now is I want to show you the results, and maybe this is a good time to break, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to ask you what works for you. If it does, then that would be fine. Why don't we break and come back at 12:45 and we'll resume at that time. Thank you, sir. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from lunch. We're still on the Horizon Study discussion from the Collier County Planning Commission. Dr. Van Buskirk was partway through his presentation. Sir, it's all yours -- oh, Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good afternoon, sir. Do we know what this is going to cost going forward? Do we have a cost to start the interactive program? What's the future cost? How is it arranged? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, let me put it this way: My personal objective is that you don't need me at all. That's what I'd prefer, that staff can do the whole project itself in those terms. And it depends upon what is it you want to do. If you just want to do the update, you look at the cost for the update to assist staff at this point in time for the baseline. You know, usually you sit down and work out -- you have your work task, you figure your hours and your hourly rate and so forth and so on. So I'm -- you know, I'm speculating here. You know, maybe it's $10,000, I don't know. If it got a little heavy in terms of getting the data and processing data, you know, I could never see it going over 20,000 or anything like that. There's a whole menu of items, like the Board of County Commissioners have already requested we do a library model to the growth model. I'd have to cost that out and see what that would be to Page 93 December 9,2008 expand the software to incorporate a library model. And some were talking about a medical model. So, you know, the software itself isn't costing anything. You got the license for that. It's the data we're talking about now. And so anyway, if! had to take an educated guess, you know, 10,000, probably reasonable. If it got difficult it might go up to 20. I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One time charge or -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, that's one time, yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, you can-- DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Ready? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- move forward. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: What we're doing now is we're going to look at the results of the model. You know, we've loaded the model up, we load the baseline up, we loaded the build-out up. We've done the distribution of dwelling units by zones over time. We did the demand models, you know, what's the demand for neighborhood commercial centers, middle schools, community parks, et cetera. Now we're going to see the results of that data in graphic form. And then I'll try to explain it. So what we're looking here is that we're going to show the population distribution, we're going to show school plants, when they come on line, where their location should be, parks, commercial centers, industrial parks. And I'm going to talk a little bit about industrial, because that's a design model, that's not a demand model. Fire stations and sheriffs substations. And then if we've got time, if you want to, I to do a walk through time. The walk through time is that we actually integrate all these disciplines, the schools, the parks, and look at 10-year decades and see what development occurs over the decades, 20 to 30, 30 to 40, Page 94 ----_."-- "--- December 9, 2008 40 to 50 to build-out, that thing. And then there's some conclusions that I presented to the Board of County Commissions and I'll present the conclusions also to you. This is kind of interesting here. This is what the population is in 2007 in that build-out. And you see for Immokalee it's around 22,500, and at build-out it's forecasted at 60,000. The 2005 study forecasted 104,000. And again, I explained to you what would (be) the difference between the 2005 study and what the model used in terms of forecasting. The Golden Gate Estates is at about 33,000, and they'll be about 80,000 at build-out. You think about it, 8,000 is -- you know, metropolitan cities threshold is about 50,000. So it gives you an idea of the magnitude of development. And then for the rural fringe mixed use district it's about 2,000. That would be about 35,000 at build-out. And if we look at the total, we're about 80,000 in 2007, and at build-out we'll be at 442,000. And the 2005 study had it at 518. So I'm going to talk a little bit why there's a difference between the 2005 study and the forecast from the model. In the 2005 study they use what information and data they had, and they developed an estimate and a target. We had historic data on the generation of credits in the stewardship area, so we were able to forecast what would be the generation of credits to build-out and translate that into development in terms of towns, villages and hamlets. The interesting part about that is that in forecasting that, we're going to preserve 100,000 acres in the SLA. And we're going to develop compact development on 45,000 acres. So you've got a two and a half to one ratio there. Presently it's preserve and land that's developed in the stewardship area. The other difference was, is that in the 2005 study they used the household size that exists today. So your two large population areas Page 95 December 9, 2008 are the Estates and Immokalee. And Immokalee is like 4.0 persons per household, and the Estates is 3.3. So they had a very high person per household. And that similar household was applied to the SLA and to the rural fringe mixed use district. And we know from research that the SLA is not going to have four person per household or even three people per household. So that's where we used data of similar types of development and we used the ratio method to see the forecast of the changes in those demographics over time. So if you take that in the changes in demographics, that's why there's a difference between the 2005 study and the model's forecast. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir? Doctor? Doctor? Hello, I'm here. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's all right, we know that happens. Would you just go back a moment, please. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Sure. I tried to backspace it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Previous. There you go. Okay, now, the green of course is the build-out. Was that 2007 not a build-out? That was the number. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: That's the current development that existed in 2007. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that was arrived at by straight line and linear -- DR. V AN BUSKIRK: No, no, that was done by an inventory. We inventoried every -- 70,000 parcels. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was an actual. In other words, that was a -- okay, that was -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And we ground-proofed it and we did Page 96 December 9,2008 aerial photos. I mean, that was a pretty long drawn-out process to do all that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What I'm fascinated by, you used the sigmoid method, though, for those items in red? DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's correct. But actually, that is just build-out. So the build-out was the estimate of the yield based upon the future land use amendment of the Growth Management Plan. So the sigmoid lies in between those two somewhere. So if we do the five-year increments between the 2007, between the green and the red, then the sigmoid curve will tell us, we can bring up those sheets and it will tell us how many dwelling units and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I appreciate that. I was just looking at the significant difference between what the stat -- the number now, 2005 number and against the projection. And that's because of the availability, 195,000 acres; is that right? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: That's of -- in the RSLA (sic). COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's what I'm looking at in specific, yes. DR. V AN BUSKIRK: That's correct. That's based upon the credits that would be generated, and then translating those credits to development, i.e., dwelling units. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's where we'll find our hamlets, our townships and whatever else -- our towns, rather. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, just want to be clear. DR. V AN BUSKIRK: What we're going to do now is that we're going to -- by shading we're going to see what percent of development occurs in the -- in those various zones. So if you see the real dark green, that means it's 90 to 100 percent developed. It doesn't reflect what the density is. You know, it could be 2,000 units in that T AZ or it could be 200 units in that TAZ. So it's just reflecting the percent of development that occurs. Page 97 December 9,2008 And as those shades get lighter, then the percent goes down to 80 to 90, all the way down to zero to 10 percent, which is the very light area in the beige area. So when I activate this -- there we go -- it will show the year and then it will show the population in the study area. And then the dark green shade will start shading in. And it's occurring mostly around the Estates. Actually, the Estates are going to build out first. The Estates will build out between 2035 and 2045 -- or 2040. Between 2035 and 2040, somewhere in there the Estates will build out. And now we're out to build-out year, and of course it's all shaded green. And then the conservation areas where we have static development remain pretty much the same, they don't change that much. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And sir, ifI may again, that's where I was trying to make the point earlier. Graphically it certainly I think speaks to it. The absence of any agricultural, how shall we say, points or graphic depictions, the -- it looks like the entire place is going to be developed, and you -- it's somewhat distressing to me, because I thought that part of our requirement -- again, DCA, the state has said we should try to protect our agricultural lands. And so this really paints a picture that I don't feel confident is the truth as -- I recognize what you're intending to project. DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Yeah, it's just to show the percent of development over time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, but people are going to look at this, they're going to seize on it and they're going to be misled by it, I suspect -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Chair? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- unless they're educated specifically. Page 98 December 9,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think what they could not project in here is where these hamlets, townships and so on are going to be. There aren't going to be humans all over the green area. They're going to be spotted in certain areas. But what they're saying is the amount of population that is allowable in the area, and which won't be all of that because most of it will still be agricultural, preservation, so on, so forth. So it doesn't -- it's not like going to be homes like the Estates all over the rural lands. That's not the purpose of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I understand your assertion. But if you take into consideration the Golden Gate Estates and you see the darkness of that -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Misleading. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- and you take into consideration all the other eastern lands, they have the same darkness. So a person would have to know what we've come to understand today to make a conclusion that's valid. This does not. It suggests another conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe we'll get more information if Dr. VanBuskirk continues. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, you know, truthfully, you know, you've get the GIS capabilities to do that. The data is there; the data is in the model. If we want to extract the data, they can do that to show where development takes place. We do have -- you know, we do have designated where the villages will be in the rural mixed use district. And we have designated the towns and the villages and the hamlets in the SLA. It's just a question of taking the data and having tpe GIS translate it. This was probably the easiest way to do it. But anyway, if you want that, maybe you can get together with Mike and your GIS people to do that. Page 99 December 9,2008 Now, what I wanted to illustrate here, I was looking at the fringe mixed use district and the Golden Gate Estates by itself to demonstrate when development would occur in those various zones to build-out by year. So that population represents the Golden Gate Estates in the rural fringe mixed use district. The rural fringe mixed use district is the last one to be built out. And that will be around 2070 or somewhere in that order. And then this is the stewardship area. The orange is the boundary of the stewardship area. And again, this just demonstrates the percent of development in terms of what can be developed in those particular zones. The second cluster or subdistrict to build out would be Immokalee, and the third would be the -- and I think Immokalee's around 20 -- yeah, Immokalee's around 2055, and then the SLA's around 2060, somewhere in that order. So if we're looking at the order of build-out, it would be the Estates, Immokalee, stewardship area and then the fringe area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I ask a question of Mike, please? Would we consider large tracts of land that are dedicated to farming as already, quote, unquote, built out? MR. BOSI: You mean the current SSA's in there? Yeah, because they're restricted from development, there could be no development that's going to be going on. And I think that's what you're indicating, that the person who's viewing this slide show and seeing these areas fill in dark might interpret that that's going to be where development is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. MR. BOSI: -- inevitably going to be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. MR. BOSI: And it's not the case. I mean, because you have to Page 100 December 9, 2008 remember, within the RLSA district there's 197,000 acres. 45,000 acres is going to receive development. So it's basically 150,000 acres that's either going to be placed in SSA or it's going to remain in agricultural zoning district projected by this growth model. But the way that it's viewed on this Power Point presentation and the way -- because he's filling it in with percent developed, it looks like well, oh, it's turning dark, that means it must have development in there. It might have satisfied its criteria for being developed, but there may be no development in there because it's dedicated to agriculture or it's dedicated to conservation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, Mike, this is as map rendition that is small. Do you anticipate -- do you project having, if you go forward with this, having a large map that would show where the -- again, I recognize this is intended -- MR. BOSI: I think what you were looking for is in part of the 2005 build-out study they did a presentation in terms of concentration of population -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. BOSl: -- and they built the bar chart for each individual zone to show where that individual zone was adding population. I could work with my GIS analyst Beth Yang towards where we could have the population take those spreadsheets relatively easily and build the population by T AZ and show you increments of that so the areas that aren't expected -- the T AZ zones that aren't expected to have population concentrated within them, they would remain relatively untouched by the pattern of colors. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, I'm going to make, whether now or later or both, I'm going to make a suggestion that that's probably not a bad idea to do in anticipation of your final presentation to the County Commissioners, who could probably benefit from such information. Page 101 December 9,2008 MR. BOSI: And I'll take that advisement. Weare going on the -- we're going next Tuesday to talk to the Board of County Commissioners what happened at today's meeting. We weren't planning a full-blown presentation, because they've already had their presentation. They were just interested in looking for what the specific recommendations that were going to come from this body. But if we move forward with it in the future, I'll definitely take that under advisement and would modify any Power Point presentation to show in that manner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you do yourself a service if you do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doctor, if you could continue, maybe we'll get through your presentation. Thank you. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: What we want to do now is graphically show the location and timing of elementary, middle and high schools as a function in number of students that are generated from the forecasted population. And here again, we're showing what the enrollment is in 2007 and what the enrollment would be at build-out for elementary, middle, high school and total school population. And the school population goes from 17,000 up to 82,000 at build-out. What we have here is that the symbols -- the green represents elementary, the orange, middle, and the red is high school. These are the existing school plants in 2007. They're going to turn black, show existing, and then the new ones are coming on line, and you'll see them in terms of the elementary and the middle and the high school over time. And this is in the rural fringe mixed use district and the Golden Gate Estates. And here we used the capacity for school plants that the school board was using. And generally a school plant comes on line when two-thirds of the -- when it comes on line, it will be two-thirds full-- Page 102 December 9, 2008 two-thirds of capacity will be the enrollment in the school plant. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Nothing's moving the last 30 years. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And build-out is essentially around 2055. We call it 90 percent build-out. The reason we use 90 percent, because if you'll notice in that curve, the top of it is very flat and it takes several decades to build out. So we're looking really, when we talk about build-out, we like to talk about 90 percent. It's more relevant for planning purposes. And this is of course in the Immokalee area and in the stewardship area. There we go. When we did the analysis of the supply, you know, versus the demand models, there was a demand for 42 elementary schools at build-out in the study area, and there was a supply for 31 sites. We were 11 sites short. And those shortfalls are basically in Immokalee and in Golden Gate Estates. And I'll talk about that a little later on. But most our shortfalls are in Immokalee or the Estates. And Immokalee, I understand there's a group that's doing a comprehensive plan update, and they'll probably address those shortfalls as well. So we're at build-out now pretty much in 2055. Now the community parks, there was a demand for the parks in 2007 and then this is the demand at build-out. This is based upon your level of services for community parks and regional parks. There were no provisions for regional parks in the future land use plan and in the stewardship area and the fringe area as well. But what happened with the parks, when we analyze all the existing community parks, they varied from six acres to 45 acres. And traditionally you have a module for community parks. And the National Park and Recreational Association recommends between 20 and 50 acres as a reasonable module for community parks. We used 18, because that was the average of all your community parks in the study area. Page 103 December 9, 2008 You might want to recommend like 36, and you fall within that -- 36-acre module falls within the recommended guidelines of the National Park and Recreation Association, but it reduce -- it's more economical. It reduces your operational cost and your maintenance cost. And that has a defined service area, so it's easier to plan for the community parks if you've got a module to work with. So we had a just developed module to run the model. And per the community parks, we were -- it called for a demand of 29. The Future Land Use Element provides for 24, and we have a five community park shortfall, which again is Immokalee and the Golden Gate Estates. And that's pretty well at build-out. Again, if we look at the stewardship area and then this identifies the community parks when they would come on line, what years they would come on line, where they would be located in terms of their zone. And here again, there was a shortfall within Immokalee. And this is pretty well built out by 2055. Now, for fire stations, what we did is we -- for our parameters, we used a Class I for the location of fire stations. It called for a mile and a half of -- their service area is a mile and a half on the all-weather road. And also it was kind of interesting about the fire stations, these are the existing ones, that their service area, if you look at it on average, they serve about 12,000 people on average, the pumper station does. And if you'll look at the EMS, they service about 14,000, given their service area, on average for population. So there's opportunities to co-locate the EMS and the fire stations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley had a question of you, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let me -- if you could just leave it right there. The ones that are coming into view, let's say in 2045 right now, is it only the ones that are in black that are existing in 2045? Page 104 December 9,2008 DR. VAN BUSKIRK: They were existing in 2007. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, that's -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And they exist in 2045. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Because I was reading this as the red is future; is that what that is? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No, something happened to the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, no, the red is existing -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: The red is future and the black is existing in 2007. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Whether it be a school, a park or a fire station, an EMS station, if they are on the map, it is build at that year if it is red? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes. The red's the year -- when they come on line in that year, that's when -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's just they were not existing in '07. I just want to know how to read this. Okay, that's the way it is, good deal, thanks. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And the only place that -- we didn't have a shortfall of fire stations, either. We had enough sites for fire stations. There was a call for 27, and we needed 27, but the Estates is not serviced by public water supply, so they're what they call a Class Nine in the Estates. And the Estates can upgrade to a class what they call Eight A, I guess it is, by different options. You talked about some of them this morning, as I recall. You know, you can have the dry hydrants and the wells and the ponds. And there's so much brush, you know, requirements, you can't have so much brush from a home and so forth and so on. So there's a lot of things that can be done in terms of the fire fighting protection in the Estates. And this is over in the stewardship area. This would be in the towns and villages. So by 2055 this is pretty well built out. Page 105 December 9,2008 The fire stations are really a leading indicator. They come on line early in development, generally speaking. Now we're going to be looking at neighborhood shopping centers, community shopping centers and regional shopping centers. And here again, the stewardship area, there's no provision for regional facilities. When you look at the population of 21 0,000 at build-out, that's a metropolitan area. And you're going to be having regional hospitals, regional shopping centers and your regional facilities. So this shows the supply and demand for commercial space. And you'll see that in 2007 the supply retail space was 1.6 million square foot. And it was, according to the growth model, was a demand for two million. So it was almost in balance there. The office and services was .3 million, and there's a demand for 1.1. And if you -- and I've talked to some of the folks over there in the study area that for their professional services, they usually go on the other side of 951. So there is a shortfall of office and services space. So if you look at the total demand for office at -- and then we look at what the shortfall is and we see that the total demand for office and retail is 3.1 million and the supply in 2007 is two million, that there's a shortfall. Now, this is at build-out. And here again, we're looking for the supply model in terms of the future land use plan. There's a demand for 11.2 million square foot of retail at build-out. No, I'm sorry, their supply, 11.2 and there's a demand for 29.3. So there's a shortfall. And I'll talk about that a little bit. And then there's a supply of 6.0 million square foot of office servIces -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, Mr. Wolfley has a question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Does this mean that we should be -- in our job here what we do on the planning commission, start looking for more mixed use commercial type activity centers out there? Page 106 December 9, 2008 DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, and I'll talk about them a little bit, where that is. If you look at the townships, what we did in the townships over in the stewardship area, we took the land use allocations that were in Ave Maria and the proposed allocations that are in the Big Cypress and developed a template, and said this is the template we're going to apply for towns. In their town centers some are, you know, 300 to 500-acre town centers. They'll say commercial, civic, residential, but they don't give any indication of the magnitude of them. There's sufficient land within those town centers to make up most of this shortfall. And I'll talk about that a little later. But you're absolutely correct, where we have the shortfalls, we should be looking to see particularly if they come in with a town plan and they don't show enough commercial land to meet the needs of those people, they're going to travel five, six, eight miles and now you're extending your trip lengths, overloading your traffic transportation network. You want them to reduce that. So for like for convenient shopping, they only have to go a mile and a half. For community shopping you only have to go two and a half to three miles and et cetera. And this is true with the school sites and the other sites that were right in -- then Immokalee, when they come out with the Immokalee Master Plan, they should have addressed those shortfalls. I'll talk a little bit about the Estates. That's a little different story, and I'll do that toward the end and tell you what we think might be a solution to that. But anyway, you're absolutely correct. So what we're going to show here, we're going to show the neighborhood shopping centers which are in orange and the community in blue and the regionals are in red. And then the existing ones will turn black, and they're the ones that exist in 2007. And thent Page 107 December 9,2008 the other ones, they'll be coming on line as it shows the year of201O, 15, 20 and et cetera. Generally speaking, you look at a neighborhood shopping center and you look at ULI guidelines, and then we did, we did an analysis right here in Collier County to adjust the size of your neighborhood shopping center, they're about I 10,000 square foot. They serve about 13,000 people in the service area. And for the community and for the regional, if you take all the -- those commercial centers that need to serve your population, they only represent 30 percent of all your commercial space. The other commercial space is your office parks, your profession~l office services, your hospitals and anything that comes under that service category and that office category. So while these are the commercial centers and this is when they come on line and where they would come on line, and this is toward the Estates -- I think there's two neighbors in the Estates that are designated. And then I'll address that remaining commercial space we talked about. And this is of course over in the stewardship area. And here again, it will show when the neighborhood centers and the community centers -- now, there was no provision for the regional center, but if you look east of Ave Maria, we kind of thought that would be a good place to reserve land for your regional facilities, because the townships will be surrounding that. And you can have transportation nodes in and out of your regional center. So we put a regional center there. A regional center runs about -- I think it was about 150,000 here in Collier County. But you got Coconut sitting up there, and that's drawing quite a bit out of that area. So looks like one regional center would meet their needs here. And the regional center is like an eight-mile radius, so -- I'm going to talk a little bit about the indus -- the industrial model's not a demand model, it's a design model. And it's up to the Page 108 December 9,2008 policy makers to determine how much industrial space they want to reserve in their land use plans for purposes of industrial. We speak about industrial, we're speaking about business and tech park. You know, the campus type activities, not the smokestack type activities. You know, we're looking at R&D, you know, we're looking at medical instruments, we're looking at some time types of assembly, electronics assemblies and things of that nature. So that's what we mean when we talk about an industrial park. We call it a business and tech park. So what we did is we looked at the changes in labor force over time that occur in counties that are similar to years. We looked at them, you know, up in Tampa and up in Pine lIas and over on the east cost. As the county is developing, gets up to its inflection line, a large portion of its work force is construction and construction related. After the inflection point, development starts to increase at a decreasing rate. That portion of your labor force starts shrinking. And it's usually replaced by what -- the destination is manufacturing with the feds with the NAC codes and the SIC codes and all that. But (what) we're looking at here is kind of business park. We're looking at R&D stuff, we're looking at medical instruments and things of that nature as a target industry. So when we look at that labor force and what's needed to fill that gap as it builds out, we're filling it up with that industrial land and that industrial space and industrial employees. So what we did then is we determined how much was required to do that. And also, you're diversifying the tax base as well. So what we said -- and this is just for illustration. The policy makers can, you know, decide whatever it is they want to do. But for an illustration, we put a 50-acre tech park in each one of the towns in the stewardship area and in the fringe area. And that should make sense too to the developer, because he's not going to be attracting just Page 109 December 9, 2008 retirees and seasonal homes, you know, he's going to be attracting permanent population, and other than just your service population. So that should be a value to the developer as well. I guess what it is, it was a firm, I'm trying to think of -- Art Tech, is it? That was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Arthrex. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Arthrex. And they're in medical instruments. And they're taking up 12 acres I guess in Ave Maria. And so you would see like four of those type of -- they call them small firms in terms of industrial development. The other thing is we found out too, and we found this out Auburn, that Auburn capped its capacity, its university at 25,000 students. And the community is still growing beyond that. And they were a university driven economy and they put a lot of effort into developing tech parks and actually getting a lot of them up and running as spin-offs from the university for research and development and things of that nature. So that university R&D can work quite well in the future and there may be opportunities here to do that with Ave Maria. So given that, you know, you've got about two million square foot now out there of industrial, and at build-out to be about 34 million square foot. And you say wow, that's a lot. Well, we're also taking up the slack that's east of 951, too. So we're looking at the county as a whole. And there is sufficient land in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan to meet that demand if we put 50 acres in each one of those towns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Mr. Wolfley after you. And Doctor, just so you know, I'm not -- I was originally expecting about a 30-minute presentation from you today, so we're getting into a lengthy period of time and this board still has to come to its conclusions yet and our questions upon your conclusion of your Page 110 December 9,2008 presentation. So hopefully we can get to the end of this portion of it so we can do our discussion as well. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you go back a slide, please. This is startling. Two things come to mind. One is that you indicated earlier that agriculture is put into the industrial. And then you made a statement just now saying that this includes -- if I have heard you correctly and understand you correctly, this number also includes the lands east which, no, I didn't understand that correctly. So you're saying to me that in that 34,658,000 roughly square feet, that contained in there are also the tracts of land that are for agriculture? Because that's what -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Only in the SRLA (sic). COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, how do we differentiate that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the microphone, sir, if you want to get -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Only in the stewardship area where you're developing your towns, on ago land, if they're developed on ago land. They're on open land and the fringe area. Otherwise it's not -- in fact, the industrial development is all in what you currently got zoned for industrial purposes, or you got designated on a future land use plan for industrial purposes, with the exception of the towns and the stewardship area. And I'll show it to you in a minute. It's mostly up at the airport and it's mostly down where 1-75 crosses 951. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So I want to be sure then we don't have an aberration, we don't have something that is out of whatever the graph shows. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay, that's what I needed to understand. Thank you. Page III December 9, 2008 DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Now I've got to find my way back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, you had a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm done. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Could we bring up the slide? MR. BOSI: Do you have a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's just passing until we get further along. MR. BOSI: You need to wrap it up. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: I want to show the industrial so we can be sure that it's clear. Then I'll try to wrap it up for you. . COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Doctor, while we're waiting, you said that there's a shortfall of the industrial west side of951 that you're making up? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: What we're looking at is you're looking at the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the microphone, sir. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: What we're looking at is we're looking at the labor force and we're saying at build-out what will the labor force look like in Collier County if it's a balanced labor force. And given that number of that labor force, we can translate that into how many square foot of space do you need for industrial to support that labor force. Some of that labor force is coming from the other side of951. There's no more sites over there to develop. So it's meeting the need of that labor force over there, that's essentially -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it's a shortfall. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're waiting, how much labor did you allocate to agriculture? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: I don't remember. I'll have to, you know CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. Page 112 December 9,2008 DR. VAN BUSKIRK: -- look it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just -- we have to wait anyway, and I figured if you had that readily. Because since you didn't count ag., I was wondering how you calculated the transient labor force that we have, which is probably our greatest labor force. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, what you do is you take the profi-- I have the profiles from the census of your labor force and agriculture over time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. There we go. That's where we left off. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: There's where we were. Okay, you're going to see now the -- there are two industrial areas now roughly 50 -- they represent roughly 50 acres. And now I'm going to show where the ones that come on line. If you look down at where 41 intersects, I guess it is -- 1-75 intersects 951. That's where it's designated on the future land use plan for industrial development. So there's several 50-acre parks that come on line down there. The other ones are in the villages of the fringe area and the towns of the stewardship area. And that's pretty much their build-out. Now, this is the ones over in Immokalee. And you're going to see the vast majority of them are going to be up in the airport area. There's room up there that's designated for industrial development. So several 50-acre sites can come on line up there. And the other ones are the 50 acres in each one of the towns in the stewardship area. So essentially, you know, the future land use plan provides sufficient land for industrial development to meet your needs from now to build-out, including the shortfall to serve that labor force that might be generated east of 951. And Mr. Chairman, I'm going to stop there. I guess my time's running out, huh? Page 113 December 9, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's no set time. I just want to make sure we move with as much of the information as succinctly as possible, that's all. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Okay. I'm going to kind of run into the-- the substations, there were plenty of sites for substations. No problem there with the substations. And then three is it, so -- and there's the other one. We did do affordable housing problem -- or housing sub-model. And if you want to, we can chat about it. But if you want to talk about it, it's up to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be interesting to see where you see affordable housing going in Collier County. Again, we don't want to short your presentation, I'm just asking that we try to keep it as concise as we possibly can to move through the day, that's all. DR. V AN BUSKIRK: Carlton did the affordable housing model. MR. RYFFEL: I'm Carlton Ryffel. The County Commission didn't ask us to locate the affordable housing. What they asked us to do was determine a reasonable percentage that the county should provide in affordable housing. And I'm going to give you the short version of this, just to make it -- Mike, how do I go back a slide? Okay. Yeah, the County Commission asked that we determine a pro rata percentage of what affordable housing should be in the study area. And what we did is review the inventory and findings contained in the affordable housing workshop that was presented to the County Commission in March of this year. And that provided us some really good background information and some idea of direction, which way we could go with this to have it make sense. What we did, to determine the percentage of affordable housing units that should be made available, in 2007 there was a estimated census, and it indicated that in 2007 there would be one -- there were Page 114 December 9,2008 192,043 dwelling units. And in that study that the county housing office did, they determined that there were 10,461 units needed in that year. Now, through various means they were able to provide most of those housing units in that particular year. So what we did simply was take the existing number of units in Collier County, you know, seven, and we divided that into the number of affordable need in 2007. That came out about 5.4 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Extrapolated. MR. RYFFEL: Then we applied that percentage to the study area's population, based on the population forecasting in five-year increments to determine what does that mean in terms of dwelling units. Now, let's see. The left-hand column is the five-year increments that we're dealing with, starting with seven; 10, 15, et cetera. The far right column is how many affordable units you would need to add based on that percentage of 5.4 and also based on the forecasted population. Now, we wanted to make sure that this was a reasonable way to go. And so what we did, I explained this methodology to the director of Collier County Housing and Human Services. And also, the community development director in Sarasota County which, as you were told or indicated in Paul's presentation was one of our comparable counties. And they both agreed that the method we used was reasonable and logical. Now, I didn't get into this in the slide, but using the same method in Sarasota County as Collier County, we determined that their affordable need would be about 4.2 percent. But there is a difference between Sarasota and Collier. In Sarasota County, they only address affordable need up to 80 percent of the area median income, while in Collier County, Collier County addresses up to 120 percent of the area median income. Which is a significant difference. Page 115 December 9,2008 You also have to remember that Collier County has the highest area of median income in the State of Florida, which is almost $70,000 now. So we made the conclusion that it would be safe to conclude that if the 80 percent were increased to 120 percent, as it is in Collier, in Sarasota, and their percentages being nearly the same as Collier's. And conversely, if everything above 80 percent were removed from the affordable, counting Collier, for purposes of that comparison, we thought the percentages would be very close between the two. So the bottom line of all this is that we feel that an affordable housing rate of about five percent appears to be reasonable, based on the information we were given. So that's all I have on affordable housing. I'm going to turn it back to Paul. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on that portion of it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm tickled by it, but I have to find out something. We have a standard, I don't know what to call it. We have a number that we use for a certain number of affordable houses needed. It hasn't been spoken of in the last year or two because of the downturn in the economy. But what I'm trying to ascertain, did you use that as your base line? What did you use as your base line for the five percent deficiency? MR. RYFFEL: I used the results that came out of the study, the county's study that was presented this year. They -- and I don't have those slides with me, but they have the various income levels. And the -- let's see if this will help at all. Let me just take a look here. The households in Collier County are considered to be cost Page 116 December 9,2008 burdened if people spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. So in looking at the income and the breakdowns in Collier County, I feel pretty comfortable that that's what they did, they used that -- they looked at how many people would fall within those various categories. They didn't give me a percentage, they gave me a number. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your numbers are predicated entirely upon the baseline that they gave to you. MR. RYFFEL: Yes, in this report. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you didn't proof it in any other way? MR. RYFFEL: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Now, some of the benefits already realized from the growth model. Most importantly, not only is the forecast development in population over time, but importantly, the distribution and location of that population. And we now have one standardized comprehensive data bank providing consistency for planning activities, including traffic modeling and forecasting of facilities and et cetera. It removes the uncertainty of the magnitude, distribution and timing of development in the stewardship area and in the fringe area. This shows the map. And you're probably familiar with it already. But the owners in the stewardship area-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Careful what you call those red dots. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: What we hope happens here is that the owners and their consultants requested the data from the model from Mike, and Mike provided them with all the output data from the model. And then the -- we were asked to do the data for the traffic model for here in Collier County for the MPO, to translate our data from the growth model to the traffic model. Page 117 December 9,2008 When that happened, then the owners came in and said -- because they knew what we had -- you know, what our data had said about the stewardship area. So they came in with these nodes, they're what we call district-wide nodes for modeling, and identify what would be the magnitude of development that that node represented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you scroll down so we can see the table? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little bit further. Okay. Just wanted to make sure you had not the wrong one. It says town nodes, I believe. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: So what we did is we wanted to compare our results to their results. So (what) we did is we looked at it in the aggregate. On this table, we had the Collier County interactive growth model forecasted population 216,000. They forecasted one of234,000. If I aggregate all those nodes, what they had in population in those nodes. For dwelling units, we forecasted 106,000 in the aggregate, they forecasted 113,000. For students, we forecasted 35,000, they forecasted 36,000. That's pretty close. And the other numbers are relatively close, too. So we see that convergence, you know, in terms of these numbers. And we're starting to get a handle on the stewardship area and the formulation of what future development would be. And then for commercial employees we forecasted 61,000, they forecasted 57,000, which told me that they did go into those town centers and allocate land for commercial purposes. They were making up that shortfall. Because (what) we do is we take the employees, we can translate that to square foot of space, retail, and then we can translate that to acres. Now, the industrial, we forecasted 7,000 employees, and that's Page 118 December 9,2008 those 50-acre tech parks we call for in each one of the towns. They don't provide for any industrial development, even though they're having it in Ave Maria. So when we looked at it in the aggregate, it looks like, you know, that we're coming pretty close together in terms of what they're proposing out there in the stewardship area. The other thing I did is I went in and looked at the nodes. And from the population and housing matrix in those nodes tried to determine if I could do an algorithm of villages and towns. And their villages and towns in that algorithm come out close to what the model had forecasted for development there. So the only place that we really disagreed, and if you looked at their nodes, is that just east of Ave Maria, we kind of reserved that land for regional facilities, and they put a town in there. But anyway, it's getting closer. Now, this again is some of the benefits from the models that were translating this data now to format for the traffic modelers. So the traffic modelers will be using this format. So in there we had incorporated our vacancy rates, which we have in our demographic models, we have the vacancy rate. Now, the seasonal housing, non-seasonal housing. Now the number of autos per household, we had to do some regression analysis through the census to determine that. And then the rest of the data is pretty much the data that comes from the model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you given this data, or how did you derive the data on Ave Maria University? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Ave Maria, I took it from the development order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I thought. That development order -- at that point the development order certainly was at question during the approval of Ave Maria, but thank Page 119 December 9,2008 you. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Now, the future benefits -- and this is what you were talking about earlier, you folks were -- is the annual update will provide reports to the managers, policy makers, planning commission, et cetera, to track development by type, location, trends, rate of development and impacts for monitoring and evaluation. So as we do the annual updates, it's very easy to provide reports to the Planning Commission, to the Board of County Commission and other agencies in terms of what development has taken place at that period of time, you know, how much more commercial space is going on line, how much more industrial space, how many more dwelling units, where are they going on line in those zones and et cetera. And also, we can start tracking trends. So if we want to make some adjustments to the demographic models and we start tracking trends out there in the stewardship area overtime, we can adjust the demographic models. So as we pick these trends up, we can start making adjustments in the model. And then the model's focusing in, you know, it's getting more and more accurate in terms of focusing in on its forecast and its forecast data output. And then, you know, the model can be used to assist in the applications and analysis of like DR! projects, large-scale projects of that nature and the location and timing of the population and development in the lands -- the needs that support the population and in its documentation for testimony and hearings as well. The initial results did identify and quantify some deficiencies. We talked about them, that there's no provisions for regional facilities out there in the stewardship area. We talked about the shortfalls in elementary and middle schools. No shortfalls in high schools. Some shortfalls in the community parks, and we talked about them. And they mainly where in Immokalee and the Estates. Page 120 December 9, 2008 And then also, when you do compo plan updates for future land use plan, in Cape Coral they use the model in terms of -- we did the study on the location of commercial nodes and the amount of commercial space that was required in those nodes and assisted them with developing the compo plan amendments for submission to DCA and things like that. So there are a lot of spin-offs that can happen in terms of the value of the model itself. And you can determine the impacts in development and cumulative impacts over time. And if you're in a zone and you've got a 300-unit subdivision, you know, and you can't zero in on the specifics, but if it's 3,000, you can zero in on the specifics of the impacts of those developments. But the smaller developments, like your 300 acres, say subdivision, you can use the parameters of the growth model to determine what the impacts are going to be from that, in terms of how many children they're going to generate and what's their demand for commercial space and et cetera. This is a walk through time, Mr. Chairman. We've really covered this material. I'm just compressing it into decades. Maybe we'll just skip this and go to the conclusions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's already been covered, I would agree with you. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Okay, let's do that. Mike can give you a copy of these slides, and if you want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We do have a copy. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: You do? Okay, fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here they are right here. Whoever said where, there they are. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: These were the conclusions that we presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The future land use plan and the county's growth management Page 121 December 9, 2008 plan is a very sophisticated and progressive plan that addresses multiple environmental and development issues. And the FLUE best represent future development and study area. Of all the growth models we've done and where we used the future land use plan as the build-out scenario, Collier's was the best. It really accomplished the main thrust of providing the proportion of the land use to meet the needs of the population. You had some shortfalls, we talked about. Most communities don't have any provisions for school sites or fire stations or commercial nodes or anything of that nature. And the model had to integrate multiple disciplines. And the model does that quite well. We can integrate the schools and the parks and the commercial and do all that thing. The real challenge here in Collier was integrating all the different development regulations for the different subdistricts and clusters. We had one set of development regulations for the stewardship area, one for Immokalee, one for the Estates. That's pretty complex. And the model did meet the challenge; the model was able to do that quite well. And we were able to segregate those clusters and then to be able to run demographic models in those clusters as well. And we talked about the population between 2007 and build-out, what the forecasts were for the different large subdistricts within the model. And we state here that there is sufficient opportunities in the future land use amendment to provide the land uses designated for schools, community parks, et cetera, except for Golden Gate Estates and Immokalee. In Immokalee, you know, we've been told that they're now developing -- formulating a master plan, and I'll assume they'll address those deficiencies. Now, in the Estates, Golden Gate Estates is what I call uniquely Page 122 December 9,2008 low density residential development. And one strategy is to locate the sites for facilities on its periphery in which the service area is sufficient to penetrate the Estates so that the coverage provides the necessary level of services. So on the periphery of the Estates is where we might want to put our community parks, might want to put our elementary schools and our middle schools and our commercial centers as well. So that's just, you know, one illustration of what a strategy might be. We kind of look at the Estates, to disturb it as little as possible in those terms, because it's very hard to aggregate sufficient parcels there to develop a facility on it. And I talked about it before, that the commercial centers account for about 30 percent of the commercial. And the other 70 percent is covered by office parks and hospitals and other uses such as that. The other thing was that for the towns and villages in the stewardship area, the level of specificity needs to be established in the development and the plans for land uses and their spatial distribution. I'll give you an example of this. Some of those towns will call for two elementary schools. They should be so distributed that they're within neighborhoods, they're not close to each other where they're crossing service area, again reducing -- they can walk, reduce trip lengths and what have you. And likewise, we have the same true of neighborhood commercial centers should be so spatially located that their service areas don't overlap. And here again, we can reduce trip lengths to get to the neighborhood commercial and shopping centers. So we saw that there's a need for specitivity (sic) in there. And in some cases there might not be quite a demand for two community parks in the town, but if you look at the peripheral development, there's a demand for two. And that peripheral development would be those villages or the hamlets, if so, if the hamlets remain. So that was one of our recommendations there. Page 123 December 9,2008 And the Future Land Use Element doesn't have any provision for regional facilities. And that's kinds of important. Because regional facilities are necessary when you're going to get those kind of population thresholds out there east of 951. And there are several types of regional facilities that come into play. And it needs to be updated annually. And I'm going to talk about that briefly. You folks have brought that up throughout the presentation in identifying development. And also, annual -- we might want to start identifying demographic trends too and things of that nature. And concluding, the county's already benefited from the models demonstrated from the previous presentation. And the benefits that can be realized, if it's updated annually, can provide added benefits for long-range planning, infrastructure and services. Next steps, we were just talking about the need to maybe review the parameters with the department agencies, so they're in agreement with the parameters, in case they change them. Maybe if they get the data from the model, they want to change their parameters. One we talked about is modules for community parks. And then you need to update the traffic model. We're doing that now, so that's being done, that step is. And then when you're doing your Growth Management Plan update, maybe you want to use the growth model and some of its data to translate it to development of regional facilities or things of that nature. And then we have our annual updates and the Q and A. And Mr. Chairman, I'll talk briefly about -- you said how much is it going to cost and that type of thing there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you just tell us between 10 and 20,000? Sir? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah. Page 124 December 9, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just responded to Mr. Wolfley, you said between 10 and 20,000. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, I just wanted to talk about -- yeah. And hopefully each year it gets less and less and we're gone. But a lot of communities had kept us on to expand the model and expand the model's capabilities. If you want to do that, then we would look at, you know, what are the work tasks, what are the hours and what's the hourly rate and et cetera. And the other thing is, you know, just we can put an upset figure, you know, our hourly rate and not to exceed a certain amount. And whenever the staff needs us to call on us, fine, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we making comments on the whole or what are we doing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're still working on the model at this point, the whole model, yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, the whole book or the whole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we haven't finished with just the discussions on the model at this point. So let's just focus on finishing up discussion on the model before we go back to the book. And Mr. Murray, then I guess you'd be-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The question that you just raised for me is -- I noted early on in this document that when we started looking at the organizations that were qualified, there were some that were obviously missing. And those are components. There's a cost associated with those components if they're to be added; am I correct? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: You mean like libraries? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like libraries, like -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, sure. Page 125 December 9, 2008 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- like EMS. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Well, EMS is in there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, whatever they -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I remember seeing the voids. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yeah. If there's a medical, you want a medical, right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My point is, is every one of those has a cost associated with it. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's an impact cost initially. And then is there any maintenance cost associated with it? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: No. The only thing is the updates. We update the model from time to time, you know, to streamline it. And that's free of charge. I mean, that came with the original licensing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you're saying to us that the initial bang is the hard one and after that it gets to be the payback is over a long-term, just like the build-out. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a quick question. In here you use the term activity centers. Is that used in the same context as we use activity centers here in the urban area? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: The activity centers that you use, or your activities nodes that you use in your future land use plan in terms of commercial development? COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't know, is that what you're talking about when you say activity centers? DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Yes, uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, Mike? MR. BOSI: The way that the growth model works is those Page 126 December 9,2008 activity centers that are on 951 have to be included and calibrated by the model. So those are the activity centers that you refer to. COMMISSIONER CARON: The 951-- MR. BOSI: The 951 -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- activity centers that are there right now. MR. BOSI: Yes, correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go off the model-- oh, Mr. Wolfley, do you have any other questions on the model? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, and it may be for the Doctor and Mr. Bosi both. Since I think June or May of this year I've been trying to ferret out the mystery map. Transportation. I tried to get on the RLSA, I want to see transportation, and of course large landowners said no, we don't want to see that until the end. Well, everything has to do with roads and infrastructure. A town is a town, that's great. But you've got to have infrastructure to get to and from that town. And then we -- then our Chair finally came up with this map and I went halleluiah, it's six months late but here it is. What would it take to take that map that you showed at the end that was an acrobat (sic) and use that as a baseline future with our population? Because in what Commissioner Murray said, everything's greened out. Everything's blacked out. We kind of know where the transportation infrastructure's going to go, which is going to show where these towns can go in the receiving areas. And we know where the sending areas are going to be, so don't green that out, because there's not going to be any population there. Why can't we start with that model, that map, and work from there where we show a little tiny dot, and then as that town grows so Page 127 December 9, 2008 does the population, so does EMS, so does the library and things come into form into that town. How difficult would that be to put that into this presentation with that baseline of via suspected 22 entities? I don't want to call them any oids or anything like that, but -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: You want to answer or do you want me to answer it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, because that would be real. That would be what it is. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Okay, our data in the model is aggregating all the parcels within a zone. So within that zone we can tell you when development will take place in terms of its magnitude of people, houses, commercial space, et cetera, schools and what have you. And my question, would that be sufficient to meet your needs? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Okay, now we'll go the next step. You want to get more specific than that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, what I want is reality. Because it shows as though people are going to be living on every acre. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: We can do that. We can take -- you know, we know in those towns -- you know, we did a template for a town in the RSLA (sic), and we're going to assume that those towns won't vary much from that template. Except with adjustments we want to make for regional, some adjustments for schools. We -- and they've already shown their land uses on Big Cypress and they've shown their land uses on Ave Maria. You know, we can then tell you over time when those facilities that come on line and where they should be located within those land use maps that they provide. We can do algorithms and show it for all the rest, too in terms of Page 128 December 9, 2008 what we think is the most likely scenario. And we can do that over time. That takes a lot of effort on the GIS people. You know, the data is there to do that, and it's a question of the GIS people, you know, in terms of their time. I couldn't tell you offuand how much time that will take to do that. But it can be done. You might want to do that for say like a build-out scenario so you can see what it looks like at build-out. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. And my point is that I'm looking at the vast how many people are here and how much public input we have. And I'm wondering one of two things: Either the planning commission is of no interest to anybody, or that everything's really been decided and this is just formality. I mean, you know, we have no environmentalists here trying to protect their land. They already have deals with the large landowners, so we aren't needed there. And I guess what I'm coming to is this is a great presentation, it just -- if we were to show build-out map in the newspaper, people would go ah. There's going to be population on every acre of farmland. And that's not real, that's all. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: We can build a build-out really showing almost like a dot for each dwelling unit and where they would be. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, yeah, but that -- anyway, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions-- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Or we can show where the residential land -- like a zoning map, almost, you know, where it would be -- where the lands would be preserved and the flow ways and the habitats and that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure, exactly. Now, that's what everyone wants to know is where the panthers are going to habitate Page 129 December 9,2008 (sic), where the humans are going to habitate (sic) and how we can get roads around these -- DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And we know the development's going to be on the open lands, and we know the magnitude of the development, you know. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I mean, I could go on and on. Because I know because of the committees I'm on, but I don't think 90 some percent of the population has a clue. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: And we could do that for build-out. And that wouldn't require an awful lot of resources. It would be more resource if you're doing the five-year increments. Then it gets -- you know. I mean, you can do it, but it just takes time, that's all. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Labor, yeah. Thank you. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: That's probably the next order of focus, you know, with the model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the model before we go back to the beginning of the book? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one question of Michael Bosi. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Go back to the beginning of the book? Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we've got to start over. No, I've got a question of Michael. Not you, Doctor, Michael. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The numbers that the CIGM plan has come up with for population, build-out population and population over time are significantly different than what county staff has used in the past. The AUIR is based on population. I think it would be great to use the CIGM population estimates. It would cut the AUIR cost in half. Page 130 December 9,2008 Is that -- would the departments be using those population estimates of CIGM, or would they be using David Weeks' population estimates for future AUIR's? MR. BOSI: For the AUIR purpose, we neither use David Weeks' nor the CIGM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's not-- MR. BOSI: We use BEBR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one produced by your department which has got David's -- if you go to your department's website, David's the one that puts those together, he does it through BEBR. Okay, I'm clarified. Are we going to use the ones produced by comprehensive department or are we going to use the ones produced by CIGM. MR. BOSI: Until we would amend a decision made by the Board of County Commissioners to use the CIGM, we are obligated to use the BEBR numbers and David's numbers for the allocation of population. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then how can we get an accurate picture of the build-out and know what levels of service have to be sustained when we're not using the population that coincides with the one that our budget is set up in reality? Because our AUIR is set up now on a population figure significantly higher than the population analysis of the CIGM, which means our budgets are now working and skewed to a much higher performance standard than what the CIGM says we could have as an outcome. How do we balance that? MR. BOSI: Well, once again, go back to the obligation. Weare regulatorily obligated. Until we would change our Growth Management Plan to use a different number, we have to use the BEBR numbers. And those BEBR numbers are what we -- is what David allocates throughout the county. Page 13 1 December 9,2008 So I'm not -- the only way that we could diverge from that course would be for the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners to say that they see a higher value within the CIGM and to adopt that as the accepted population projections to be utilized by the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I understand that. And you're saying what I expected you to say, which is more of a reason why I'm concerned about the value of the CIGM as an overall planning tool if it isn't used by every department to plan their levels of service standards and their build-out needs for the populations, because the population estimates between the two different methodologies are so different. MR. BOSI: And I would agree with that concern, and I would simply state that this would be the first step to potentially replacing the utilization of those BEBR populations. We couldn't -- until there's a level of comfort and there's a level of dependability and expectation and familiarity with the advisory boards and with the Board of County Commissioners, I don't think any one of those bodies would be willing to accept the -- an abrupt change from our current methodology to the methodology contained within the CIGM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And DCA wouldn't allow you to change without a validation of a population statistic other than BEBR. MR. BOSI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you'd have to go through a process. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And my concern is that we haven't gone through that process, yet we're implementing a planning tool, or we're being asked to implement a planning tool that institutes the process that we have not yet approved. Maybe we're putting the cart before the horse. Mr. Wolfley, you seem to be impatient to ask a question. Go Page 132 December 9,2008 ahead and ask it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm just saying, why wasn't this group provided with the numbers that we have to use for growth? MR. BOSI: Why what? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The base numbers, the BEBR. I mean, why are we working off a different -- I guess my point is, is that can't we just all work off the same template so that we aren't continually asking these same questions? I've heard these questions three times now throughout the last nine months, not necessarily from here. Same questions keep coming up. We keep working off different baselines and different assumptions. MR. BOSI: Well, we're statutorily obligated for in the AUIR process to use the BEBR numbers. For our long-range capital planning purposes, we're not obligated to use anyone number. What we have utilized in the past was David's numbers, in which you've heard today was the long-range transportation model. That's the 30-year plan for transportation model. They're now using the land use forecasting produced by the Collier interactive growth model. So what I'm presenting to you today is a first step in the convergence of population numbers. And parks master plan has to be updated. It was supposed to be updated this year. There's no allocation for funds for that. Hopefully next year that they'll get to update their master plan, if it's decided and if it's endorsed, the CIGM. And the by-product, the population number is produced by the CIGM, is endorsed by this body and the board of County Commissioners, and the next master planning efforts, the Parks and Recreation Department could utilize the long-range population trends contained in the CIGM. And therefore, that's a third step of consistency. And therefore it's a slow building process that we'd expect or that we were hoping to realize when we introduce this new planning tool to the county. Page 133 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To realize what the Chair suggested. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I believe I understand what you're attempting to do, but that's the question, I think. We have an advisory committee that came together and came up with -- they come up with questions. One of the answers is CIGM. That's one of the efforts at making answers. The question I have for you is are you the only one carrying the banner or, as it was pointed out earlier, communication is critical. Have you then gone to the other departments and at least acquainted them with the possibility of another methodology? If you have, have they qualified it? Have they come back to you and said yes, I'm interested or get the heck out of here? MR. BOSI: The other departments are always looking to comprehensive planning for what the most valid and appropriate numbers for long-range population projections are. And just to qualify, the Horizon Study master committee was tasked by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners directed staff to develop the Collier County interactive growth model. They asked the Horizon Study to calculate it, to ask specific questions, to poke holes in the growth model to make sure that it's as accurate and valid they possibly could. That committee has endorsed the utilization of the growth model as a planning tool. The Board of County Commissioners back in 2006 directed us to develop it. Weare asking a second advisory board, the Planning Commission, to see if you could recommend that there would be value to the utilization of the growth model. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did the broach -- did the BCC Page 134 December 9,2008 broach the issue of the AUIR, its use and this is a potential replacement? MR. BOSI: They saw the value that the growth model could provide for the long use land modeling provisions and projections to be utilized by the infrastructure and service providing departments. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they provided you with the authority to acquire the software? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds like they were eager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Michael. You might as well stay up there, because I need you to help. And Doctor, thank you. I think that is the end of our questions on this segment of your presentation. DR. VAN BUSKIRK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. And I appreciate your patience. I know it was a long presentation. And I also appreciate your comments. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's a lot more questions that could have been asked or could be asked, but that would probably take a whole session in itself. Because as you went along, there were a lot of issues that I would have thought need further exploration, and the coloring of your maps. But you made it clear that you looked at agricultural on a one-to-five basis, so a development in that area in that scenario might reflect that. The statistics used for Ave Maria, getting those from the developer's DR!, there's a lot of issues like that that we may want to review at some time in the future, but right now we're just going to try to get through the rest of today and see where it goes. And Michael, I'd like to take us back and formalize whatever is needed from this board for the BCC. And I think the very first question that you brought up or that you mentioned in your report was the committee requests that the CCPC make a recommendation on the individual position points advanced by the Horizon committee when Page 135 December 9, 2008 appropriate. And let's start with there. And I think you've got several sections. I'll ask the panel if they see any reason why we should have any comment or change needed to any of the elements produced by the committee. It's the committee's consensus. It is not a recommendation to change the GMP or the LDC, it's simply a consensus statement from their research in the area. Which does produce a different way of looking at it than if it was an analytical thing for us to decide and from a language viewpoint for a code reference. So with that, I'll open it up to the panel. Is there any comments on the pages? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With regard to position points the general public desires, I would just offer that we should -- if recommended, we should offer with recommendation with caution or care with regard to certain of the postulants there. There are views that are based upon information given to individuals or individuals being aware of information on a limited basis and projections made on a gross basis where I think -- and I'm referring now to water and sewer -- where I think that we have to -- if we're going to suggest that it go forward, with great care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I would like to suggest is that the idea of a three-to- five member oversight committee with their -- we have a very active elected official, we have a number of appointed boards. The area is riddled with homeowners associations, civic associations, overlays, people involved in all that. I honestly do not see what value another oversight committee adds, especially when it's going to cost taxpayers to implement and to Page 136 December 9,2008 monitor it. Even though they may not be meeting all the time, staffs got to be involved at some point. There may be advertisements needed because it will be an appointed body and things like that. I don't know all that, all the details, but at this point in time I certainly question the need for it. Other than that, I have no comment other than the fact that if we wanted to recommend acceptance of the committee's report, that works. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I share some of what the Chair just said. Although I feel that if we combine several of these committees into one, the Horizon -- well, the East of951, the RLSA, and I could I guess think of another one could be combined. There's some great members in each one of those, and they represent the large landowners, even some small ones and represent different developers. They represent farm -- so there's a good representation. I think that if they were combined into one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're not recommending that. These committees all sunset. The Horizon committee will end, the RLSA committee will end. And what the Horizon committee is suggesting is that they reappoint three to five members in an oversight committee to monitor just the reports of the Horizon committee. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I stepped beyond what our purview is. I was trying to get to that, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can suggest anything you want. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, but I'm just saying, I guess I stepped a little beyond what we're supposed to do. And I think I made my points clear about what we should do with the interactive model. So that will be it. Page 13 7 December 9, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to go through that all over again. We've got three levels to recommend for recommendations here. The first one is just to recommend acceptance of the committee's report to the Board of County Commissioners. Does anybody have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Is there any discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Nothing other than I would say that I'm especially hopeful that the Commission will pay attention to the water issues in paragraphs two and three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I have -- I hope we can recommend that there will be modifications made to the population land use graphics that were related that we had -- some of us had some issues with. That if you retain those, which I understand they serve a purpose, but that perhaps you could also provide something that would graphically satisfy the persons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're only talking about the first tab, section one. You're talking about tab three. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They asked for -- Michael asked in his staff report -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Section one, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- he asked for three separate inputs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, I wrote them down. Page 138 December 9, 2008 Consultant approval, bridge study and position points. But okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Committee approval. We're still on the first one, the committee recommendation. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All right. I'll save myself for later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In my motion I also agree that we don't need the three to five-member plan. I don't know ifI made that specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you didn't. But if that's fine -- does the second have any problem with that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm going to vote against it then, because I think that's a good idea. Too many times these -- a great deal of effort, a great deal of money is spent and then it goes on the shelf. And while I agree that we have some very fine professionals, it doesn't hurt to have coordination. I don't know how much more money it would cost. This is an investment already significant. I think the matter does require some future assistance. And ultimately it would be the determination by the board anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, everything is ultimately a determination by the board. So anybody else have any comment? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- make a comment. What I was trying to make and I can do it very shortly, every five years we review this RLSA as if that was what was intended. And now we want a review of this. My point was merely we could combine the two and it would be a very similar report. That was that. Page 139 December 9, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up -- okay. I mean, I understand where you're going now. Okay, a motion's been made, it's been seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Opposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-1. Let's move to the second section on the bridges. Nick's report. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it clear on the record why -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I opposed, in case one of the commISSIOners -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You stated your point. Mr. Bosi, do you have any question as to what -- MR. BOSI: No, I will convey that point to the commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The bridge study. Staff requests recommendation to accept the bridge study with or without recommendations and to recommend proceedings with construction of the bridges east of 951 as prioritized in the study, subject to available funding. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Wolfley, I was going to ask for discussion first so -- is that okay? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion first. Does anybody Page 140 December 9,2008 have any comments about that study? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I would like to mention is that in Golden Gate we have an overlay. And this is an issue for Golden Gate and not anywhere else. The overlay is a land planning overlay that goes on every 10 years, I believe. And the next appointment to the Golden Gate master plan overlay will be in the year 2010. The last one was the year 2000. The planning issues involving bridge connections might be more thoroughly vetted if it goes through that committee. And as Nick probably understands and anybody else, there's not going to be any money to spend on bridges for quite a few years anyway, so I'm not sure the bridge study can't wait until it's focused on just Golden Gate Estates by a Golden Gate Estates overlay committee. And my point on that would -- my suggestion would be to do that. But that's just my preference from living there. So -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And my understanding, and incorrectly, I guess, that there were monies already appropriated for at least one of those bridges, and I did not want to see that go by the wayside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I don't -- Mike, are you -- MR. BOSI: Nick had said that there's potentially -- the maintenance of existing bridges were the first priority in maybe years four and five. Within the AUIR there is money allocated for bridges. He said maybe in the year four and five that might be the opportunity for them to enact upon the first -- the number one prioritized bridge. Which would put us at 2011. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So that gives the Golden Gate Area Master Plan committee to reform again and start coming back with an analysis based on focusing on that area for bridge Page 141 December 9, 2008 improvements. MR. BOSI: So I guess just to clarify that the position that the Planning Commission is providing, that you'll accept the bridge study but would recommend that that bridge study be vetted with a 2010 restudy of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be my suggestion. Is that-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody seem to -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to make a motion to that effect. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was going to make the motion. But again, I had false information. If it is 20 II, I would make the motion that we do need a study over the next couple of years, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the motion would be what Mr. Bosi articulated, was that we accept the study but we would defer the action of the bridges till the time when the Golden Gate Area Master Plan re-meets, gets reconstituted, I should say, and goes forward. Is that -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that I will agree with, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to that position? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. December 9,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. The last item for today is for the growth model. Staff recommends that the CCPC provides direction to the BCC to accept the CIGM as a supplemental planning tool, enter into negotiations with Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates for the annual update of the model. Let's have discussion first. Is there a general discussion from the board? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I want to just reiterate one more time quickly that I feel that if we were to -- and I don't know whether you want to use the word block out the SSA's the sending areas, so that it is shown on that interactive model that those will not go to development. They'll either be agriculture or preserve. And then the reverse of that, the SRA's, and show where those areas are with the infrastructure of roads and of those 22 suggested areas. Now, realizing two or three or four or five of those may drop out as other communities are built. But I just think that if we could start with a baseline of that map and then showing the SRA's, SSA's, along -- and I think it would be more real. And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we can change what's already been done, but I think you're recommending improvements to the methodology. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The request from the board and from staff is that we accept the CIGM as a supplemental planning tool, number one. And then number two, that we recommend entering into negotiations with the company for an annual update of the model. Page 143 December 9,2008 So let's focus on those two directives, because that's all that the BCC -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Well, I agree with the model, I just think it needs some work. That's all. I hit both of them. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I think that's fair, Commissioner Wolfley. We did that with this past motion, which was to make it in consultation with the 2010 Golden Gate Area Master Plan update. So we can -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which is -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- certainly say that we recommend that these maps be updated as well. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a different scenario. And that's fine. To update the model, we'd have to spend -- we'd have to recommend approval then of the ongoing use of the model. Is that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the consensus I'm seeing, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I'm going to make that motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not saying anything, I'mjust saying it's reasonable what he's asking to do. If you're going to use the model, what -- the update he's asking for is more than reasonable, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. Yeah, but I -- okay, I'm just trying to get to what we're supposed to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had made the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What did you make a motion, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While you guys were chatting, I'm making the motion to recommend approval for updating the model and accepting the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to Mr. Murray's Page 144 December 9,2008 recommendation to update the model and to accept the model as a supplemental planning tool? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley made the second. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll be voting no on the motion. I don't mind it being used as a supplemental planning tool by the Horizon committee, but in the review and the process, I didn't want to spend two days asking questions. I don't feel I understand the model's parameters well enough to recommend approval to spend any taxpayer's money on a model that I have yet been able to try out, that in the presentation was numerous issues that I certainly question, including some locations of sites that I saw, some language that would institute regional laws that we don't have in our GMP. There's no way to tie the facilities and the plan back to the AUIR, and thus the levels of service that would -- and the costs for those levels of service. So I'm not saying the tool's bad, I just have too many questions to recommend spending any further money on it at this point, because we haven't been provided with enough. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I made the second, thinking that what I've been talking about would actually happen. But now that you've said that put me back into my thoughts, I may take back my second if those things that I suggested doing are not going to happen. If the tool's going to be as it is and we're to approve it as it is, I'm afraid I can't either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just move forward with the discussion and ferret out the concerns before you change any of your position. Mr. Vigliotti? Page 145 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Didn't we spend the bulk of the money already? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two hundred thousand. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, isn't it gone and behind us? MR. BOSI: The price tag that was associated with the update represented five to 10 percent of the initial cost to establish the model. The initial model was $200,000. The price tag they quoted up to 10 -- or with an upper limit of 20,000; 10 being five percent of their original cost of the $200,000, 10 percent being 20,000 if the update would cost to that extent. The model is ours and the model will stay ours, even if we don't -- if we accept the model and don't accept the -- enter into a contract for updating the model, it will still stay ours. It will just stay ours statically. But yeah, we spent the initial bulk of the money to develop the model. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Ifwe walk away now, do we still have access to the site? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But there could be no further changes. MR. BOSI: The updating of the model is what wouldn't be provided for. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So it will be a pay-as-you-go program that you'll decide as we go ahead? MR. BOSI: On an annual basis, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait, wait, I had-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Murray, then-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, you're saying the update, but the Doctor said that updates would be provided based on what we have done now. I don't know that you mean updates, you mean modifications to Page 146 December 9,2008 the program? MR. BOSI: See, there's two models. There's two models. You've got your data base and then you've got your actual -- the growth model with the coefficients. What's free is he updates his coefficients. He updates how the model works, how the model takes your baseline data information and processes it. What's going to remain as constant is not that, what's going to remain constant is what our baseline data says. We're always going to -- that model's always going to be stuck in 2007, if we don't provide for the updated -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You mean you don't have the facility in your -- if you were as a staff person required to do this, you don't have the facility within that software to update and cause that to happen on your own? MR. BOSI: I don't have the staff members, nor do I have the technical expertise to ensure that I'm doing it correctly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But it is possible, utilizing the program that exists right now, to continue to do that. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got that from the Doctor, and I just -- MR. BOSI: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- wanted verification. MR. BOSI: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill? MR. McDANIEL: Just -- and one point for the record. Bill McDaniel, and I'm here as a person from the general public, as well as serving as chair of the East of951. Commissioner Wolfley, you brought up a valid point. And I would like to suggest that there are a lot of interpretations of information. Page 147 December 9,2008 And there's a voluminous -- as I shared with you earlier, there's a voluminous amount of information that's entailed in this interactive growth model. How that information is interpreted and then ultimately brought on to a mapping scenario I think is the clarification that you're ultimately looking for. I've seen some really cool maps that Dr. Van Buskirk has put together that showed a much clearer picture as to what's ultimately going to be developed where town centers and so on and so forth can in fact be located. The map that he used today was based upon the T AZ areas, the T AZ zones, the traffic area zones that we've typified. And per the interpretation, and with the request of information that's put in, you saw one interpretation. There are others that are a lot clearer. It doesn't mean that it's bad, it doesn't mean that the information is not correct, it just means that it's an interpretation issue. And I think easily it doesn't mean that the entire model is bad, it's just the interpretation that they utilize for today's presentation. Did that come across okay? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: To me it does. MR. McDANIEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Between the two of you now in that regard, you have a study. One of the tools of the study was this dynamic software, this program, right? Is the purpose of the study to now lie on a shelf and die? MR. McDANIEL: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So -- MR. McDANIEL: And again, and we're not going to -- you know, you all have already voted on that, so we'll let that one -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not even relating to that. My question is really focused around the idea that if you've Page 148 December 9,2008 already purchased it and you've done your study and you're finished, well, we could say it's all done and just let it go away and you can use it or not use it as you please. However, I perceive it, even though I agree with the Chair that there are a lot of unanswered questions, I believe that as an answer, a tool that you can use, it may prove to be effective, and that's why I made the motion, can be effective and could ultimately be utilized. But that can't be proven unless we give it a chance. MR. McDANIEL: And that, ifI may, Mr. Bosi, bodes the question and the thought processes, because of the information sources that we currently have available that we're utilizing for population projections, the land use map that we currently have in existence today, there are other ways of getting to the ultimate end. This we have found. And we ground truthed a lot of the information on the East of 951 Horizon Study during our workshops and our committee meetings. We have found that this interactive growth model on the pretense is a very, very valuable tool that we're going to be able to utilize for our community going forward. It's far more accurate than the information that we have available to us. It's far more dynamic and accepts the changes of population based on political trends and socio issues that are ultimately going to be impacting the future growth of our community. So we're -- it is our suggestion, as was put before you, to authorize its utilization. A continuing maintenance program is necessary because it's the same old adage, garbage in, garbage out. If the interactive growth model is not updated, if it's not maintained, it won't produce satisfactory information for us to be able to make prudent decisions going forward with our growth and development. Hence the suggestion of this oversight committee to ensure that that was in fact transpiring so that the decision-makers had that ability. Again, we're not going to -- that was the premise behind that thought process. Page 149 December 9,2008 But bottom line is it has to be maintained, it has to be updated in order for it to be utilized and be accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike, if this gets approved and we go forward and we use this growth model that we've paid for, how would we address certain issues that, for example, Commissioner Strain has brought up? How would you get that input from people in order to perhaps make corrections or modifications or -- MR. BOSI: And one, I would have to sit down with Chairman Strain to find out where his primary issues lied. I can tell you what I as the community planning manager and the AUIR manager envisioned. After the update would take place in April, would take a couple months, sometime in July I would be before the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee as a precursor to the AUIR process to let you know here was the results of our growth model from 2007, here was the output, here was the increments at build-out and the extent of development that was projected for. Here's the 2008 updated version with all the land use decisions, and -- not land use decisions, but development orders that had been provided for over the course of that year. And give you the change in dynamic, what the change of that picture would be as a precursor to the upcoming 2009 AUIR. And then from that point in time I believe that we would broach the -- we would broach this subject with the Productivity, Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners as to whether they saw it within a value to explore the possibility of potentially -- of potentially adopting the growth model in the population projections, in the spatial population projections of the growth model to be incorporated within our Growth Management Plan. But that would be only if the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners saw the benefit of that. But that's really how I envisioned the process to go. Page 150 December 9, 2008 What I've heard now from Commissioner Strain is there are a lot of questions, and rightfully. Because of that I think there would have to be another full day or two of vetting just with Dr. Van Buskirk, the Planning Commission, in providing you with a technical document, so to speak, before that meeting to be able to give a little bit more exposure to the underpinnings within the limitations of the proprietary information to be able to have a much better vetting and understanding on the Planning Commission's part of the actual nuts and bolts of it. MR. McDANIEL: And this may be an over-simplification, Commissioner. Did he answer your question? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, I'll get back to him. MR. McDANIEL: There was a ton of information that came out over there. When we saw this interactive growth model at the committee level, they flopped out all those charts with all that information. And I remember one of our committee persons, Doug Rankin, about turned a flip because there were incorrect assumptions made coming off of the land use maps with respect to the densities that could potentially be allowable in Golden Gate Estates. And so with respect to that, and we made those suggestions, Dr. Van Buskirk and his staff took them into consideration, implemented them in and then brought them back with new information for us to verify and check to further assure the accuracy of the information. And as I said before, with garbage in, garbage out, that process can happen over time. As Commissioner Strain has an opportunity to review the different aspects of the interactive growth model and all of us, anyone necessarily that has anything to do with the growth management planning process, will have that opportunity to make those suggestions. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Bill. Page 151 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. McDaniel brought up one of the points that I was trying to make. When it was first presented to the Horizon Study group, they got the raw data to look at. And guess what? They found issues. As your local planning agency, we have yet to see the raw data. Would it not be a good thing for us to see that data? MR. BOSI: It most certainly would. The problem that I -- that was presented to me was in terms of scheduling, that Horizon Study committee review of the AUIR -- or growth model data took place over a 16-month period. Between the presentation of the Board of County Commissioners on the 29th of September and the scheduling of this meeting, I guess there just wasn't the opportunity to present a whole nother round of the technical underpinnings and the redevelopment of the model with an additional advisory board. We were tasked by the Board of County Commissioners to take the growth model and develop it with the Horizon Study committee. And it's very fair of this body to say we understand that directive, but we still have hesitations towards our full acceptance of the model. So what I'm hearing from you, Ms. Caron, is you would like to have a four to five scheduled process of taking the model through the process with yourselves. But the problem is, I don't have that within a contractual obligation within my consultants. So that would require additional monies. I guess staff could do it without the expertise of the principals, but the value to that exercise, I'm not quite -- I'm not sure if you'd get everything out of it that you're looking for. But yes, I understand your contention, but staff was directed to take this and vet it through with the Horizon Study committee. So in terms of that detail -- that opportunity for a detailed technical review I think could present itself. It's just at this point in time it wasn't provided for within the schedule of events. Page 152 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I understand your timing issues with next Tuesday. I understand the timing issues as well as what the BCC directed you to do, which was to deal through the Horizon Study group. Do you think that if this went forward with approval that between now or between whenever the BCC blessed it and when you come before us in a pre-AUIR meeting we could have been -- we could be given that information? MR. BOSI: If that would be the desire of the Planning Commission that that process, you know, be undertaken by myself, I most certainly -- I most certainly -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You're saying you don't have . money. MR. BOSI: I most certainly will schedule the event within the context and the understanding that it would be staff for the most part representing our limited understanding. But we could most certainly go through and have a full vetting of all the increments of the baseline data. Because what the Horizon Study committee did really was review the baseline data, vet the information within the T AZ, because they lived in the study area, they knew the specific built (sic) environment, much better than just what the spreadsheets were saying. And then we discussed some of the parameters that were utilized to produce the algorithms. We can do -- we could provide something similar to that. It just would have to be without the presence of the consultants, just because we haven't -- contractually we don't have the latitude with that, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Bill, did you have something else you wanted to add? MR. McDANIEL: Only to the extent, Ms. Caron, you need to -- you ought to at some particular stage, as this planning tool that's being Page 153 December 9,2008 suggested that we utilize this as an additional planning tool, so if in fact you folks choose to recommend its approval and move it on through the process, you're going to have a lot of shots, if you will, at this. There is an unbelievable amount of information that's contained in here that will be ground truthed over time. There's going to be things in the Immokalee overlay that none of us have any real good working knowledge of that the folks in the master planning committee in Immokalee will ultimately take on. The ultimate changes that are going to occur within the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. I mean, while this process was going on, Dr. Van Buskirk didn't know that we were whacking the hamlets as a designated development criteria in the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay. Didn't realize that we were establishing an additional credit methodology for the preservation and conservation of agricultural uses. Those are all things that this model will ultimately accept as we go forth in time. But it just needs more time for that vetting and review. And I think over that time you're going to have that opportunity to have a look at the specificities that make it do what it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bill. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- I just want to make one. I will be voting for it. I think we spent -- I know we spent most of the money already. And from here going forward is pay as you go. But I'm really interested in the possibility of finding a whole new way of looking at population. Because every time we do the AUIR, we really don't have an agreement on even the right figures to use. Page 154 December 9, 2008 And as you have said, this might give us another slant that maybe we could eventually get this through the DCA. So I will be voting for it. And I don't need to -- Ms. Caron, they spent months and months and months doing all the details. I really don't need the details going backwards. That's just where I stand on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll be voting no still. For the record clear, because the BCC wants to know why if you vote no, why you voted no. I don't -- I am dissatisfied with the inconsistencies with the AUIR, the lack of verifiable data. Contrary to Mr. Vigliotti's conclusion, I would like more data. And so far what I've seen, there was not enough time to provide us with a verification that I feel comfortable with. And additionally, at these times, any additional cost to government aren't needed that aren't essential. Mr. Wolfley, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. I am going to stay in my number -- in my second of the motion. Certainly it needs work. How can the first go-through be perfect? If it were, these two gentlemen behind you, you know, they would be in every precinct, every county across the country. It does need some work. I do feel that a committee, the combined committee will help get those issues resolved. And I'll continue my second and vote for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, all in favor of the motion for recommending the acceptance of this as a supplemental planning tool and to enter into negotiations for the update of the model, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 155 December 9,2008 COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Nay. Just me. Okay. Motion carries 5-1. And I thank all of you for everything here today. It was an enlightening experience. Is there any -- unless the young lady there would like to speak to us, she's the only member of the public left, so MR. McDANIEL: She was our record keeper during the East of 951. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure she's probably got opinions, but whether you want to express them or not, it's up to you. Okay, it's public comment period, but if there's no -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I make a suggestion that somebody buy him lunch, because he didn't get lunch today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I didn't plan to be here. Okay, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We are adjourned. Thank you all. Page 156 December 9,2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:41 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 157