Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/16/2009 S January 16,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 16,2009 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 1 :00 p.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 Kolflat (Excused) Paul Midney (Excused) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner Page 1 January 16,2009 CHA1RMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the January 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. Seems that we just got together yesterday. So if you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER IIOMIAK: I-Iere. VICE-CHAIRMAN CARON: Okay, Mr. Kolflat has some issues that he had to attend to today, so he won't be able to be here. Mr. Midney I believe is the same situation. And also he's in Immokalee, and it might take him a lot of time to get here today for this meeting. So his is excused. And if you see Mr. Wolfley sitting in Mr. Midney's place, it's because IT has not yet fixed Mr. W 01 fley's monitor. So that's that. Now I have one other comment I want to make, Corby, before you get rolling. On Wednesday night I got home and I found my FedEx package with these two -- with our RLSA books in it. I appreciate you sending those to us early. Page 2 January 16,2009 Could somehow your department coordinate better with COES and realize that if we're meeting here on a Thursday you could save the taxpayers a lot of FedEx money by simply passing them out to us? It's happened numerous times, and it's just a waste of money. And we're going -- if you're going to deliver something within a couple of days of a meeting and that couple of days isn't critical, just give them to us at the meeting. It saves a lot of effort. And with that, sir, we'll -- I'm sure you want to make an introduction. The first issue is CPSP-2008-6, which is the review of the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. MR. SCHMIDT: Good atternoon. Provided for you was a booklet of adoption materials. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Is the speaker off? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not close enough, Corby. Thank you. MR. SCHMIOT: Included in your booklet was the Capital Improvement Element, as rccommended by staff; our staff report showing thosc recommendations, including appendixes. Appendix A, having remarks that were not included in the body of the staff report and Appendix B, an itemized summary of differences between this Capital Improvement Element and the last, which was considered late last year and adopted in January of'08. And again included as a schedule of capital improvements for the second five years, year six through 10. And of course the cover ordinance that would accompany the element once it moves ahead. Even though you saw thcse materials within the last year, this in reality is looking at two years or we've looked at two years worth of changes from the last CIE to this. And that's one of the reasons that can be used to explain why there's significant differences. It hasn't been a gradual change but seems more drastic, because there's been that much separation between the old document, or the existing Page 3 January 16,2009 document, and the next, or the one in front of you now. This is really the first time, at least in my memory, that as a staff member we've had to deal with declining populations and lower school enrollment figures. We've looked at the trends in migration of people. And we're dealing with really again for the first time before you and in the CIE diminishing demand for capital improvement projects. Some of those figures that we saw in the 2006 BEBR report that the staff uses to project our populations, those 2006 BEBR numbers were the figures used in the most recent, or your last CIE. So again, we're seeing two years of difference there as well. Well, those numbers, when the staff used them then, gave you results like a projection for population in 20 I 0 of more than 472,000 people. And we were -- and for 2015, more than 566,000 people. And your capital improvements projects and your scheduling were based on numbers like that. By the time we finished the 2007 AUIR, we were in the midst of updating this C I E adopted u or the last CI E adopted in January of last year and we were unable to use the 2007 AUIR figures. So you're skipping AUIR considerations as well. In that 2008 AUIR, the population projections had changed and fallen so that the seasonal population for 2010 was now only about 424,000 people, and by 20 IS only 487,000. Well, in 2006, the scheduling for capital improvements for the period of 2007 through' 1 I that was being considered then was just simply meeting the demands of about 490,000 people. Now the 2008, with the changes in figures, fewer than 488,000 people are now projected by the year 2015. And what's happened is the population projections have fallen far enough that you're about four to five years ahead in your meeting the demands. So that's why some ot'the drastic changes that you're seeing in the schedule of capital improvements and the projects being Page 4 January 16, 2009 scheduled. Some of the indicators besides just BEBR projections and staff work for lower numbers in the county include traffic counts on county roads. Well, traffic volume decreased an average of 10 percent per peak hour trips from the previous year. More than 20 percent of the counting stations showed a decrease of greater than 10 percent. At count stations located at points along Golden Gate Boulevard, first quarter counts for 2008 were down 13 to 14 percent from the prior year. The second quarter counts earlier this year -- sorry, second quarter counts of last year reflected another decline of about five to 11 percent. Second and third quarter counts declined another 12 to 13 percent from the first counts in '08. Another indicator showing us that we've got these decreases are the student enrollments, or the membership counts in county schools. In '05 numbers that we drew from school records, total of 43,000 some students attending county-wide. The 2008 numbers that we looked at, only about 42,000. Doesn't seem like a large number overall in the county, but certain schools in key areas reported declines of 13 to more than 19 percent in enrollment. Also, in your most recently approved AUIR you had changed some levels of service for some of your public facilities. Your level of service standards for regional parks changed. To put it simply, you simply rounded down for some of the figures. Plus for community parks and regional parklands in this Capital Improvement Element, the projects are transactions through interdepartmental transfers or exchanged with other land holdings for park lands using another method that -- or other methods that do not involve capital expenditures. Your levels of service also changed for water and wastewater facilities. And this was done to match the recently approved water and wastewater master plans. That, combined with population projections that had fallen, Page 5 January 16,2009 allowed a number of public projects to be pushed further out into the future. Again, we're looking at something two years after the last iteration of the CIE, and not one. So that's why again that some of these numbers may seem large or drastic. Well, some of those changes, in fact this CIE, the total amount of spending for capital improvement projects is somewhere around $678 million. That's just about 43 percent of the previous CIE two years back, which was more than $1.5 billion. Some of the areas where the changes are most notable, for road projects, just 73.8 percent of what they were in your last Capital Improvement Element. Potable water projects, those capital improvements, 13 percent of what they were last time. And wastewater capital projects, just 28 percent of what they were last time. So changes that seem drastic, large, very different, not gradual like they would have been in the past when a year-to-year change was in front of you. In fact, overall spending for the CIE is only about 98 percent of what it was projected in your A U I R approved last year. So very close for those projects. I'll pause at this point and allow for any questions on the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The staff report I am assuming you're referring to is the first tab that goes to the ordinance? Or is that just a portion of the book you're asking for now? MR. SCHMIDT: Just that portion, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The back part of the document-- actually the green and red part of the document are excerpts from the whole Capital Improvement Element that is on a separate tab further down in the book. And what I did, and I'll defer my questions for that section till we get to the bigger section, because I have questions tabbed in that Page 6 - ,"--._--,_.._--- _..,-"--_._....._---~--'"--- ------~_.~~._,_._,~--,-~,-~--".~--,-~..,-~_.._-~.,----"." January 16,2009 section. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that -- whatever way the rest of you may have laid out your questions, feel free. So let's start with the staff report. The first part of the staff report is actually four pages long. If there's any questions on that, let's start with those and we'll go through page by page. Mr. Wolfley, looks like you've got something to say. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I just had a general observation, and that is it almost looks good because we're so caught up on things. I mean, you know, between transportation and a lot of the other infrastructure. But in putting some of these projects further out, are we going to get caught in a situation where things -- the economy starts turning around a little bit sooner than most people think, and we might get caught again below the service levels of what we anticipate if we put these things out four years past -- I'm just trying to put an average in here, for instance, the water and sewer and so on. We aren't in a position where if -- again, building start -- homes start going back up, people start moving back, that we aren't going to get caught? I mean, we're going to be behind enough on population that the infrastructure will be able to keep up with an influx of population in the near future? MR. SCHMIDT: I don't believe so. I think because the staff and the county generally follows longer trends, we don't react to some of those short-term changes the way you're identifying them. And I think Randy wants to add to that. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director. I think we have to look at it from different perspectives. First from a population perspective. We get preliminary estimates from BEBR in advance of our April projections, for example, this year. We already know that we are going to experience a decrease in Page 7 January 16,2009 population, and how that's projected out is going to be very interesting. We also know that with the amount of foreclosures and the vacancy rates being what they are that we have to consider the fact that those units will become occupied again and they will have that demand on the infrastructure that already existed and was planned for, okay? I'll use transportation as an cxample, and hopefully Nick will correct me if I'm wrong. Right now we take a look at trip counts, but they also have -- they have vested trips in their trip bank as well, too. So they can kind of float back and forth sometimes, so that way we don't get caught. The other thing is the direction from the board is that when it comes to major projects, they don't want them in the first two years in transportation, for example, unlcss they're going to be completed or constructed in those first two years. Water and sewer, the board has provided direction to plan a few years in advance so we don't run into a problem like we did before. We are going to see probably the greatest swing in adjustments back and forth with this downturn in the economy than when we get an uptick where we're going to have to react accordingly. So you are correct that there is going to be a point in time where we start seeing some changes where we move things forward. But the planning that's being done ahead of time and in response to that is keeping us where we need to be, especially with respect to utilities. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Another question in general, probably from the other side orthe pendulum. We're in a position now that we can have growth without taxing our infrastructure system, our roads, our parks and all the other things the impact fees cover; am I correct there? Page 8 January 16,2009 MR. SCHMIDT: If you're using the term taxing as in overburdening, yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right, overburdening. So there is a period now moving forward where we can do some development without overburdening the roads? Nick, you're shaking your head no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. We don't use BEBR numbers in population projections. Now, Randy hit it right on vacancy rates. I f you assume right now because you've got in the Estates 20 or 30 percent of vacancy rates in the Estates roads, and multi-family developments, 50 percent vacancy rates in some that you're going to prove more development with the comfort level of the traffic counts you're taking right now, that's where our concern comes in. Because you plug in those vacancy rates which could come on-line without any approval at all, someone just buys the home and moves in, and you've proven development on top of that and you base it on traffic counts, you will be right in the same boat you were before. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But all the impact fees and all the -- everything we had was there already and it was substantial enough to cover all the vacancies if they're fi lied up again. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. No, sir. Because remember the backlog. And Norman is better at telling the story than I am, but I've heard it enough times that I can tell a little bit. Back in the Nineties you didn't build anything, so you were always behind the curve. So the money you collected and you borrowed money against your gas tax, you're trying to catch up on your infrastructure for quite a period of time. So you're starting to catch up and you're starting to get that in the urban area a little bit, but you are nowhere near caught up to -- if everything -- every approved unit built out today that's approved in, Page 9 January 16,2009 say, zoning came on-line today, you would be right back where you were before again. So now is a lull that you can kind of assess where you are and try and make priority changes. We're also facing that challenge of funding. If there's a cut in ad valorem and cut in impact fees, you will be right where you were before again. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you're saying even though there is a lull, there's no possible way to reduce impact fees to help get this thing jump started when it comes back, because when the economy does come back with the impact fees, it's going to be really tough with the new prices, as compared to the old homes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: See, I think, and it's been shown throughout the states, reduction in impact fees is almost no -- Charlotte County cut them in half: and for the first six months in residential they saw no change. It's a demand function. Reducing the impact fees doesn't make the new homes become more attractive than the vacant homes that are there right now. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I agree. Right now it's totally-- makes no difference. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But when these houses are going to fill up, start to fill up, the development community is going to come back to the table. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And if the impact fees are where they are now, it's going to be tougher for them to get back into the game. Where change in impact fees now, it makes no difference. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But one thing starts the uptick again, that's when I think we should address impact fees, because -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Remember, your impact fee Page I 0 January 16, 2009 calculation is at a cost per unit, that widget, that lane mile, to replace that as that new unit -- as that demand comes on line. So if you say lowering the impact fees, you're going to have to replace that cost. And one of the tasks transportation has been asked by the Board of County Commissioners is for every million dollars you get rid of in impact fees, what would be the ad valorem or millage increase you'd have to put on the taxpayer to replace that burden? So it's got to be made up somewhere. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And I agree, now is not the time to do it. Because if there's no impact fees, it still doesn't pay for the development community to build. They just can't do it. But when we start an uptick, maybe it will be addressed. And you're saying it's not even going to work then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not at all comfortable -- based on a reduction of numbers that we've gone from the AUIR to the CIE, and we'll get into it when we get into our element -- at all comfortable with projection of revenues and the ability to meet the demand side of that, based on existing approved units and existing units on the ground. If all the vacant units that's already paid their impact fees come on-line, my phone would ring and so would my bosses and say where did they come from and what are you doing about it. Because you would not have the ability to manage that right now if that was the case. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you. MR. FEDER: The way I'll characterize it, and I think Nick has said it, but to put it simply, what the impact fee does, if it's fully implemented, is allows you to provide the replacement capacity for capacity as it's consumed. So we look at it right now, we've made a lot of improvements on the system, there's no question about it. About the time (phonetic) when things slow down and actually vacancy rates are up, that's what Nick's getting at. So there's a perception out there, problem solved. It is not Page 11 January 16,2009 solved. Now, we need to continue working at it. Because the fact of the matter is, what we did here in the county in '92 is not implement a full impact fee, not increase that impact fee until 200 I, and during that period of time we consumed all the capacity plus. And that's why when I came, it was under a transportation emergency. We had 19 projects that we needed to get to. We've gotten to those 19 projects. But in the process of the eight years it's taken us to get there, more demand has come up. And so what we need to do is make sure we don't fall further behind. Because as soon as you don't provide for that replacement capacity, then you're eating into available capacity. And as Nick's pointing out, that perception of available capacity is a bit overstated because of vacancy rates. But there's no question, we're better than we were. But you keep consuming the available capacity and you're back where you were, and it takes you eight years to supply that capacity from start to finish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Norm, please, let me engage you in this issue, because I recognize your needs. Impact fees are tied to cost. MR. FEDER: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The cost to purchase land, the cost to build the road. But you and I would agree that costs in some cases, perhaps in all cases, have come down. MR. FEDER: They have. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Therefore, while there is a lag, inevitably if costs come down and remain down for some time, is it not logical to reduce impact fees which are directly related to cost? MR. FEDER: They are directly related as a component. Understand, where your impact fee is, as I just said, is to replace the lost capacity. What's happening, there are other components to it. Page 12 January 16, 2009 First of all, some of our credits have gone down too because of revenue streams. COMMISSI ONER MURRAY: Of course. MR. FEDER: So then that mitigates cost. But cost is the biggest part. But yes, it's come down ideally. And I agree with you, I'd like to see it come down. Everybody expects it to. The other part of that equation, though, is it's talking about what you have to do in the nature of impact. When you had most of the development occurring within the urbanized area in very short trip lengths, that's the only trip lengths we looked at until we redid the methodology. Everybody told us expand out into the Estates, in our thinking and our planning, and two, use your localized data. Doing both of those, what it's shown is the trip lengths have gone up appreciably, because more and more the development's occurring out in the Estates. And therefore, to get to market or to the job is a lot longer trip. So while the cost per unit has decreased, the demand of units with new development is greater. Now, we're working with the board, working with a lot of people. I'm not going to get too far into this. I'm not trying to push the issue one way or another. There's a lot of questions we've been asked, we're going to bring back to the board, and the board will address this Issue. But in answer to your question, yes, the actual cost per unit has come down. Ideally you'd like to see the impact fee come down with that. In looking at the methodology, though, there are other components. It is just that, a formula. And the issue is not just what it cost me per widget, what does it cost me to replace the capacity consumed by that particular development. And the way the development is going, the impacts of that, it's a number of the widgets based on the unit cost that we're dealing with. But we'll work with the board and address it. Page 13 January 16, 2009 The thing we're trying to make sure everyone understands, though, is if you decide not to fully refund or provide another funding source, which is the best way to lower that impact fee, then you're not providing the full replacement capacity, you're consuming quote, unquote avai lable capacity. And some of that perception of available capacity is because of high vacancy rates right now, as well as obviously many improvements that have come on-line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would say to you that I understand -- I believe I understand all of that. And it's an interesting conundrum, because we haven't scheduled -- for concern from DCA, we haven't scheduled any additional development activities or associated with development activities, so you don't have anything on the forecast beyond, except conceptually, that you're going to go on V anderbi It Beach Road or you're going to take care of services further east. You have some projects that you had planned, but I don't see them being progressed. I f those are what you're referring to as your expanded need -- MR. FEDER: They are not progressing not because there is not a need. Understand, we don't go on a population basis in transportation. That's the bottom line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I was trying to relate, based on what your statements are, there's never a time, no matter what the economic condition, that impact fees or costs, which go down, can ever go down. MR. FEDER: That's not the case. In fact, although I don't think that's going to happen overnight, if you had -- and I'm going to wait for something to get thrown at me here. I f you had more destinations, in other words, if your geo-spatial disparity between origins and destinations didn't exist as great as it does, then in fact the cost going down, you wouldn't have had any major adjustments for trip length. And theoretically other credits didn't go down, then obviously the Page 14 January 16,2009 formula would have said as we I think would desire and as you're expecting, that in fact if costs came down the impact fee will come down. But it's a mixture of those different components, because you're trying to provide that replacement of consumed capacity for whatever that development is. And so it's a unit cost, but it's also how much impact that development has, and therefore how many widgets is it consumIng. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I understand. And I do understand. But the interesting thing is you're working with both vacancy and you're working with the projection for the future. And they're all so interrelated it becomes almost impossible for you, let alone the public, to really be able to respond that there's some end in sight. I guess -- MR. FEDER: I'll say it a little bit differently, but I think it's making a point. We have come to almost total reliance, at least in transportation, on impact fees. And so it becomes very difficult to address the issues in a single funding source when the market changes. And that's what we're experiencing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's a fair statement. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on the first four pages of the staff report. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Mark, let me ask? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have one question-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Norm, just to follow up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's already started. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll wait. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The -- is the planning component of transportation solely funded by impact fees? Page ] 5 January 16, 2009 MR. FEDER: The planning component is actually funded by fees collected, by ad valorem, and not at all by impact fees, because that's only for capacity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I did -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, well, it doesn't matter who answers this. In Page 2, staff analysis, second paragraph where it says more than 20 percent of counting stations. How many counting stations do we have that we use the 20 percent number to relate? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've got about 132 count stations right now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Now,just to answer, follow up on that. When you say a count station went down or up, there's many factors that go into that. I'll give you an example. Golden Gate Parkway, when the overpass opened up, we saw a huge demand. Now, that wasn't because there's a lot of development on there, it's because the interchange opened up and the overpass was opened. And you saw an even exaggerated increase because people were avoiding it while it was under construction. Yeah, and a decrease elsewhere. So you're going to see certain areas that say wow, this jumped way up, it must have been a big development. No, a road opened up. Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard, Logan, a lot of parallel facilities. Once one's under construction people say I'm not going to drive it, it's under construction, I'll take the next road over. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, those are anticipated anomalies that are easily determined. It's the other more static type of thing that you want to really look at, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. But that's -- when you see some drastic jumps, that's where they come from. Page 16 January 16, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. FEDER: And that's why you use long-range planning as opposed to individual years. Golden Gate Boulevard, as mentioned that went down, the two years prior went up 25 percent and 22 percent respectively. So you can't n when it takes seven to eight years to produce a project, you've got to look at your long-range planning and your component network, and you can't take anyone year up and down. My predecessors did that. I figured out why County Barn was in and out of the program at least 11 times and why I had 15 different designs started, some of which were seven or eight years old and only halfway through production. Because every time one went up, oh, we've got to move on that. One went down, oh, that's not that important anymore. It's not the way you can function in that business. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Getting back to impact fees in Charlotte County. I think right now it wouldn't make a difference if there were no impact fees. I think next year when we come back to do these, we'd have a better handle on, for instance, DCA numbers, where we're going, how many of those houses actually people are moving back into. And I think next year might be something to keep in mind. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You raise a good point. And that's why we do this, we look every year. We do either an indexing or a full study, we give you an AUIR and a CIE so you can take that temperature every year and see where we're going with what we're doing. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And to get -- to you, Norm, if we can get some development out in the Estates, that might help. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To you, Norm, if you try to do that, I'll fight it as much as I can. Mr. Vigliotti, you don't live out in the Estates, and I don't think that was a good statement to make. Page 17 January 16,2009 But anyway, any other questions on Pages 1 through 4? (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nice to know we have a balanced group. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Don't take it personally. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On number -- I have a question, Corby. The -- our AUIR, we have multipliers that are made up of cost and the level of service. And I think that's the relationship that somehow boils over into the CIE. How do costs in the AUIR affect the CIE? MR. SCHMIDT: The results of the calculations in the AUIR using costs are used in the CIE. It's an indirect relationship. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you give me an example of how they're used in the CIE'? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can give you an example of roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, tell me. Pick a page. Show me on a page how they're used. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have the AUIR in front of me, but I can tell you, your costs that are projected in your AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We give them to our engineers. We send them out and we say give us your cost estimates. We plug them into the AUIR, and you say road ABC will cost X amount. And we update it just like we're doing for the CIE. When we did the CIE of the past couple of months we went back and said costs are coming down. If they are, give us revised estimates. So it's not a function of just plugging a number from the AUIR to here. It's -- the AUIR is a snapshot of what it cost us to build the road at that time and our revenue projection at that time. The CIE is the same thing. Now, the difference, what drives the AUIR into the CIE is your demand component. The AUIR is where you look at traffic counts in Page 1 8 January 16,2009 detail and say where is our demand component of it. That gets reflected in your CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the example that I was starting to focus on in the CI E is the one on Page 3, the first one where it talks about the level of service for parks. The value per acre for parks in the AUIR is $230,000 per acre. It went up right after '05, '06, where it used to be $200,000 an acre. And it went up and I remember the arguments, that the price of land's gone up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, correspondingly in '08 the price of land went down, but yet the number of 230 stayed high. That didn't work for the needs to not have a budget demand for the upcoming fiscal year. And I think what happened, from what I can tell, and I missed the AUIR meeting, and I wished I hadn't, is that instead of reducing the cost, as everybody in this country experienced, parks reduced the level of service to offset the -- so they wouldn't show a need for the next fiscal year for improvements. I'm just wondering how truthful that is now that we're trying to put it into a document in the form of a CIE, since we now have been told that the costs do have an impact and are related in the CIE. I'm not sure who you represent, sir, so -- I see you standing there. Are you with parks? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Then maybe you can answer my question. MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Rec. Director. It's a very good question. And it did come up in the AUIR discussion. And just to reiterate, and sorry that you weren't there, the $230,000 per acre, that cost that reflected in the AUIR, we use that as a placeholder. It doesn't ref1ect the cost associated with the level of service that we're identifying. Page 19 January 16, 2009 As you mentioned as well, the 1.2 acres for community parkland, the 2.9 acres for regional parkland per 1,000, that's in essence what we count and calculate to determine whether we're meeting a particular level of service. The other question about whether or not that reflects in the CIE, I don't know that I have a good answer. And I've got some people back here that might be able to explain the CIE process and the five-year plan that we would put together. It wouldn't -- I don't know that it would reflect that cost at that $230,000 an acre. More than likely what we would project out would be the actual cost for a particular project, an estimate cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, see, I keep hearing a concern that we're going to have to lower levels of service or do something in order to avoid tax increases. And so that's where we started going. And as the example, parks, that was the first one on the list here. But it looks to me like we could have reduced the cost of land to its true value and still accomplish the same goal. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And also, I have another issue that I might as well -- since Amy's scurrying up here. In the Parks and Rec.'s impact fees revenues, they failed to show any for next year. And in this document they did the same thing. Yet I know they're going -- but this year they had 2.452 million in impact fee revenues through the end of2008. (Power surge.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I get for messing with parks, the power will go off. The parks is going to need, for their debt service, 3.135 million next year -- this year to pay. So they're going to be short already. And the upcoming's going to be short. This CIE doesn't reflect any of that. In fact, if you turn to the exhibit after the Capital Improvement Element, I think it's Exhibit A, Page 20 January 16,2009 for parks, everything is shown as zero. MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I'm just wondering how that ties to the paragraph in the staff report talking about level of service when everything's zero. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the CIE that reflects the zeros, it reflects impact fees that would be collected and applied for those new projects. And as you can see, there are no new projects planned in that five-year period. So there's no impact fees planned to pay for those projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're doing a lot of property transfers, though -- MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- through interdepartmental transfers. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What evidence do we have that shows that the other departments paid the 230,000 per acre that you're crediting it for? And I'm just wondering how those transfers are balanced out. Because there's no data that I could find in the AUIR to provide us with that kind of information. MR. WILLIAMS: Could you be specific about a transfer you're referencing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It's Conservation Collier stuff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the regional park category of the 2008 AUIR, proposed added value through commitments, leases and interdepartmental transfers, $165 million. And it has something to do with South Florida Water Management District. And under the community park land categories of expenditures, proposed loss of value through interdepartment transfers, a negative $10 million. I know you're going to transfer land back and forth, and that's Page 2 I January 16, 2009 fine. I'm just now curious how you would set a value for it at 230,000, because that's what your unit cost is supposed to be, yet I don't know what those departments who negotiated maybe better prices than that, how that's being accounted for. MR. WILLIAMS: And I understand your point and I think it's a valid one. I think what we're saying with that $230,000 an acre, it is a placeholder. It doesn't reflect market value. It's not the indicator for our level of service for park land. The acreage per thousand is what we count towards level of service. It does distract from this commission. And in the AUIR process it was apparent as well that 230,000, folks were getting hung up in that. And just for the reasons you're saying, is that the cost of land has gone down. For LIS what's important is get the acreage on the books for us to meet level of service. So in the examples that you gi ve, you know, for example, the 640 acres for the A TV park, when that comes to play the true cost market value of that land, you know, it's not likely to be this $230,000 an acre. I f you get 640 acres near Lake Trafford, it's hard to argue that that land would be at that cost. So I would ask you to push out that cost per acre. That's not the consideration really that we're bringing forward. I think your other point, though, is with the CIE, which is a valid question to ask, what is the cost that would be related ifthere were projects on the book for that five-year window. And not having projects to give you an example, it's difficult for me to say. But what we would propose is if, for example, Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park was in that five-year window, a cost of that park might be $8 million. What we would show how funds would equal that $8 million would be based on a projection from impact fees that we had available. If impact fees weren't available for the reasons you're Page 22 January 16,2009 stating, obviously we'd have to demonstrate in the CIE where would those funds come from. But I don't have those examples for you. I don't have -- what I have basically is five years of no projects planned, because obviously I don't have any money to spend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I started out my questioning, I asked Corby how the costs relate to the CIE, purposely to find out if it was a legitimate question to ask at this time. And that's when he said they do. lt then seemed to fall back on the fact that maybe -- I do know when the 230 was increased the arguments we heard. They were legitimate at the time. Prices of land go up, we have to increase prices. But it should work in reverse. MR. WILLIAMS: It would be just for ease -- as easy for us to bring back to you next year what it cost -- we could arrive at a different figure than that 230 that reflects what the market is for acreage. You know, and you've heard the arguments too about that 230 that reflect land we buy on the coast versus land that we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. MR. WILLIAMS: -- buy inland and the differences. I'm sure we've got -- you know, we could work with real estate services to corne back with a more accurate number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On a global aspect of the county's assets, if we have assets in Parks and Rec. that are figured out to be say the 165 million or whatever -- I mean, I'll tell you what the total number is to begin with. Your regional parks have a total value of $240 million right now, what the current value is. Do we use that number for collateral arguments for any bonds, municipal bonds, class A ratings or AA, AAA ratings for bond counsels or anything like that'? MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and try to bring this into focus Page 23 January 16,2009 right here. And I think the best way to answer -- first of all, I'm going to answer your question. The answer to that would be no. But as far as where do these numbers come from? I think it would more appropriate to let Amy Patterson address where they come from, how they get adjusted. And you also had a question about impact fees related to not only the CIE, but also debt service. And she can answer that as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The thing about impact fees is more ofa statement. It's obvious that we're in a deficit for impact fees from Parks and Rec. for quite some years to come, the way -- the sheets that I have. MR. COHEN: Yeah, but at the same time, she can address the aspects of where the figure comes from as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager, for the record. Regarding the $230,000 per acre amount that's reflected in the Parks and Rec., the nature -- or where that number started was if you recall a couple of years ago the impact fee study also included a comprehensive land study to develop a cost per acre. And there was quite a bit of conversation at that time about the appropriateness of that number. In the end it was accepted and it translated into the AUIR. With the 2007 indexing, that number was indexed up accordingly with the numbers that were generated for the land component of that particular impact fee, therefore generating the $230,000 number. Part of the reason that it would remain the same this year in the AUIR process is that we're in the middle of a full impact fee study, which means that that land component will be looked at and will be Page 24 January 16,2009 evaluated for its appropriateness. Now, that study is near completion and will be coming forward at some time in the near future. And then that again will translate into this year's AUIR and adjustment up or down or whatever the appropriate action is at that time. But that is the adopted land value at this moment, based on the impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with the bond that was posted to pay for the water park? MS. PATTERSON: I have the debt service information about that bond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What was the collateral for the bond? MS. PATTERSON: I would assume that it would have been sales tax or something else. Not impact -- it's not impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because impact fees are what's being used to pay it off. MS. PATTERSON: Right, they're being used to pay it off, but they're never put up as collateral because of the volatile nature of the collections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those types of purchases where we use -- where we have bonds that are used to benefit whatever, say we don't use impact fees, what are the guarantees for the bonds if none of those fees come forward? Like gas tax has been dropping, impact fees have been dropping. Is there any kind of physical asset to guarantee or back up those bonds? MS. PATTERSON: I'm not certain if they put up a physical asset, but I can find that out and let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would be interested to know that. Because in the way land's been devalued and the way we're not tracking or accepting the devaluation in the AUIR, it appears as though our values are all as they're stated. And I don't believe they are. MS. PATTERSON: Okay. Page 25 January 16, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I would certainly like to know how the collateral is set up. MS. PATTERSON: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. On that same page, the next item that's talked about -- oh, and is it Barry? Is that -- MR. WILLiAMS: Barry, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, I'm getting old, I forget names sometimes. I have one more question for you. Is there some way that you have a listing of a couple transactions that (sic) other departments showing what their purchase price was and now what you've accepted those properties into the park department for? You know, like we started talking about, you have $165 million in interdepartmental transfers, and you have another one for 10 million in community parks. I'm just curious as to where that interdepartment transfer land is, what department purchased it, when they bought it and what they paid for it. And then -- because I'm curious, if all you've got to do is transfer land interdepartment at the right times and show an increase in value, I'm a little concerned about how legitimate that is and how much the taxpayers are really benefiting from a change in value like that. MR. WILLIAMS: I can answer the question of the 47 acres that we have on Randall Curve, perhaps. And with transportation here, if! may, just to articulate that a little bit. We have 47 acres that we sought to develop on Randall Curve. We found that it wasn't useful to be used as a park. You know, the folks that more than likely would use it are the Orangetree community, and crossing Immokalee Road's not a very good idea for building a park. So we've talked about our building Big Corkscrew Island Page 26 January 16,2009 Regional Park in conjunction with the public utilities project. And part of that interdepartmental transfer would be for us to give the 47 acres or negotiate with transportation for them to get the 47 acres. The value of that land would be used for us to purchase the land from public utilities for the development of the park next to the public utilities at Orangetree. So all those negotiations, that's our planning, that's what we're moving towards. Of course public utilities and Orangetree utility has been held up because of growth and whatnot, so we're not prepared to move forward with that. But that's been the plan and that's what's reflected in the AUIR. And the values -- and your question is the values and what (sic) we purchased those 47 acres when we did versus when we make this interdepartmental transfer, their changing or whatnot, I don't know that I have a good answer, I can just articulate what our plan is as far as doing that transfer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd be curious to see how much Nick is going to pay for that land. He's known as a shrewd negotiator. MR. WILLIAMS: He is indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll have to see ifhe's going to pay 230. Because if he isn't, then someone's got a problem. MR. WILLIAMS: I have a boss who's fairly shrewd too that I'm going to bring with me, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Barry, hi. Maybe you do know the answer to this, and perhaps some of the others do, but let me just verity something. You acquire a parcel of land. You paid $1,000 for it. You now transfer it to Norm's department. But at this moment in time when you transferred it, it has now a value of $5,000. Would that differential generate impact fee requirement? MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know that I can answer that question. I Page 27 January 16,2009 don't know if Amy heard it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, let's find out, because that's an interesting question, too. Did you hear the question, Amy? MS. PATTERSON: I don't -- I'm sorry, Amy Patterson again for the record. I heard the question but I'm not sure I understand -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not so sure that I know whether or not you generate impact fees on a differential and that was the question. In other words, if parks department had required a parcel ofland, and we use $1,000, and at a later time because of increased prices on properties the value of it was perceived to be $5,000, would the differential between the 1,000 and the 5,000 or $4,000, require the payment of impact fees? MS. PATTERSON: No, because impact fees are only paid on a structure. The construction -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Only on structure and never on land. MS. PATTERSON: Never on land. Except there are a couple of land uses on our fee schedule, I ike golf courses, where it's construction but it's not a building. There are a couple of those types ofland uses. But it generally is always vertical construction that generates the assessment of impact fees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But doesn't Norm collect impact fees associated with land for miles that he builds on? MS. PATTERSON: That's the calculation of the impact fee versus the collection of the impact fee. And that's what I was going to get to next is what would happen, actually, with this. And maybe the EMS property is a good one to talk about, the Benderson prop -- is that the Benderson? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Benderson. Page 28 January 16,2009 MS. PATTERSON: Or the one that's on Santa Barbara, that -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No, that's not Benderson. MS. PATTERSON: Not Benderson. I can't -- it slipped my mind -- Bembridge, sorry. That parcel is currently owned by EMS. But at one point in time it's been looked at to be transferred to other public facilities that might use it for a different purpose at one time, the EOC or other things. So the value of that asset is currently located in the EMS impact fee as a component of how that fee is created, the value of the asset. But if it were to be transferred, for example, to a government buildings facility, the value of that asset would be removed from the EMS inventory and placed onto the government buildings inventory, if that would be the place for it. So therefore a reduction to the EMS inventory, which could be a corresponding reduction to the overall EMS impact fee and an increase to the receiving department. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I'm trying to get at. You hit the point I was trying to get at. Ifthere exists a differential, then the booked value, when it's transferred then, there is either a significant hit on EMS and a significant benefit to the other party, and the impact fee does relate to that, doesn't it? MS. PATTERSON: Right. And it would reflect the current market value, not necessarily what they paid for it. Because if they were to sell it to a private entity, they would still be paying current market value. I f parks owned a piece of land that they decided that they couldn't use, they would sell it for whatever the market would bear at that time. Now, we would remove it from their inventory, but they would also receive the benefit of whatever money they might have acquired from selling that parcel. If that makes sense. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I got you. What I've been trying to relate to, and perhaps I've been unfair to Page 29 January 16, 2009 you, I hope not, but we know that in transactions by law, transactions occur intergovernmental. Permitting fees are paid or allocated to be paid out of the funds, all these other costs for the use of that land are related. And it seemed to me, at least I wanted to find out, whether impact fees are a part of that same set of transactions. MS. PATTERSON: And they are. In multiple ways they are. Not only in the n COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But not in a fashion that one might expect. You're saying it occurs later. MS. PATTERSON: It actually occurs as part of the calculation of the impact fee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MS. PATTERSON: This is actually a methodology issue versus an actual physical transaction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, but if the value of something has grown, the impact fees consequentially will grow. MS. PATTERSON: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So a movement of land to another organization has a potential high benefit in that organization, or a potential high loss. MS. PATTERSON: It does. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby? I guess I left off on Page 3. And this probably won't be yours to answer, but you're the guy up there right now. MR. SCHMIDT: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The water facilities. I have a lot of questions about the I O-year water supply plan that will be corning up. I know this mirrors that plan. But I wasn't understanding in the plan why we've been able to drop 185 gallons per capita to 170 per person. Page 30 January 16,2009 And likewise, the corresponding decrease in sewage. I'm wondering if people are drinking less and using the toilets less, if that's the reason, and how we know that. So that's my next question, because it comes up on Page 3. MR. SCHMIDT: All right, I've got someone looking forward to answering that for you. MR. GRAMA TGES: Good afternoon. Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Division. The reason for the drop is simply that we have looked at the actual consumption for the year 2005, six and seven in preparation for the 2008 master plan. Now, we notice that the consumption per capita had reduced considerably. In the past we had been reluctant to make adjustments based on such short-term declines in level of service, simply because there are a lot of factors that we have difficulty in properly measuring that determine the level of service. However, though, we do know that we went through a drought and we do know that we went to restrictions in irrigation. And we also know that typically when we go to a lengthy period of time where those restrictions exist, the consumers tend to stick to that new gain culture or new gain habit. So we were fairly confident that those numbers would clearly reflect the consumption for the next few years to come, and we felt that it was prudent to nullify that level of service from the 185 to the 170. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why didn't you go lower? MR. GRAMATGES: The average for those three years was 168. Now, the highest number in the -- the lowest number of those three years was the first year, 2005. That mayor may not reflect that there's now a tendency to increase again. But obviously we want to be conservative. The last thing we want to be is find ourselves in a situation where we don't have enough capacity. Page 3 ] January 16,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you think of the other municipalities in the county that are not following your lead in regards to their levels of service for sewer and water? MR. GRAMA TGES: I can't speak for the level of service, but I do tell you that their mixture of multi-family to single-family, the size of their lots, the amount of irrigation they have for golf courses is clearly different than ours. It's very difficult to make one-to-one comparisons like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we -- as part of your 1 O-year plan, last time we had asked that we try to get the information from the other utilities. I know some cooperated with you and some did not. And we'll probably discuss that in detail. But I also know that the other utilities that you tried to get information from for the most part have significantly lower levels of service. And I'm just wondering, if we don't believe that's legitimate, or if we have -- if it isn't practical, how is it that we're accepting that? And I understand the argument I've read in the document, that we don't have any control over them. And we'll dispute that later this afternoon, because I also read the County Attorney's memorandum that seemed to indicate we did have. And at the same time, we are issuing building permits in areas that have facilities that we don't believe may have practical levels of service. And those are all the kinds of things that I would want to understand, because that does dovetail into why our level of service needs to be so high. So it's just a statement, but I thought I'd make it. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, aliI can say is that if you look at those other areas like Orangetree and like Immokalee that have different level of services than we do, the composition of those areas is different than the composition of Collier County. And in fact, we see differences even between Collier County. When it comes to water, of course, the level of service, since we are interconnected, is the same for the entire county, but indeed varies. Page 32 January 16,2009 And once again, it depends on the population density and the number of commercial units that may be there. I mean, Immokalee is more of a rural type of city or town than Collier is. And Collier is probably more rural than Miami-Dade. I mean, it's a very, very difficult number to put your hands around. And that's why we are extremely conservative when we try to estimate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way that you have any control over the new franchises that come into the county? For example, in the eastern lands there's proposed to be 22 -- and I'm not going to use traffic centroids, because I think they will be towns. Let's say those towns go into play. Wi II you be -- how will the county approach those from a level of service? Will they use what's in this CIE and insist that they meet that level of service, or will they end up devising their own? MR. GRAMA TGES: Those areas would be outside of our water/sewer district. We, meaning public utilities, has no direct control over that. I would have to defer that question to CDES and comprehensive planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought that you had some control over Collier County, all unincorporated areas of Collier County. MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and answer that, Commissioner Strain and other commissioners. There's a Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority that regulates -- I don't want to use the word regulate, but monitors, because a lot of that regulation is via special act or special legislation. What I'll do is in light of what your questions are in terms of level of service and the county's involvement with that, I'm going to place a call to Jamie French and have him address the county's role in dealing with those private utilities for you later this afternoon, so he can be here and answer those questions for you. Page 33 January 16, 2009 But Phil is correct, Collier County as an entity does not have the authority to regulate those particular private utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like I said, I do have some questions on that specific issue in the next phase of this meeting. And by the way, just so you know, we could save Jamie till Tuesday. We've got to be here any anyway. I understand the advertising wasn't what it needed to be for today's meeting to come to a conclusion, so we will be meeting here Tuesday at 2:00. MR. COHEN: Whatever your pleasure may be, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just suggesting that we're going to be here anyway, so -- if that's more convenient. That's the only question I had at this time on Page 3. Thank you, Phil. MR. GRAMA TGES: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any remaining questions on Pages I through 4'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Corby, I guess you want to move into something else then, huh? MR. SCHMIDT: All right. At this point I'd like to distribute my single handout to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it figures, it's Nick's area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you want to grab your mic. so she can pick you up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm too heavy for her to pick me up. On Page 4, going back -- I apologize, but I had to reread my question. If you wouldn't mind -- I'm looking at the top there on Page 4, the level of service standard for the North County Water Reclamation Facility decreased from dada, dada, dada, dada. Page 34 January 16,2009 My question to myself is would that generate reduced rates? And here's what I'm really focusing on. I happened to have overheard or been a part of a conversation where people were concerned with -- that they pay for evaporation, or they claim evaporation during the summer months on their pools, but they're being charged for sewer that they believe is inappropriate. So if in fact we are -- and I use that as a single example; there may be hundreds of others. If that's the case, are we in a position at some point then to offer reduction in cost for those folks, all the folks that utilize this? Or do we just offer information? MR. GRAMA TGES: Once again, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities Division. The answer clearly is no. Evaporation is water. We don't treat water, we treat sewage. The loading in the plant -- the plant has two types ofloading: It has hydraulic loading, which is the number of gallons that goes through it, and it has -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Phil, excuse me, I was referring to water reclamation. MR. GRAMA TGES: That's right, that's the waste treatment-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that sewer? MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes, it's the waste treatment plant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And my example was about the people are being charged for sewer -- MR. GRAMA TGES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- for the water being consumed. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Their argument was that they see a lot of evaporation in their pools so they put -- have to fill it up again, but they're being charged for that use of water, reclaimed water coming at you. They're being charged for that water, even though it's evaporating. You've reduced. You've said now it's no longer this, it's this. My Page 35 January 16,2009 question is, should there be a reduction associated with it if you are going to reduce the amount of work that you have to produce? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, but my answer is no, we don't have to reduce the amount of work that we have to do. Because all that is doing is concentrating the impurities that are coming in that flow into the plant. So in other words, what you have is a stronger stream coming into the plant. The amount of chemicals that you have to use, the use ofthe equipment that is there is not going to change significantly due only to hydraulic loading. Hydraulic loading, meaning the total number of gallons. If the percentage of impurities within those gallons increases but the total number of impurities remains the same, the work that the plant has to do pretty much remains the same. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if we were to decrease the loading significant, you'd have to have additional plant redevelopment in order to deal with it. MR. GRAMA TGES: As a matter of fact you're absolutely right, SIr. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And the other side of it is then we should encourage everybody to use as much water as possible because it's cheaper then for you to process it. MR. GRAMATGES: I think that that is -- it's not an argument that could really hold weight. I mean, what n COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or water. MR. GRAMATGES: n they would end up doing is -- what they'd end up doing is increasing their water bill. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what I was trying to get at is -- and every opportunity that I as an amateur, and I certainly am an amateur when it comes to you folks, try to find ways that we can make a reasonable effort at reducing costs where they are appropriate. And of course the issue is every question that is asked always has an answer that never makes it possible to reduce costs. And it's very Page 36 January 16,2009 frustrating to us and I'm sure it's frustrating to you too. MR. GRAMA TGES: Let me just say that reducing costs is a 24/7 effort for us. We need to do that, not only because our rate payers demand it, but simply because common sense demands it as well. And I believe that the reduction that we have made in the level of service both for water and wastewater also implies with it a reduction in cost. Every time we do a master plan, we do a study, a rate study and an impact fee study. And based on those studies, we determine what the rate will be for the following three or four years, depending on when the next master plan will come to be, and we determine therefore what the impact fees will be as well. So we are continuously and constantly looking at that number, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can you tell us when the last time there was a rate reduction or -- MR. GRAMA TGES: There was a reduction in impact fees at the time of the last review on the master plan for 2008. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a little -- there's a little twist to that. You did reduce impact fees, but then you turned around and increased another fee that you have that came out of the blue that was almost equal to the cost of the impact fee and it was the AFPI fees. So I'm not sure anybody came out ahead on that one. In fact, I think the AFPI fees were probably more broadly collected than the impact fees would have been. So I'm not -- I don't know if there was a benefit to the public in that process at all, Phil. I just wanted you to know that, Mr. Murray. So even though the impact fees may be said to have been reduced, there were other fees that went up to offset it. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I appreciate that you and I share that view that we try to get at some way we can get a cost reduction. Page 37 January 16,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I guess we're back up with Corby. And Corby, we left ofT on Page 5 through, I'm assuming 21, but those pages are repeated back behind another tab in this document, so -- in a more complete manner. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah, at this point it's up to you, if you'd like to go through the Capital Improvement Element itself at the other tab, page by page, or stick to the format in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would rather go through the format in the staff report, although the Pages 5 through 25, because they are repeated in more detail, behind the fourth tab that says Capital Improvement Element, if the rest of the Planning Commission wishes we can wait and tackle that one when we get to that, because there are other questions leading up to it, that works for everybody. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that's the case, then on Page-- right after Page 25 there's a report, staff report, Appendix A, Collier County Planning Commission, January 16th, 2009. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, do you want to tell us what that is and then I'll ask to see if we have any issues on that. MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. Because the staff report has an established format and again we were trying to add additional information this year, again because of the two years since the last CIE, the age of the information and the kinds of changes that you're looking at, tried to explain some of those with comments from staff. In Appendix A there are some general statements and remarks addressing some of those changes. Some to do with levels of service changes, some to do with projects specific and so forth. And Appendix B, and I'll go there when you ask, but Appendix B was meant to be project specific. Page 38 January 16, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions from Appendix A or B? Which is still prior to the ordinance tab. It's on the first tab of the book. Those are past the blue pages in the back of the book. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, under your solid waste projects, under the tab, I think it's the first blue tab which is your first blue Appendix A, I know that the solid waste billings are a separate item on our tax bill. I know that when I pay a tax bill, I just send one check in and pay the whole bill. So it doesn't matter to me if it's a separate item or not, it's still a cost that comes out of my pocket. In visiting other municipalities I find that there are different ways to address trash pickup. And it doesn't -- and the reason I'm bringing this up, I think it would have an impact on how we're thinking in regards to twice a week with those big cans. Right now we have Waste Management contracted for twice a week pickup county-wide. And they give us cans that are big enough to drive my truck into and park it. I don't generate that much waste. I don't know anybody that really does. There might be some people that do. I've been in other municipalities where I have been looking and talking to the neighborhood and watching how they've brought their trash out. On one day in the neighborhood that I was visiting the trash goes out, so do the other neighbors, and that's it. He only does one day a week. But yet I saw his neighbors a few days later bring a trash can out. And I said, do you want your trash taken out that day? And it was an older gentleman. He said no, we don't have two-day service. I said, how do you arrange that? So I went down to the municipality and found our their contract allows for one or two-day pickups; one being the base, you all pay for that. And if somebody wants a two-day pickup, they actually pay extra and they get the two-day pickup if they want to generate that much trash. Page 39 January 16,2009 It does save money. Their rate was less. And I'm just wondering, have we looked at that? And I know it's a different tax base, and that's the argument I get all the time is oh, it's only 100 bucks, who cares? Well, it all adds up and it comes in the same tax bill. So have we looked at that, and is this process that we're going through today an avenue in which that could be suggested? I see Phil wandering behind you, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: And he may be just the man to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He gets everything. He gets water and sewer and solid waste. MR. GRAMA TGES: Hi. It's Phil Gramatges again, Public Utilities. The problem with this is that we can't determine n well, let me back up a little bit, if I may. As you said, some people will need twice a week pickup, some people will need once a week pickup. It would not be economically feasible for us to send a truck to pick up only one garbage can in the whole lot -- in the whole neighborhood. I mean, if the truck is going to be there, it is to everyone's benefit for the truck to pick up everybody's garbage. And besides, the amount of garbage that you use may vary from week to week. During the holidays, for example, the garbage generated generally, at least in my household, is more than what that container can support. So therefore, we have standardized two pickups a week. Now, I can't give you any more details than that. I do know that we have looked at that and we have determined that it is for us financially more effective to do two pickups a week than to do one. You remember as well that we pick up recyclables only once a week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the party or the municipality Page 40 January 16, 2009 that I was dealing with is up in Ohio. They were using a different -- a competitor of Waste Management. Bearing Ferris or Browning-Ferris, something like that. They have different color trucks. It just seemed odd that they could do it and we hadn't maybe -- have we ever priced such a scenario? Have we looked at competitive pricing, the Waste Management contract, to see if we could get a better price for an alternative such as one-week pickups? MR. GRAMATGES: I can tell you that we have looked at that. I can't give you any more detai Is than that. I wasn't prepared to answer that question fully. But I do know that we have looked at the possibility of picking up only once a week, and we did not find that to be advantageous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Any other questions that we have on the blue page, appendices to the staff report? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I had one question of you. Some of the pricing on here is for landscaping or talking about roadway landscaping that's been deferred. Some still on the books. I think there's one -- you guys just got approved for some landscaping components. Is there a reason that landscaping for neighborhoods that particular want it, since it only benefits generally the neighborhoods that it's close by, that we couldn't convert to MSTU's to take care of landscaping? Because not only is the initial cost high, but you also end up providing ongoing maintenance forever. So landscaping is really like an anchor around our neck, instead of just the n I mean, I know a lot of people think they need beautiful medians, but I'm just wondering how much they're willing to pay for them. And at the same time, I'm not willing to pay for them, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: While I'd like to answer that, I know Page 4 I January 16,2009 this topic is near and dear to my boss's heart, so I'll let him talk about it. MR. FEDER: If I could, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think your point is what we discussed with the board this last cycle. We did get 1.8 in turnback to try and address three segments that were estimated at one time about 2.9, and we're seeing what we can do with the 1.8 in bid. What we noted to the board was in acquiring that 1.8 for over 10 miles of additional landscaping, that that was going to result in about 500,000 of ongoing maintenance demand, and that we would rather defer that till later. But the desire was to move with the turnback money, and we are doing so. I think the issue that you raised is one that we raised to the board as the cost. When you talk about I think an MSTU issue, say, you are in effect using a county-wide MSTU, which is the MSTD Fund 111. That is what is funding landscaping. It has in the past and continues to with the maintenance. So in effect you're doing it through an unincorporated county-wide MSTU called MSTD. But the decision on continuing to pursue landscaping without any increase or possibly reductions in that millage is putting us in a situation where we were relying on a portion ofturnback for maintenance of the 4.9 that we had for the 100 miles we had previously landscaped, before this 10 is being raised. And that's already been reduced by 1.3 million. A portion of that provided back in turnback. But next year I'm starting with 1.3 million less than my cost needs for maintenance, plus another 500,000 for the additional 10 miles, if in fact that 1.8 can do the capital for those three projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we've got an MSTD that produces the tax county-wide for landscaping -- MR. FEDER: Unincorporated, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unincorporated, which means even Page 42 January 16, 2009 though in the area I live in, as an example, there's no landscaping. I certainly made sure that the coastal community had it and I'm pleased with that. Isn't there a localized way to tax for people that insist on having landscaping in front of their areas? MR. FEDER: Well, first of all, for folks that are not on an arterial where we've gone to the ultimate lane standard, typically six lanes. That was a decision some years back in the landscaping master plan that those facilities that had gone to the ultimate lane standard were a benefit county-wide, and whether they be a gateway into the community or utilized by people out throughout the community. I do have many areas, somewhat as you're saying, where there's been a decision locally in Golden Gate City and Lely, in Immokalee, in Bayshore, where there have been MSTU's set up for landscaping where I don't have a project, I've just widened the arterial that everybody around the county uses to six lanes, and they want it landscaped. They form their own separate MSTU and landscape some localized road, some cases two-lane roadways that they landscape, sometimes others. But not ones that were on the landscape master plans. So the distinction is I'm talking about major arterials brought to their ultimate standard. And the concept was I'm developing these arterials from demand, county-wide drivers, and coming closer to homes and businesses. And the idea was to take those six-lane facilities and turn them into three-lane boulevards to a degree that landscaping has done that. It's an added value to everyone county-wide on those six lanes built out to capacity arterials. When it's not those, we haven't been doing the landscaping. Now, having said that, with the crunch that we're in right now, we've been recommending the last two years, as you're aware, pull-back. And last year we recommended to pull back totally. And Page 43 January 16,2009 then the decision was that we had some turn back funds, let's do it. But that does raise a maintenance issue for us once those are on board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Are there any questions up through the ordinance tab? In any of the ordinance tab from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After the ordinance tab we actually get into the Capital Improvement Element, and that one is where we probably will spend a little bit more time on the specifics of that element. It's 2: 17. We were going to take a break at 2:30, we probably could take one now and then come back at 2:35 and go for another hour and a half at that point. I think the day's cut-of1~ if it's okay with everybody, will be 5:00. Is that okay? Okay, let's come back at 2:35 and resume. (Recess. ) MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll resume our meeting on the CIE. Where we left off, we were starting to discuss the capital improvement tab. And typically we take these page or two at a time, and we'll probably follow through with that today. On the first page is the table of contents and introduction. So let's go through Page CIE- I. Are there any questions from the commission on those? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate to have a question about a table of contents, but I have to. The addition, and it's because of transportation, as you -- as unexpectedly could happen. You added the East of 951 bridge report. And Nick, as I had mentioned to you, I'm concerned because in your introduction you talk about the CIE must identify public facilities that will be required during the next five years and that those facilities, Page 44 January 16, 2009 up to -- including -- to get to the acceptable levels of service. I'm trying to understand how that bridge report impacts -- is impacted by either of those statements, or are those statements impacted by the bridge report? Because you already have a level of service established without the bridges in place, so you don't need them in the C I E for that. And I'm not sure that you need nor want to do them in the next five years or want to be under the burden of having to do them with the economy the way it is. So is there an advantage to putting that in the CIE as a reference that is economically -- is there an advantage to it? Couldn't we just do it without it being here? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's no economic advantage to having it in there. We've got the bridge report adopted. In your AUIR you have an allocation for bridge improvements with a priority on maintenance first. And then as long as the board adopted the bridge report, having it in here wasn't an issue for us. We wanted to include it but-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just more worried about locking the community into a program because it's referenced in here, someone making that kind of argument, versus if you can do it or not when you want to now. I think your flexibility is better ofT being that way based on the amount of money you got coming in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. And, you know, we have operation improvements in there as identified. Again, I'll say this: Putting it in here doesn't hurt us or help us. I mean, it's okay if it was out of here. There's no specific bridge identified as a capital improvement in here. It's just a prioritization that the board adopted through the report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifit doesn't hurt us, all I'm trying to make sure is that -- we've got a tough few years coming up in Collier County. I would hate to see us inadvertently put a document into this GMP that we're stuck with because we can't change the GMP Page 45 January 16,2009 and all of a sudden DCA latches onto it and says, oh, no, we're not going to let you remove it now. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And doesn't the ORC Report require that -- I read something in there about for the next 10 years that they're pretty strong on saying that we had to. If you're going to have something in there, you've got to be able to show it's financially feasible, et cetera, et cetera. MR. COHEN: We're required to have the first five years being financially feasible. And we have to show them the next five years. But the next five years do not have to be financially feasible, unless you were to adopt a financially feasible concurrency management system, which some governments have chosen to do. But our government Board of County Commissioners is set on the two-year concurrency management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Randy, when the board accepted the bridge report, however they did that, by resolution, ordinance or whatever, they can then change it locally. They can make any amendments, they can change it. I'm worried that if we lock it in here, it's even harder to change. And if you guys are comfortable with it, then fine, but I thought I'd raise the question. MR. COHEN: You did raise a good point. Because one of the comments that we've gotten with respect to taking out some items is that they are self-modi tying. And by that is that they would be modified by the board and they wouldn't go through the DCA review process. And if it's not totally necessary to be in there, your suggestion is a good one, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? MR. CASALANGUIDA: On your Exhibit A up here doesn't identify specific bridge improvements other than the Northbrook Page 46 January 16,2009 project, and it's not really a bridge improvement. So there's nothing in your five-year CIE that locks you into a committed bridge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, I'm just trying to point out, I don't want to see us trapped by DCA or anybody else. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, my only concern is that it might be associated with some emergency management things. I know that one ofthe benefits of the bridge is fire response times, things like that. So if it's not hurting anything to be in here, somebody else might be referring to it someplace else. So I think it would be great to leave in, but before you take it out I would look for whether it's being referenced someplace else. MR. COHEN: With respect to fire response time and those emergency management functions like sheriff, ambulances, obviously the fire trucks, they're not regulated by the state, they're in your AUIR process, so there's really no reason to put the bridges in there with respect to emergency services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be safer, Brad, if we still had the same coverage and the same impact but can change it more locally than having it in here. I'd just as soon we not mess the program up by having it here. Is that going to kill you guys? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have a heartbreak? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to check with the County Attorney and see if they see any issue one way or the other. MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, part of the problem we've historically had with our compo plan is we put too much stuff into it and then years later we find ourselves handcuffed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: So that -- you know, I've always been in favor of taking as little as possible to put into the compo plan. Page 47 January 16,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Who put it in and why? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I didn't put it in, I think -- MR. SCHMI DT: Yeah, staff chose to put it in for a number of reasons. In the Capital Improvement Element most of those things listed as appendices are unadopted reference documents. And for whatever upcoming projects that we could see in the future that derive from that, from the bridge program, that's a good source document to have. And it simply catalogs it, libraries it and tells us where to find it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me add to that, maybe a reason not to take it out. And I've thought about it a little bit more. As long as you haven't identified a specific bridge in your five-year CIE, having it in there by reference is good, because your document's going forward. When you go to build one of these, they're going to be referenced in your compo plan. One of the reasons DOT is having a hard time with the I-75/Everglades PD&E project is because our CIE doesn't reference the long-range transportation plan, the 2030 plan. So it may be a problem later when we want to bring it in. People might want to say why, it's not in your compo plan to have bridges. Fiscally since it's not noted as a specific bridge location in our five-year Exhibit A, it doesn't bind us to build a specific bridge within that five years. So I think maybe it's a good idea to leave it in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm? MR. FEDER: If I could, Mr. Chairman, in reinforcement of what Nickjust said to you, the other part of that equation is we went through that study, because we do have actually an unusual situation in Collier County. We have a grid in the Estates. Unfortunately it's cut up by a lot of canals. And part of what we're doing out there is trying to acknowledge that while we need some major arterials still in the system, we don't need to address it like we addressed the urbanized area. We need to take advantage of that two-lane grid as much as we Page 48 January 16, 2009 can, and that's why we carne up both from a safety perspective and an overall transportation statement that I think is important to the folks in the Estates, that we're not looking at trying to establish an arterial grid out there, we're trying to utilize the two-lane grid and we're going to have to augment it with some roadway work in the future. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Are the bridges -- Norm, are the bridges to be paid for with impact fees? MR. FEDER: Bridges right now aren't (phonetic) to be looked to be paid for. They're being paid for out of gas tax. They could theoretically, if we make the argument on capacity, but we've had so much capacity improvement in the past and now so few impact fees it's probably still going to stay in the bridge program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, but let's assume for the sake of argument that, you know, it was n MR. FEDER: Could they be? The argument could be made if you're utilizing and expanding your overall capacity by lowering trip lengths and times and service, level of service. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then the next logical question would be, based on the sheer lack of numbers out there in terms of people and therefore property, is the value sufficient to generate the money that you would need to do those things? MR. FEDER: Basically I don't think it's a lack of people out there. At least it wasn't up until just recently. It was growing so rapidly. What you're trying to do is take advantage ofa two-lane grid both for the Estates and everything east of 951, rather than having to try and build more and more expanded facilities. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So are you saying then that there's a radius, if you will? Because I know there's various bridges, I saw that document. So there's a radius of those homes that would end up -- Page 49 January 16,2009 MR. FEDER: Yes. You're serving a catchment area with different bridges. What we figured out after 13th -- and don't use that as your model, folks -- was you don't put in a single bridge. You've got to put them into multiples and we've got to do it in a manner where we don't take anyone street and overburden it. So that's why we went through the study and went through -- and it's also to recognize that we need to utilize that two-lane grid. And so that's why I think keeping it in here, especially when you don't have any bridges defined in your dollar assessment, is still viable in your compo plan. But again, we don't think it's a make or break. Obviously we'll go by -- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Not to beat it to death, but in that radius if there are a lot of homes built, those homes have already paid impact fees, you're not going to charge them again, right? MR. FEDER: Yeah. And again, as I said, this is through gas tax. And as Nick noted, we've got about five million a year, which we had, we can maintain it. First for bridge repair/replacement as is needed, and then the balance of that in any year towards building these new bridges. A bridge is somewhere about a million and a half apiece. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby or Andy, is there any reason we can't add the entire east of 951 infrastructure study report then? The reason I want to do that is because it clearly says in there, and it was voted on by the Board of County Commissioners, about the infrastructure needs in the future. And if you're going to justify your bridge report, then you might as n then that thing should be justified the same way. And that report clearly says no water and sewer past 951. So why don't we just put that whole report in there then, if we want to go that route? And then we find a few other reports we can dump in there before today's over. And Mr. Klatzkow's argument about cluttering the GMP, we'll Page 50 January 16,2009 make sure we do it real good. I still think this is a bad idea. MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's a bad idea, too, quite frankly. I'll talk with Nick and I'll talk with Randy. Unless they can come up with a compelling reason why it should be in there, my recommendation is going to be to yank it out. MR. COHEN: In one of the other justifications I can give you for, in Jeffs words, yanking it out, is that in the past we obviously have this data and analysis and it really wasn't reviewed by DCA that often, but because we're kind of a focal point for them, I know even this past year the AUIR, they've been reviewing every aspect of that via the Internet. And with the RLSA, they've requested every document that we've put before the RLSA's committee that's been reviewing that particular item, and they've been reviewing that. So the argument to take it out is not a bad one. MR. CASALANGUIDA: One last comment on that. If you seek funds, federal or state funds for it and it's not in your compo plan, it becomes a problem. That's the only n why I bring it up. I'll leave it at that, but we'll meet with the County Attorney and we'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the road system's in the compo plan and you make the road system complete, you have to have a bridge, it goes without saying that that's part of the process. So I'm not sure why a specific bridge report is a necessity all of a sudden to say you need a bridge and a road that crosses a canal. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know what we'll do, and maybe this will solve it? We'll do an LRTP update and we'll bring the bridge report into that and problem solved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would probably be better. Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's an LRTP? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions n pardon me? Page 5 ] January 16, 2009 MR. FEDER: Long-range transportation plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's an LRTP update, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Long-range transportation plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That moves us on to Pages -- let's do two at a time -- CIE-2 and CIE-3. Are there any questions there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's on the addition of "and wastewater". I s the intent to create a second category or is it to rename the existing one? In other words, in the appendix you call sewer-wastewater, here it's sewer and. So what is the intent? MR. SCHMIDT: The intent is to provide a year of transition between old terminology and new. Almost all the documents used by water and wastewater are just that. And in an effort to refer to some documents that we cannot change now while we're doing the CIE, such as those individual sub-elements that already have titles relating to sewer. And when we do get to those next time, we'll make that complete transition and move to wastewater, for instance. It's just a matter of moving from one term to another. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're going to eventually drop the word sewer, I guess. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Do you think it would be better off hyphening it? Because you are describing two things rather than n I mean, you hyphen it in the annex, everyplace else. So I would just hyphen the "and" that way. Because it looks to me like maybe you're trying to split up the sewer lines from the wastewater treatment plants, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: I follow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 52 January 16,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just clarification. Where does reclaimed water come into it? Because I know we have capital potential for ASR's in the future and so forth. Does reclaimed water end up being wastewater? Is that where it will be treated? You have clear -- YOLl have sewer, and I don't know how much of sewer is totally reclaimed, whether it's 80 percent, 60 percent or whatever, or if it's differentiated. And that's I guess the question I'm asking. And as long as you can tell me it's not differentiated, then my question goes away. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. It is not differentiated in this case. Reclaimed water is contained within wastewater in this -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So any capital associated with wastewater will also be relatable to any ASR's or any of those type of activities? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: Well, that expands that beyond -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Pages 2 and 3. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, on Page 3 -- I was waiting for Brad to pick this one up, too. And if you notice C, you already talked about the sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment, but then you've got drainage and stormwater management. Are they one in the same and you're doing the same thing with them? And if that's the case, shouldn't we hyphenate that too? Norm says yes. MR. SCHMIDT: We can, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why isn't that particular reference in the paragraph that Brad started asking his questions about? MR. SCHMIDT: There's the situation where the terminology has Page 53 January 16, 2009 already changed and we were simply making up for what we didn't revise last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, over there you're using surface water management systems, and here you're using stormwater management system. Surface water would be, I'm assuming, sheet flow and collection. Stormwater management might simply be pipes and more. So may you want to be consistent with those somehow? MR. SCHMIDT: We do, we may and we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do, may, will. Okay, let's move on to Page 4 and 5. Any questions on Pages 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 5, under roadways, A-2, we're stating (sic) the level of service in county and state arterial roads and collector roads. Are we able to just set their levels of service? I thought I saw somewhere we could other than 1-75. Is that a true statement? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. SIS facilities are set by the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they set D? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They set D, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we set above that E. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So on the segment of951 that keeps going from -- you're driving down a road, one minute you're on a state road, then you're on a county road, then you're on a state road and then you're on a county road again. The times we hit the county road we can say that section can be E, but when we hit the state road it's got to be D? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that ought to be fun to do your studies on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It gets even more fun when you get Page 54 January 16,2009 grant money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any advantage to suggesting that since D's allowed by the state on one section that that ought to really match ours and we ought to coordinate with that until such time the state lowers theirs? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you n the state will set their standard at D and they won't go below that right now, even though I-75, what I'm told, is going to D, which actually they're lowering it. We want to keep ours at E. You would not be able to maintain level of service D as a capacity, so we won't go there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does the state do it then? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They don't. They just don't. That's standard. And if it goes over, they'll budget it. And when it gets there, it gets there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do we approve additional impacts then if we're beyond the threshold of level of service that was set by the state? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We don't. We let the state right now be more active in reviewing projects that affect any of the SIS facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ifwe set E, which is as bad as you can get without failing, doesn't that become the target as a standard? Instead of -- 1 mean, it becomes more or less a goal. And I'm just wondering if that's a smart thing to do. But I understand -- I now understand your argument. If we don't do that, we're doomed. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. You go to, you know, C, D, or one of those other categories. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we have an E plus and E minus, maybe, something like that? (Laughter. ) MR. CASALANGUIDA: You can go to Lee County's standard which is E plus plus plus plus plus and, you know, 1.5 E over C and Page 55 January 16,2009 that's okay. Hope they're not watching this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to Page 6 and 7. Any questions on Page 6 and 7'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess this is where my concern comes in over the differences in potable water systems. And I really would want to know, and I guess Phil, I don't mean to belabor the point, but I need to ask you. If we sign up for 170 gallons a day, has anybody looked at to how Orangetree, which is probably an inferior system because it's had so many DEP citations and other things compared to the way you run your system. Immokalee Water and Sewer, I don't know how professional they run their operation, they may be fine. I know Florida Government Utility Authority has some issues with the residents out there that you may not have in yours. And Ave Maria is brand new. They're all much, much significantly lower than we are. And you're saying that's because of the mix of housing that's there that's that greatly attributed to that? MR. GRAMA TGES: Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. That's the only factor that I can use to determine that that number makes sense for them. I do know that the density in Orangetree is different than it is for Collier County overall. Now, Ave Maria is a different story, but that's a brand new utility. Very difficult to draw conclusions based on something like that. I know that eventually they are going to have a lot of residential units there, but right now they have none, or very few anyways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your density issue, you mean Orangetree because of its high density or low density? MR. GRAMA TGES: I would think that because they are high density, they would have less consumption per capita. Page 56 January 16,2009 Remember that one of the biggest factors in the consumption is irrigation. And when you talk about irrigation within Collier County, you take all the water that is used within the water/sewer district and you divide by the population. That takes into account golf courses, that takes into account parks, that takes into account a lot of things that I can assure you do not exist in Orangetree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever asked or have they ever provided studies to show how they arri ved at their level of service, like you have, as to why it's acceptable? MR. GRAMA TGES: As part of the I O-year water supply plan, we've requested information from them. Some of them were more willing to provide the information than others. But the information was limited. And we need to understand of course that it costs them money to produce this. And some of them are reluctant. In fact, some of them have said that they are not going to provide any more information unless we're paying for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I read that. And we'll certainly have a discussion on that when we get into the I O-year plan. Because if this county is allowing these zoning impacts to take place, they need to be cooperative with the requests such as we've asked of your department. Or maybe we need to look at a different way of changing things, especially with the upcoming RLSA. I think we can have an impact on that issue. I hope so. Mr. Schmitt? You're pretty casual today, sir. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I'm sitting in the back and it's Friday. I'm incognito. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not used to seeing you like that. MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to have Jamie French come up to explain to you what's going on, because I know Phil can't explain a lot of this regarding the private utilities. And for the record, I want to make sure folks understand. Orangetree, maybe the water/sewer plant has had some problems, but Page 57 January 16,2009 the Orangetree water plant itself is deemed to be pretty -- well, in full compliance, and is found to be pretty darn good water. But I'll make sure. I want Jamie to come up to talk about what he can do from a regulatory function, and then maybe he can provide some information in regards to the operational aspects of the utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jamie's position in the county for utilities is -- what can he oversee or do? MR. SCHMITT: Jamie works for me. He is the -- he runs the-- thank you, Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You forgot what he did, huh? MR. SCHMITT: Well, these operations are regulatory management. But he's the regulatory -- provides regulatory oversight over the private utilities that are under the auspices of the County Water and Wastewater Authority. Now, that's different than the Board of County Commissioners who sits as the utilities water and wastewater authority for the utilities that are owned and operated by the county. There's a separate board-appointed authority, Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority, that oversees the private utilities. By statute, they cannot be connected with or in any part related with the public utilities organization, because for all intent and purposes they are perceived to be competing resources. And Mr. DeLony cannot have any regulatory oversight over the private utilities, because in fact they are a separate entity and can be deemed to be a competitor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But couldn't Jamie-- MR. SCHMITT: All he does, though, is he evaluates the rate studies and provides the rate studies and analyses as part of the regulatory oversight. And that's all that he has the authority to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I read the E-mail that you had with the Barron Collier folks and their response to our request for information on Ave Maria. We weren't being specific for Ave Maria, Page Sg January 16,2009 we just said all of the private facilities. And out of all of them, I think theirs was the most -- or seemed to be most uncooperative for the future. MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, they basically said you want the analysis, you pay for it and we'll let you do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with Jamie's background and knowledge of what is needed, has he reviewed the new language coming up for the GMP changes to the RLSA? Because ifhe hasn't, at some point when the data and analysis of those changes come into play, Jamie's input would be valuable to make sure a policy is written so that there's -- without that cooperation, there's no more approvals out there. MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead. And we're getting off on a lot of issues with n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're getting 011' n I'm trying to understand how these utilities get away with having different levels of service if we can't do it. MR. COllEN: Well, I hadn't finished yet. What I was going to tell you is he's on his way to address your question. So that way we could -- you know, obviously the specifics of what he has and has not done and what his regulatory authority is, we can have him specifically address those items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll wait until he gets here then. Page 7, does anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I ask Phil one question? CI-IAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil? Quickly, you know, one of the concerns in some of these districts is they don't provide the same pressure levels that Collier County has as a standard, essentially the 40-psi and the nodes. Is there any way we can make them do that, or is it purely a gallons per day game we play with them? MR. GRAMATGES: I don't see any way in which we as part of Page 59 January 16,2009 the public utilities for Collier County can have any -- exercise any authority over them to have them increase their pressure, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because our requirement is above state code, they're staying at state code -- state level? MR. GRAMA TGES: The state level requires a residual pressure of20-psi for firefighting purposes. As long as it stays there, they have met the requirements of state law. We go above that. But we cannot force them to do what we do or to do anything different, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Except that they are under our domain or not, I guess. I mean, they're independent and we can't put our standards on top of them? MR. GRAMA TGES: I would have to defer that question to Jamie French, who is a regulator for them. But I would doubt that he can do that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I was going though, Brad, is that if we can write GMP language for new areas that have to corne to us for rezoning, we can establish policies that they'll be cooperative in the future for any utilities that they would be installing. That might be a way to look at it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And get where we should have gotten with Ave Maria in the first place, if they're the only ones objecting. And I'm a little surprised they would. If they got such a good system, they u I mean, I don't know why they wouldn't want to brag about it, but u MR. GRAMA TGES: If! may, the one that objected the most was not A ve Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we only have n the E-mail that was in our package -- MR. GRAMA TGES: Sure, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- reflects that one. Page 60 January 16,2009 What's the other one? MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, we had some difficulty with all of them, but especially with Orangetree in order to get the information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you did get information from those MR. GRAMATGES: We did get information eventually, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. Thank you, sir. Move to Page 8 and 9. Does anybody have questions on 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 10 and 11. There's our school concurrency was added. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Just one thing. On 9, Corby, everywhere we said the sanitary sewer and wastewater, you're going to fix all of those, we assume, correct? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't have to stop and point them out? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COllEN: I wanted to point something out on Page 10. In Policy 4.2, the December I st reference right there that mimics the statute? There's no way that this governmental entity can meet that deadline, which is the case also with many other governmental entities. And I know DCA is looking at having the legislature push that on out, but we incorporated the date from the statute itself, with the realization that DCA doesn't have a problem, as long as we're working with them on the CIE in its transmittal to DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a question on Page 10 having to do with the school system and the lettering in red. And it says, the adoption of the school district's capital improvement plan Page 61 January 16,2009 does not obligate the county in any shape, manner or form to provide financing for any off-site capital improvements for new schools or the expansion of existing schools unless mutually agreed. I recognize that there's concurrency requirements and so forth. Is that the Senate Bill 360 -- is that the result of the Senate Bill 360, or is this simply an assertion that we're making? Because it seems in contradiction. What I'm thinking is that the school district, as a developer in this context, wants to put another school in. And the county has to be able to support that in concurrency. Does this assertion negate that? Is that what that's intended to do? Did I -- MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and answer that for you, Commissioner. This particular issue of providing services and capital infrastructure for schools is a bone of contention between counties and county school boards throughout the state. Right now there's some ongoing litigation. It's in the appeal process. At the same time, the legislature is looking at their review of potentially conflicting language in Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 1013 of the Florida Statutes. In the meantime what we are trying to do as a county is protect the financial interest of the county, just like we would do with any other developer. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I thank you, and I appreciate it. That's what I thought this assertion was about. I had forgotten that there were some ongoing issues. And I could see them as potentially very expensive. I thank you for that answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 10 and 11. If there's no questions, we'll move to 12 and 13. Anybody have anything on 12 and 13'1 (No response.) Page 62 January 16,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 14 and 15. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the end of the text and into the exhibits. MR. SCHMIDT: And at this point I'll refer to the handout that I passed out earlier. It is meant or intended to replace the first page of your five-year schedule of capital improvements. On it you'll see three areas that have been highlighted. The first one a small change from what previously was indicated as a landscape project to a right-of-way acquisition project. But the two highlighted portions on the page, the project list for Green Boulevard, as well as the note at the bottom of the page relating to it were added. Those are significant, and I can explain those to an extent, but it looks like Mr. Casalanguida will do so as well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The first highlight was just a change from that Santa Barbara project, 60091, where we corrected it. It said landscaping and we changed it to right-of-way, which is what the appropriate phase was. The Green Boulevard extension, it's a project that we are acquiring right-of-way for a PUD commitment for impact fee credits from a previously approved PUD. And we have an existing DCA that we're working with the county attorney's office to modify. And both of those require those to be noted as a project in the CIE. No county dollar amount has been allocated to that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 17, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, on your n I notice that your Oil Well Road extension is in for '09 for 46 million. Is that road as congested and as crowded as Collier Boulevard is that isn't going to be done until '12 and '13? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You love asking those questions, Commissioner Strain. Page 63 January 16,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm -- first question, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: First section of that road, the two-lane road as a congestion of level of service issue is. The eastern portion of that road probably is not. But we are under contract to commit that project by a certain time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that 46 million has been funded? MR. CASALANGUIDA: 46 million has been set aside for that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it from impact fees, from the projects that were supposed to contribute the impact fees to it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not all of them from that project. But per the agreement, the adjacent districts as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: More reason why DCA shouldn't be written prior to the project's known impacts on our facilities, so -- but that's another issue for the RLSA. Any questions on Page 18 or 19? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, what's the reason for carrying some of these projects with all zero funding for the next five years? Just to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've either been encumbered or they're not being -- coming out of your -- some of it's done by turnback. Your Vanderbilt Beach Road landscaping is a turnback fund, so it's not revenues, it's money that was brought to us. So there's a zero dollar amount in the sense in our budget for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they're still current projects then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're current projects. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 18 and 19, any questions? (No response.) Page 64 January 16, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy or Corby, this is the 000. If you look at the revenue key, revenue source, impact fees? Showing zero. I understand because I just was explained that the AUIR shows -- or the way it's written is it's impact fees used for new -- I guess new purchases or new acquisitions. But is that the way the CIE is supposed to be written? Because the CIE and the AUIR -- if the AUIR is a local document and it can be modified in the way it's spelled out as to how the impact fee revenues are spoken, which means if you're not going to spend money for new acquisitions you don't have to show your impact fees, which I think is a little misleading, is this document to be equally misleading? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, the way that every element has to be structured is 1inancial feasibility. And as a result of there being no expenditures, where you see the OOO's, we do not have to show any revenues associated with something that we're not spending for. So that's why it's zeroed out. And during that five-year increment, what we're actually doing is paying off debt service with impact fees. And there's no new projects there. In the future when projects do get added, you'll see associated revenue from one or more sources. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Likewise, when -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: When a project is completed and there's no more repayment of impact fees from whatever sources, that project is removed from there. MR. COHEN: It will be removed, just like in transportation where -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's like-- MR. COllEN: -- projects have been removed from the ClE when they were completed the prior year. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So this is like a memo item, basically. Page 65 January 16,2009 MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was more wanting to make sure that there was full disclosure. And when we know there's impact fee revenues and there's a shortfall, it seems to me to be fair we ought to show that shortfall. MR. COHEN: I think DCA is more concerned with your ability to pay for something that you're showing more than anything, and that's the requirement of the statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any questions on Pages 20 and 21? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And this may be a similar answer. Under your revenue key, the water systems, there were -- there's revenue in the water system. Of 2008, the impact fees for water was 5,922,000. And 2008 wasn't a good year, so we can assume it's going to be somewhere around there and continue to be low for a while. Why doesn't all that show up under the revenue key where it says WIF, water system development fees/impact fees? It's 620,000. That's significantly less than 5.9 million. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll let Mr. Gramatges address that. MR. GRAMA TGES: Mr. Chairman, if I may, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities. Could you please repeat the question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2008 your impact fee revenues to water were 5.9 million. MR. GRAMA TGES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 2009 we can probably expect them to be fairly close to that. I doubt if they'll go up much; if anything it will probably go down. But it's going to be millions. Your revenue key on Page 20 refers WIF; it says water system development fees/impact fees. It only lists 620,000 for 2009. Why is there a discrepancy between the impact fees coming in and the ones shown on this Page 66 January 16,2009 document? MR. GRAMA TGES: All I can tell you is that the impact fees have been coming down considerably from what they were in 2008. I'm afraid I can't give you any more details than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you by Tuesday? MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you by Tuesday? MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us more by Tuesday? MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, I should be able to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because we're going to meet again Tuesday n MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's an important number. Because it's 5,300,000 off this year's impact fees, and I don't think you're going to lose 90 percent of your impact fees in '09 . You may lose more. But if you still have any at all, I'm just wondering why it's not more relative to what we've already collected. MR. GRAMA TGES: No. However, though, we need to keep in mind that the number of projects that we intend to finance in 2009 is considerably reduced from 2008. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. GRAMA TGES: So n and that's an estimate of the fact that yeah, impact fees are coming down as well. Yeah, I'll be more prepared on Tuesday. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as a curiosity. When you've come before us in the past we talked about the long-range projection and you're from eight to I I years out in your planning. Are any of those design, or any of the work that has been put into that, is that salvageable at all? Being that you're deferring those Page 67 January 16,2009 projects now because of the reduction in population. MR. GRAMA TGES: Oh, absolutely. If you look at the AUIR and if you compare the 2006 AUIR especially versus the 2007 and 2008, you will see that those projects are moving very fast into the future. We are not reducing any projects in the sense that when the population comes in we're going to have to have the capacity. But the dates where those projects are supposed to come on-line have been deferred. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've moved them out. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. Give you one example, the Northeast Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was originally scheduled to start operating on 2012 is now deferred to 2018. That's the biggest project we have on the books right now. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I guess what I was poking around at was that there's a certain amount of preparation, planning, design and then ultimately construction. MR. GRAMATGI::S: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Construction and performance are way out at the end of this thing. Are all of the -- everything -- I didn't realize that you were going forward with it. I guess I'm trying to understand whether or not -- you should be ahead of the game theoretically if things pick up. You'll pick up your impact fees, you should be ahead of the game then, right, in terms of dollars available? MR. GRAMA TGES: Let me make sure that I can answer this -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a shell game here. MR. GRAMA TGES: -- answer this correctly. As far as the impact fees is concerned, we collect impact fees in arrears. I f plant A is up to capacity and there is one other development coming on, we have to open plant B in order to be able to feed that development. The planning period for a new plant is eight years. So Page 68 January 16,2009 eight years before we can estimate that that plant will be necessary we'll begin to spend money. We will not be collecting impact fees against that plant until the time that the plant starts. And even when it does, in order to make it -- in order to take advantage of economies of scale, the plant has to be of a certain size. So the plant will be under-utilized the day it opens. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. GRAMA TGES: So the impact fees are going to corne after the plant is in operation and more than eight years after we start spending money. So we need to borrow money in order to be able to do the work. COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: I lost sight of that, actually. And I think it's backwards, but okay, I understand that's the way the construct is, and that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, before you leave, what is Fund 411 ? MR. GRAMATGES: 411 is impact fees for water projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you borrow against that fund? I mean, is that how much you've got coming in, or is that a debt service or is there a debt service related to the -- MR. G RAMA TG ES: There is debt service related to that money, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes, if you can -- if you look at this list here, you have impact fees coming in, but you have debt service as well. You have 4,380,000 in water capital -- let me now try to explain something that belongs to our financial group. But the truth of the matter is that we do borrow money to be able to pay for these expansions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GRAMA TGES: I just explained to Commissioner Murray, those impact fees come in in arrears of us spending the money. Page 69 January 16, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. GRAMA TGES: So we need to borrow in order to be able to do that. And we need to pay for the debt service for that money as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, in 2009 you have to pay 4.6 million in debt service to Fund 411. And I was just curious what that was. And now you've described it and I appreciate that. Thank you, it helps. MR. GRAMA TGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions on Page 21? Twenty-one is the landfill. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 22? Twenty-two is wastewater. And Phil, the same question. You don't have to get up and answer it, but it's the same question on the impact fee revenue versus the amount shown on this document. So we'll just defer that until Tuesday for explanation. And Jamie's here and he's anxious to move Corby out of the way and talk to us about the PSA and all of the things he does. MR. FRENCH: Which hat am I wearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not sure. I think we probably can n MR. FRENCH: Is this about Comcast? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We wouldn't burden you with that. You don't even want to know about Comcast. MR. FRENCH: Just checking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, are we going to get a better channel and the fuzz going to go away? MR. FRENCI I: You know, if you're interested, I'll tell you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. You better identify yourself for the record, Jamie. MR. FRENCI-I: Okay. My name is Jamie French. I serve as the Page 70 January 16, 2009 -- in this particular capacity I serve as the executive director for the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. But I also am Joe's operations manager and I am the local franchise administrator as well for all the private utilities. Well, with Comcast, there are certain requirements that they have. And if anyone chooses to give them a call, if you're receiving a weak signal on Channel 97, they'll come to your home or your business and they'll check the signal coming into the home. And if in fact there's signal leak in the house, in your home, they've told us that they will actually go and make the repair. I f it's in the business, there may be a cost for them to go inside of a business, because primarily what happens with signal leak is that a lot of folks, they buy those cheap splitters and they allow for interruption into your cable system. The problem with Channel 97 that we found is that there is a lot -- there's a lot of interference. There's a number of FM stations that operate on the same band width. And so what's happening is that if you've got an unshielded cable or a poor splitter, you're getting that interference in there. But they have come. I know they fixed Building F here. And they've been out to CDS. And they've actually showed me, they've measured the signal coming in and it's clear as a bell. But we've got issues throughout some of the older parts of our building down at Horseshoe where I believe we may have some signal leak. But if you've got a problem in your home, make sure you call Com cast, they'll come out, and it's no charge. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Wolfley wants to address something, then I will address your question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I almost take it as a slap to the county to jam us up in a channel that nobody looks at. I mean, we were on a great channel for a while, what was it,ll or something when I was with another company. Clear as a bell. Down where, you Page 71 January 16,2009 know, the other governmental channels were. And, you know, the real estate channel? Come on. I mean, put us in a place -- MR. FRENCH: I don't argue with you, sir, but I would tell you that there was legislation that I came before the Board of County Commissioners with the County Attorney's Office and we fought that legislation in 2006, and we were defeated by more than two-thirds of the House and the Senate to allow the cable industry to become more deregulated than it ever was. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So now we're penalized. MR. FRENCH: Well, no, they think n I would tell you, the industry has the option to put us in the digital tier. And the local Comcast affiliate has made the u and what happens in the digital tier is that anyone that wanted to see the government channel, they would have to actually subscribe to digital service and rent that equipment in order to be able to see the channel. Now at least we're still in the analogue lineup, so most televisions can receive Channel 97. But they were by the boolc I will tell you that their attorneys are pretty sharp and they know what the FCC requirements are, as well as the State of Florida as what the new ord -- or as the new statute reads. But -- MR. KLATZKOW: They wrote that statute. They're not that sharp. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was going to be my next question. MR. FRENCH: Well, I'm going to tell you, when you can afford to throw about $18 million at lobbyists and that industry, compared to what we did, I don't make nearly a fraction of that. Just in case you wanted to know. I lost. So it's a -- I got beat up by the digital version ofMa Bell. So -- but to answer your question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate your comments, that's Page 72 January 16, 2009 helpful. MR. FRENCH: Well, and I know it has nothing to do with this. But I'm happy to answer. And you caught me a little off, I just happened to catch this on TV at the office. It was a little fuzzy, but I did hear it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had a fuzzy t.v. MR. FRENCH: But good audio. But what are your questions now about the -- my role and the role of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a clause in our GMP that requires us to I think -- and Randy, you can probably help me with how -- I don't have it in front of me because I didn't prepare to argue that point. But we have to report the levels of service and different elements involving all the utilities in Collier County. And when the transmittal came up for this 10-year plan, we noticed that the other utilities in Collier County, Immokalee Water and Sewer, Orangetree, Ave Maria and I think Florida Cities, and there may have been one other one, didn't provide the reporting data. They didn't supply the supporting data. We asked Phil what the problem was, and he said they had no authority to get it from them. We suggested that based on the GMP they were to provide it. So he went out and after some stressful points in making them do it, he got all of them to at least this time provide it, although it was clear they're not going to be so cooperative in the future. We're wondering two questions: Number one, how can they get away with that, since they're under the umbrella of the overall county ordinance, which I have, for the water and sewer utilities that went up to the legislature. And I think it was House Bill 0849. We actually seem to have some control over the whole county, even though they're a part of it. And while we may not be able to go Page 73 January 16,2009 back retroactively, we'd be also wanting to know if there's language that can be put in place in the GMP, especially with the new GMP language coming up on the eastern lands that would require them to be more cooperative. MR. FRENCH: Okay. And I'm going to try to answer your question and hopefully within three parts. First I'll address Immokalee Water and Sewer District. Immokalee Water and Sewer District was a district established by special act by state legislation. They are in and of itself their own government. I do not regulate them. They don't -- they have their own board. Their board is either elected or appointed, but primarily they are their own separate entity. On the other hand, so was FGUA. Florida Governmental Utility Authority is in fact its own governmental utility authority adopted by special act of the Florida Legislation. However, FGUA, when they bought out Florida Cities Water, they did enter into an interlocal agreement with Collier County that said they would provide us with those numbers on an annual basis. And if I'm not mistaken, FGUA did submit -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, they did. MR. FRENCH: -- and if we did not have that interlocal agreement, we would have had no -- we wouldn't have been on high ground on that one. We could not have forced them to do it. Now, with the private utilities, you have five private utilities in Collier County. They're either privately held or they're investor owned. They provide a private service. And what happens (sic) is that in 1996 the Board of County Commissioners elected to take away the powers of the Florida Public Service Commission when it came to regulating private water and wastewater facilities, simply because there was no local oversight. You had utilities that are now FGUA that were at one time Florida Cities Water that were receiving two and 300 percent markups in their rates. And if you as a citizen or as a customer Page 74 January 16, 2009 of that utility wanted to say something about it, you were stuck driving to Tallahassee to appear before the Florida Public Service Commission whenever it appeared on the docket to voice your concerns. But Florida Public Service Commission are appointed seats by the Governor, and so you really have no local representation. So at the time the Board of County Commissioners elected to exercise their right under home rule authority to take that power back. And that's where they established the Water and Wastewater Authority. The Board of County Commissioners is the ex officio. They are the Water and Wastewater Authority. But in this particular case they've appointed a five-member board, quasi judicial, that are three technical experts and two lay members. Primarily what we look at is we look at customer service where we regulate their service base. And we also regulate rates to make sure there's legal suf1iciency or rational nexus behind the number. In this particular case there was no enabling ordinance that we're aware of or no state statute that requires them to provide this data to you. They were glad n they would gladly provide it to you, but because these are private companies that are for profit, most of their employees, and like an engineer for instance that would do this type of study, that's a contract employee. It is not built into the rate calculations, it's not built into the rate base, and they have a right to pass this on to the rate payer. Staff, me, I would not allow that to be a recoverable expense unless there was legal sufficiency behind that cost. So I could bring this to the Water and Wastewater Authority, but unless there is an enabling ordinance or unless there is a state statute, or if it's tied to their consumptive use permit, I can't let them recover the cost. And my recommendation to the -- and it's not up to me, it's up to Page 75 January 16, 2009 the Water and Wastewater Authority. But staffs recommendation in that case would be not to grant it. So Ave Maria said, hey, we'll do it. And I think I got a copy of the letter that you had referred to earlier from Rose, Sundstrom and Bentley. But they wanted to get paid, because they wanted to make sure that that's a cost that they can recover. Now, the thing about these utilities are, if you know anything about the utility business, especially in the private utility business, you never make money. And so anything you do, you try to recover. They don't have the ability to charge impact fees. So anything they have to do as far as capital improvement projects or any type of expansion generally goes through a refundable advance agreement with the developer who fronts that money, or they get the -- they recover through rate base. And that's the rate cases, and that's what we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Randy, when we went back with the 1 O-year plan to DCA and they came back with their comments, weren't they telling us we had to get some of this information? And I'm not into that -- I have the plan -- I don't want to ask my questions too early, so I haven't opened it all up, but I thought there was some reference in that regarding that issue. MR. COHEN: The ORC Report that came from DCA that included those comments pertaining to the private utilities was based on comments that DCA received from the Water Management District. The Water Management District wanted that information in our I O-year water facilities supply work plan. And obviously the corresponding numbers in the CIE. We had cooperation from Immokalee and cooperation from FGUA. We anticipated having cooperation from Orangetree and Ave Maria in our initial talks. Those broke down at the last minute, which was very unfortunate. Contacted the Water Management District to let them know what was transpiring, as well as not having -- enabling legislation or Page 76 January 16,2009 an ordinance that would require them to provide us with that information. The ironic part about it is, this is the first instance where they've had a governmental entity, a county where they had private utilities, that did not provide the information to them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is that happening here and nowhere else in the state? MR. FRENCII: Well, and 1 would tell you, I can't speak for anywhere else, but we have the same powers, and Collier County has the Florida Public Service Commission. The Florida Public Service Commission would not require them to do this. And that's why their law office, which is based out of Tallahassee n and I would tell you that their representation, it's the same law firm that represents Orangetree and Ave Maria, they're probably one of the single best in utility law. They specialize. Bill Sundstrom is who heads up that firm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've worked with him. MR. FRENCH: And he has appeared before the Florida Public Service Commission probably hundreds of times. So he recognizes what our authority is. And it wasn't -- I don't know how things work between staff~ but as a regulator I would tell you that I did question them. They came back and they said, gee, Mr. Regulator, are you going to allow us to recover these costs? And I said sure, show me where it's legal sufficiency -- or there's legal sufficiency behind that cost. They pointed out there is none. It's not tied to their consumptive use permit, it's not tied to their franchise, and it's not a requirement of the Florida Public Service Commission. So I don't know that from the regulatory standpoint in tying this requirement to their franchise that we're even going to be able to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but the second part of my question was we are making some major sweeping changes in areas that would most likely have a request for a new private utility, such as Ave Maria. Page 77 January 16,2009 MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN S'rRAIN: And that one's over and done with. Whatever rules they applied, we have to live with the rules and each side should live with them accordingly. But we also have a request from another town out there, Big Cypress. Could we build into the GMP a requirement that those areas provide these annual reports as -- or whatever time frame they're required, and that gives you the legal sufficiency to tell them that they can go ahead and utilize them? MR. FRENCH: Ifit was tied to their development, absolutely. Because we do recognize local ordinances. That's not a problem. But I couldn't -- I guess my point is I see no way that I could tie it to the franchise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. FRENCH: But if there was another enabling ordinance or enabling law that mandated that they provide that, that's a recoverable expense that they could factor into their rate base. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all the information that you have provided and others over the course of time builds up to the time when we have the ability to enact new laws through GMP policy. And that's coming up here very shortly. So the timing is good to know this information. Because if we want to, we can suggest that as a recommendation to the BCC. MR. FRENCH: Right. Well, I do know that the utilities did provide us with what their average daily consumption is based off of local operator. And I can tell you, if there's any questions while I'm here about any ofthese utilities, I'll be happy to answer them for you. I know that there were some questions about Orangetree earlier about service quality, as well as with Ave Maria. And I can n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the question was the different levels of service. Right now Collier County is dropping its level of service from 185 to 170. Page 78 January 16, 2009 MR. FRENCH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the concern was that why are we at 170 when four different utilities aren't even close to that? I think the highest of any of the four is somewhere around 109 and I think -- or 110, that's Ave Maria. So if Ave Maria, a brand new and probably a very well run facility, can do it at 110, Orangetree is at 105 I think and lmmokalee 100, and then Florida Gulf at 109, yet we're still at 170. I'm not saying we're wrong or they're right, I'm trying to figure out why there's such a big difference. MR. FRENCH: Well, what the difference could be is when you're -- you don't have -- with Orangetree, at least, and I can't really speak for Ave Maria, because there's only about 200 connections in A ve Maria. But with Orangetree -- and I know Phil mentioned it earlier -- there's zero reclaim. They've primarily got zero drops going on the ground. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is that? MR. FRENCH: What I mean by that is that every home out there has been issued a consumptive use permit for an irrigation well, or through the Swiftmud agreement they're pulling off of the irrigation. Their irrigation is coming off the lakes. So they have zero treated water that is really going through. In fact, they're using their own reclaimed water to water their golf course at Valencia Countryclub, because it just so happens to be owned by the same guy who owns the utility who is the president of the master association, Mr. Boldt. So, so far as I know, they are piping water to that area, because some of this was -- you know, originally when this was designed, the reclaimed wasn't a requirement back in 1985, 1986 when they created this community. But now as they expand their consumptive use permit, and this utility is using -- boy, I want to say they're about 10 million gallons a month on potable water. Page 79 January 16,2009 With the expansion of their consumptive use permit, I know they are putting some reclaimed water on the ground in that area. But they do a good job as far as with any of their 1&1 issues, much less any of their leaks that they find throughout the community. I mean, private utilities just don't make a lot of money. I mean, they're only guaranteed the right to make up to 10 percent return. Anything over 10 percent they have to refund back to their customer base. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Today is just the n we're getting into the CIE, which is a limited exposure to some of these issues. But probably not today but most definitely Tuesday we're going to be working our way through the I O-year water supply plan. I don't know how many of the others, but I know that I have still a lot of questions about the information provided on the private utilities. So I don't know if that helps for your timing on Tuesday or not. I don't know which n MR. FRENCI-I: I'll read through it and I'll try to get as up to speed as I can. And I'm happy to come along and answer any questions you might have with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be here at 2:00 on Tuesday. MR. COHEN: And I'll work with Mr. French. Because some of that information that is in there came from the Water Management District itself, and I'll clarify that with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jamie. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: What I think I discern from that is that South Florida Water Management District wanted the answers to questions based on consumptive permits and they went to the DCA to require the county to get that information; is that the -- MR. COHEN: The Water Management District is, by law, by Page 80 January 16,2009 statute, a commenting agency. And in their comments with both respect to the CIE and also to the 10-year water facilities supply work plan, in particular the water supply work plan, they raised the issue of the private utilities operation and also their future demand with respect to consumptive use. Those were the primary interests. And whether or not they could document the operating function today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. What I want to drive at is that the way I suggested that they went around going to DCA to come to us. Does not the South Florida Water Management District have its on regulatory function? Doesn't it have its own means of obtaining that information, since they issue the permit? MR. COHEN: Exactly. And that level of service -- we had initial talks with the private utilities, and they verified that level of service based on operation. What they needed to verify was -- through an engineer obviously, was I think the reliable capacity and how things worked. And that's where we ran into a problem in getting that information. When they go for the expansion of their consumptive use permits, which a lot of them will have to do, they're going to have to demonstrate, just like the county would have to demonstrate, the need for additional water, what type of additional water, and what their existing operational function is in terms of level of service. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So theoretically these semi-autonomolls facilities or operations can defer until their consumptive use permit becomes necessary, and then they have to provide the information to the party that wants it in the first place, right? MR. COHEN: I think the key here is, and I think Mr. French hit the nail on the head when he talked about maybe an enabling ordinance that gave additional authority to the county, possibly. Or when we go through the review process for future large projects with private utilities versus out in the RLSA, that we address it in the DRI Page 81 January 16, 2009 development order, the SRA that's associated with the town, or some other document that is affiliated with that development that goes forward. And that way we can get it up front. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess from my point of view what I would think is that if they really wanted a good exercise of responsibility, they'd provide the county through the regulator with the opportunity to perform fully and get that information and provide for whatever recovery of costs are necessary. But it looks like I tell my cousin to tell my brother to tell my uncle to do something. That's what it gets to be. MR. FRENCH: And I will say -- again for the record, Jamie French. But I will say that -- and I know it wasn't sworn testimony. My group has had talks with Ave Maria. And I don't know if they've spoken with the planning staff or Randy's group, but they are in the middle of their consumptive use permit and expanding their capacity. And I believe this was a requirement of the state before they would be granted. That study is due out sometime in the future. And I know that they said that they would provide this, but in the event that we wanted anything additional, they were going to need to be able to recover those costs. So I'll also check. I'll go over the comments before I return on Tuesday. I'll have some conversation with the private utilities and see if! can confirm some of the numbers for you, and happy to answer any questions that you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The South Florida Water Management District unfunded mandate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to look at the document that we were looking at on Tuesday. It has a section in it with some letters from the attorneys. MR. FRENCH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Attorneys for the utility as well as Page 82 January 16,2009 attorney n our County Attorney on the application of how we can request these things ofthose utilities. It might give you some background. MR. FRENCH: Certainly. MR. COHEN: And Commissioners, your point is valid, because what concerns us as a staff is that if the Water Management District, you know, issues a strong objection again, that it turns into an objection that DCA raises and we're found not in compliance as a result of something that we have no control over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jamie, one quick thing. When you're looking it up, we'll talk about it next week, but is the concept of the pressures that we require in Collier in the municipal -- or in the county system versus what's provided in the municipalities? MR. FRENCH: The pressures as far as what, sir? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In terms of -- I mean, where it came up is in tire flow. We have parts of our town that are on other municipalities' districts that are far inferior and thus the ramification of that goes all the way into building materials before n MR. FRENCH: I do know that there are concerns in the FGUA system. And again, as their own government they are working on that. I do have their capital improvement plan for this year. They just went through a pretty hefty rate increase. And based on the agreement we have with them, we have no veto power or setting rates. We do have some regulatory authority over their customer service and how they bill. But there are concerns there, but as far as the other utilities, I am unaware of any fire flow issues. And the water pressures are mandated by the State of Florida through the DEP as far as potable water service. Page 83 January 16,2009 But fire flow is a requirement within their -- within the DEP's guidelines, so far as I know. And I can go back and double check that. I may stand to be corrected, but I've not heard of any concerns from either the fire districts or from the utilities, other than FGUA, that there were fire flow concerns with pressures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, in the fire task force, City of Naples and some of the areas, like for example, Bayshore, had some concerns. But the question really is of Collier County, the county-wide system has a higher standard than the municipalities serving within the county. We have no authority to make them meet that. MR. FRENCH: You would probably have that over the private utilities, because they're not a government. Y Oll wouldn't have it, as you said, over the FGUA or the -- or Immokalee because of -- the Immokalee Water and Sewer District, because they're both special districts. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But how about City of Naples, would we have -- MR. FRENCH: I have no authority whatsoever over any municipality or township. In fact -- if in fact it was the Town of Ave Maria that owned the utility, it would be an unregulated utility. It's just, simply put, they made the decision to go private, and cities -- the regulatory authority can only be handed down to a county, not a municipality or township. It either goes to the state or it stays with the county, and that's it. That's as far down as it goes. So we have no authority over the city as far as a regulatory matter or regulatory body at all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Jamie. The next page we have to get to is Page 23. Before we get into that page, I need to find out how the AUIR as approved ties into the CIE. Because Exhibit A on Page 23 is not Page 84 January 16,2009 consistent with the evaluations provided in the AUIR, and I would like to know why and how that's possible. MR. SCHMIDT: There's a few explanations that were included in your staff report appendices, changes that may have occurred between the preparation or approval of the AUIR and the preparation of this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I think, Corby, what I'm trying to find out is if the Board of County Commissioners approved an AUlR, did they approve every number in there as being what they wanted to use? And if that's the case, how do we change and modifY something that the board previously approved as a year-long document for the three-month adjustment to now be put in the CIE? MR. SCHMIDT: I think the direction that the AUIR gives us is the basis for the CIE each year. It is not a -- not staffs intention to give you a reproduction of it with the CIE. And so you see the useful parts of that AUIR, and that basis being used in the CIE here and the results of that preparation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when the AUIR says that there will be a -- I think transportation is one that was -- I don't mean to pick on Norm and everybody all the time, but it showed a five-year impact fee revenue of$170 million, and this document's showing 147. 147 is obviously more conservative. I'm not -- I don't think that's wrong to be more conservative, but I'm wondering, what does this mean in regards to the needs for the Board of County Commissioners if they thought they were approving funding with $170 million revenue stream from impact fees that are now going to be more or less used at 147? How does that play out? MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the AUIR represented a significant reduction from the prior year's AUIR, as you realize, under impact fees. And what you've got here, the AUIR is a snapshot in time to try and direct what projects we need to bring in our program relative to Page 85 January 16,2009 our concurrency management system. We identified that in the AUIR. At that time we anticipated that we would have about 35 million in impact fee collections for this year. Based on the way we're tracking, we're not going to be there. As you see in your current one, you've got 25. Now, the importance there is I was at 72 million the prior year. So we thought we were being very conservative in going down to the 35 and carrying that on out. As you see, we've been more conservative, that's why you lost over 23,24 million from even the AUIR. Having said that, we have a discussion, we had some of that today. There's a possibility impact fees might be reduced in transportation. If they are, the first inclination, at least one thing that was raised to us, is not to put the trip length in. And that 24,25 million that we're expecting this year will probably be reduced to about another six million. And if that gets carried over in time, you can see that six million in one year is 30 million over five, all things being equal, and they're not, but adjusted throughout. So essentially what I'm saying to you is we have to react to that picture and that point in time. And we're in extremely volatile times, and that's why at the beginning of the meeting I said to you, if you allow me to say definitely maybe to some of your questions, I can answer them. And this is our best estimate of where we'll be when we did the CIE for you. But based on last board meeting and depending what comes out of those discussions, we may be having to adjust it agam. What does it mean? It means obviously that our projects get delayed, some get pushed out. For instance, if I had that six million totaling a little over 30 million, then you can look at my CIE and probably the net result is some things will get shifted in years and then eventually one of my 213 -- year' 13 projects will be moved out of the five-year program. Page 86 January 16, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, my concern, and I know why you answered it, but I just wanted to make sure that there was the latitude once a document like the AUIR is reviewed and approved publicly and the values in that are approved publicly, that we can modify it for the CIE when the CIE I thought was supposed to be based on that document. MR. COHEN: Fundamentally the CIE is based on the AUIR. But it's incumbent upon us as a staff, when we see that there's like a gross deficiency in revenue projections, to provide that to the board, not to mislead them in moving forward with capital improvements in the associated planning. Likewise, there are some items that sometimes we include in the AUIR. But in terms of regulation, they're not required, okay, to be regulated by the state. And that transpires. An example would be the landscape medians with the arterial roads. Another example would be the smaller drainage projects that you see in the AUIR. But historically this county has only carried forward the major drainage projects in the CIE, which is acceptable to the Department of Community Affairs. So when we say that it's there, it is there. But at the same time there are a few changes in which you recognize the changes in impact fee revenue. And that is a major concern as we move forward. And also at the same time, we've seen a decrease in some of the demand since the AUIR as well. So we've tried to address that. And also, by showing DCA where that decrease in demand has occurred, to allow us to even possibly move some of those projects out further. And next year I'm anticipating with Norm as well that you're going to see that -- some other items pushed out because of the population figures being what they are, which usually will result in decreased demand. And if our vacancy rates stay where they're at, as well as the workers not coming into Collier County, his traffic counts Page 87 January 16, 2009 are probably going to stay down, which will give us some documentation as to why we can move some things out further, which benefits this county when we go through the budget process. MR. FEDER: I would say it just slightly different, but mainly yes. While we have some traffic counts down, the impacts aren't being felt right now and so we don't run into the problems. But we don't do it on a population basis, we do it on a long-range planning of which we have a shortfall even in the long-range planning, as does every other county or area in the state. And so we're trying to proceed on the projects. And a lot of this is revenue generated as to what we can deliver. But it is true that we have some lower demands right now, and so we're able to work with that in the five-year program. MR. COHEN: And one of the keys that we have, when Norm says revenue generated, you know, he looks at the perspective of providing things from a long-range transportation planning process, and I have to look at it from the CIE standpoint, which is making sure that it's financially feasible. So when the Board of County Commissioners gets the CIE and certain projects are included in there, that they don't have to go to an alternative revenue source, which would be ad valorem taxes. So we have to be a steward with respect to also protecting with regard to the upcoming budget and also the budget over the five years, especially during these volatile times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a follow-up question, but Ms. Caron has one as well. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, go ahead and follow up and then I'll ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on what you just said then, if you go to that Exhibit A and go down to solid waste projects, it shows landfill tipping fees at 10,923,000. Yet the AUIR showed landfill tipping fee revenues at 4.01. Page 88 January 16,2009 Why would we have such a discrepancy like that if we're trying to be more conservative? MR. GRAMA TGES: Commissioner, Phil Gramatges. The numbers that you have here, and looking at Exhibit A, Page 23 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. GRAMA TGES: -- do match the numbers that we have in the AUIR. I really don't understand where you see the discrepancies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, here, I'll show you. Here's the AUIR, if you want to see it. Do you have it, Corby? I f you turn to Page 70 in the land -- solid waste landfill capacity for the AUIR, it shows landfill tipping fees at 4.01. Is that not right then? MR. SCHMIDT: It's not that it's not right, it's that there was a new arrangement with Waste Management since the preparation of the AUIR, and the schedule for the construction of cells and so forth, and I think there's an explanation in one of the staff report appendixes. If not, I apologize. But that was one of the clearer ones where there had been a recent change in the contract and the schedule for the construction of the cell's landfill has changed so the costs have changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute, now. Ifwe had 4.01 for tipping fees and the tipping fees are now going to be 10.93, who's paying for that difference? And do we have an authorized increase in tipping fees as a result of this new arrangement that the board's approved? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think they raised the rates. MR. WIDES: Good afternoon. For the record, Tom Wides, the Operations Director for Public Utilities. I was monitoring on TV and I heard a number of questions, not just this one on the tipping fees. I'd like to try to address all those for you, rather than waiting till Page 89 January 16,2009 Tuesday and then have to refresh it in everyone's mind, if we could. Would that be acceptable? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can address -- but I mean, to be honest with you, Tom, the 1 O-year water supply plan, I have questions, numerous questions on many pages that I can't get -- we won't get into today. But you can address any issues you heard today, certainly. MR. WIDES: Well, let me go with the one that's on your minds right now. Okay, first off the AUIR is done in a point in time, the CIE's are done in a later point in time. We have the opportunity to see the status of projects. The reclamation of cells one and two at the landfill, that project has moved faster than we expected, okay. We show you the revenues in these plans that we'll need for those projects, for those capital projects. In addition, we bring in revenues for the operating fund, which is really not part of this effort. So yes, I don't have the exact four versus 10, but you also have an operating contract that those same funds have to go to fund. So again, if I may, we use what we need for the capital side out of the landfill tipping fees to support the capital projects. But then you have a whole operating side of the business, including the contract with Waste Management, just to administer the work at the landfill. Those tipping fees also pay for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't -- and Tom, I'll give you guys plenty of time. On Tuesday we're going to meet again. But let me -- on Page 70 of the AUIR, so you have a reference to look at between now and Tuesday, it talks about the landfill cell construction, cells A-3 and A-4, phases one and two, total capital expenditures. And then it says landfill tipping fees as part of the landfill operating agreement, and it provides a number. If that number isn't the total landfill tipping fees, and if that's the explanation, then that's fine. Page 90 January 16, 2009 But the way it was presented by the AUIR from my reading of it -- and I didn't attend the meeting, so this could have been asked and I just missed it because I wasn't there -- I assume that was all the tipping fees. And ifthere's more than that, then so be it. MR. WIDES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that's why the question was n and if you could look at that by Tuesday, if someone can respond, that would work great. MR. WIDES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WIDES: Absolutely. Could I just take one moment n CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WIDES: -- to cover your water and wastewater topic, or would you rather we wait? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. I'm still going to have questions, because I haven't -- MR. WIDES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't asked them all because they're in that other book we haven't even got to yet. MR. WIDES: Okay, fine. Then we'll wait till Tuesday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a question. I'm not sure of who. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, it was of Norm, and he walked out, so -- MR. WIDES: We did that on purpose. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. He left completely? Did Norm leave 1'01' the day? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, he'll probably be back. MR. WIDES: 1 think he just stepped out for a moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, when he comes back we'll ask it. And Tom, thank you for trying to provide the answers, and we'll Page 91 January 16,2009 hit it again on Tuesday on that one. MR. WIDES: Very good. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be more today, but I just don't know until we finish this book. MR. WIl)ES: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any questions on Page 23? (No response?) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Cherie', I bet you could use about 10 minutes. Would that work for you? Okay, well, let's come back here at 4: 1 O. It will be actually 13 minutes. We'll give you a little more time. We'll come back at 4: I 0; we'll take a break for now. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome back from our break. As we said earlier in the meeting, we're going to end today's -- we're going continue the meeting at 5:00 to Tuesday at 2:00. So we've got about a little less than an hour left to see if we can get through this first book, at least, and go from therc. Before we go into it, a clarification. I was talking during break to Randy, and there was a clarification that might be needed to explain that the numbers shown in the CIE are locking us in. But there's an opportunity to modify those if revenues decrease as a result of less impact fees. And Randy, could you explain that process? MR. COllEN: Yeah, I wanted to go on the record again pertaining to the statute itself with rcspect to financial feasibility and how DCA would interpret that. Once you put a project in the five-year window of your CIE, it's considered to be financially feasible. And you've identified a revenue source that's going to pay for that. And if that revenue source was to evaporate or not come through, you have alternative revenue sources Page 92 January 16,2009 that can be used to replace that identifiable revenue source. You can, however, take projects out of your CIE based on other data and analysis. And if you looked at the existing CIE and the one that you have today, you will see that we have pushed a tremendous amount of projects out into different years out of the five-year CIE based on either declining population, reduced demand, which we've been able to gather data on, a lot of the things that Corby discussed earlier in his introduction. So those are items that we would provide to DCA to show why we were able to push projects out. A lot of times decreased revenue sources is associated with decreases in demand or decreases in growth as well. I know next year we're going to show a decrease in population and how those population projections actually are projected in the future is going to result in pushing out projects in a lot of different areas as well, too. So that is something that you have to consider every year when we go through the CIE process. And we need to provide you with that data and those demand factors that show you why things are being pushed out. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Randy, are there any projects that have now been pushed out beyond the 1 O-year envelope? Or have you decided to just push the current five-year out into the next -- MR. COllEN: What I can tell you is this, is some of the projects that were in the 1 O-year window obviously are going to get pushed out, okay? And you're going to see more in the AUIR because we go further out in the AUIR. I think we go out 20, 20 years, I believe, or 25. You're going to see a lot of those projects that had been scheduled sooner get pushed out way later. For example, with solid waste. If we have a decrease in Page 93 January 16, 2009 population and demand just like this past year, your capacity at the landfill is going to be pushed out more years as well. So that's kind of what we're going to be looking at. And possibly in the future if we have a big spike, you know, then things may collapse a little bit more. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just concerned. The reason I asked that question, I was concerned with the DCA, whether or not it would try to push issues. And I guess you have control of that still, right? MR. COHEN: One of the things that we did, and I had Corby sit in with me, is talk to them with respect to the type of data and analysis we were providing in the demand category to show why we were pushing things on out, and to make sure that what we were going to provide to them was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Real. MR. COHEN: -- what they were looking for. And I believe we have an understanding of what we're doing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we left ofT on Page 23. Anybody have any questions on Page 23 remaining? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to page -- well, 24 doesn't exist in my book. MR. SCHMIDT: Just a matter of page numbering. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Page 25 is a single paragraph, so let's look at 26 and 27. Anybody have any questions through those pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. Page 26, the footnotes. It refers to Appendix I, or L. I can't tell which it's supposed to be. It's either a capital I or a little L. Where is it? Page 94 January 16,2009 MR. SCHMIDT: It is an I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but where is it? MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, where is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: It was an attachment to your last version of the CIE. We prepared it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean last version? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, you saw it in December of'07 and it was approved and adopted by the board in January of'08. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have a new version? I mean, if we're approving it as part of this document and it's referred to, don't you think we should have got a copy of it? MR. SCHMIDT: The appendix is a collection of the documents referred to in appendix H. So if we have the funding sources listed, those grants, those loans, those DCA's, Appendix I is a collection of the pertinent pages of all those funding sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a website where all this is listed? I mean, how do we n a lot of the references all say -- I mean, the whole page refers to Appendix I. So where can we get that? Where can we see lhat electronically? Do you have it available electronically? MR. SCHMIDT: I do. I do not believe it's at our website, however. Those are scanned images from a number of sources. Each of those documents are housed or sourced in individual departments where those projects are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMIV1lSSIONER CARON: But aren't all of these things just acronyms anyway? They're not n I mean, this isn't anything -- MR. SCHMIDT: For these footnotes, yes. They're explaining their use in the table above, or before. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, before. But what's here, if we're approving it and we're not approving Page 95 January 16,2009 anything -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, it says itemized revenue source explanation. That's what the Appendix I is. And so would that have answered my questions about the sources of revenue for the things I've been asking Phil about, for example? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. MR. SCHMIDT: It would. Not all concerns, of course. It's just copies of the documents. He'd be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's go back and look at Page 22 and let me show you an example. Page 22, if you go right back to the one I've been focusing on, which is impact fee revenue. It's in the second table. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: F-09 shows Zero. F-l 0 shows nine million, F-ll shows 9,400,000, et cetera. Those are very unrealistic compared to reality of today. In fact, with a near jive million deficit funding, they have a Fund 411 -- actually, 413 is a -- requires a 5.6 million debt funding every year, starting in '09, or a little bit -- it changes each year by a small amount, but it's 5.6 million in '09. Plus the impact fee revenues for that particular category in 2008 were only 5.3 million, which doesn't even meet the debt needs. When you go into' 1 0, 'I I and' 12, you have the same kind of ratio. So I was hoping on Tuesday we'd get answers as to why those numbers for impact fee revenues are being shown so high in this CIE, when I'm not sure that's really attainable, from what the numbers I've got that were provided to me by Amy Patterson's department. So -- MR. SCHMIDT: With regard to your-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, that was what I was hoping would have told me in Appendix I how they came to these numbers. MR. SCHMIDT: Appendix I won't do that for those specific Page 96 January 16,2009 numbers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Appendix I is -- is again a collection of the individual funding sources for like those series 2006 bonds where there are -- the individual documents or certain fund loans, that type of thing, not the impact fees where calculations were made by the county, as they do in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't want to see your department have to generate reams of needless paper. If you have these in some electronic format that you can easily e-mail to us just to look at electronically, could we at least understand what you're saying by looking at that Appendix I so we got a handle on it? Or not? Is that too difficult to do? MR. SCHMIDT: It is not. They're scanned and they're on file. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would you -- MR. SCHMIDT: Now, you'd be looking at last year's, because we haven't begun to accumulate the individual documents for the next transmittal to the DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the ones that would be going with this transmittal are the ones you'd send to us. MR. SCHMIDT: I can attempt to do so. I haven't acquired them all yet from the individual departments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they may not be documents that are that important. I just don't know, not having seen it. I can't remember -- MR. SCHMIDT: I'll share with you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from a year ago. MR. SCHMIDT: I'll share with you what we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, okay. But if the source document doesn't give us the result of the calculation you show us, where did you get the result of the calculation you show us? You Page 97 January 16,2009 expressed a concern. MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. The source document will show you that. It's just that we haven't got those documents in total yet for that appendix. We've used them as our resources, and from where we derive these figures we just don't have them scanned into the system to create that appendix. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. Because you said they were last year's data. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But last year's data is perfectly okay to use as your basis for this presentation. MR. SCHMIDT: For many of these projects and for many of these revenue sources, that's true. There's going to be new sources of revenue with some of these new CRA's, developer contribution agreements and so forth, grant arrangements or whatever it may be. Those will be new. But many of those from the last time around are still ongoing and usable information. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I guess the next logical question is, can you -- and you have to do the work. Can you and all of us rely upon the projected dollars on our continued basis? The revenue corning in the way that this projects it, can you rely upon that? I mean, it's a projection, is it not? Don't we -- aren't we projecting downward instead of upward? MR. SCHMIDT: For some of these they are projections. Some are fixed amounts based on existing agreements. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what you're saying to me, that if you lost revenue source A, out here in left field is revenue source L, that you're going to avail yourself in order to keep a constant on the projected item. Is that what I understand you to say? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I mean, just answer me yes or Page 98 January 16,2009 no, can you -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- realistically do that? MR. SCHMIDT: It's not what we've done, but the people working on the project have, yes. MR. COHEN: Let me ask a-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you understand the root of my question? MR. COHEN: Let me ask a question of the commission and I think maybe this is probably what you're getting at. The question is, based on the downward trend in revenue -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. COHEN: -- Appendix I as of the last transmittal had certain figures in it, and more than likely there's been a reduction in revenue streams associated with that downturn. And as a commission, you would like to see the modifications to Appendix I in conjunction with the CIE. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think the DCA would ask for that if we didn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Randy, because it's referenced and we're here to approve this, I think it is needed. MR. COHEN: And that's what I wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even number five, the gas tax revenues projection, that would be an important thing for us just to know for our background reference for not only this CIE, but any other elements corning through the county as we review them. I mean, those are important things to know. How much of a funding source problem are we going to have? These documents would reveal that. So I'm not sure it's bad information for us not to have, so -- MR. COHEN: The point is well taken. And you want consistency with respect to the revenue stream and the references within the other aspects of the CIE. Page 99 January 16,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't this be on line with the CIE that's attached as the compo plan section of your web site right now? When you pull up the comprehensive plan, you've got all the elements listed there. If we were to click on the CIE element, would we be able to see the Appendix I as an attachment for last year or not? Or is it -- MR. SCHMIDT: I believe it is. If it is not, it is again a reproducible electronic version that I can provide for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other problem that Mr. Vigliotti I think touched on a little bit is that we've got a holiday on Monday and we're meeting Tuesday. I'm not sure how we can get this in time to review it by Tuesday. So -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's on line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you guys working? MR. SCHMIDT: I don't see the impediment. There's adequate time in the first part of Tuesday to prepare that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, we'll look forward to it then. Let's move on. Page 26, 27, 28 and 29. Anybody have any other questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Twenty-eight I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, what's the intent of the development order? Y ou're adding the public school facilities. So are you trying to say there that building permits for public school facilities? I mean, is that what you're excluding? Or are you excluding the impact fees for public school facilities at the permit -- building permit stage? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, I'm not sure where you're referring. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm sorry, development order review up at the top. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 28, number one. MR. SCHMIDT: I see. Page 100 January 16,2009 This is not a change being proposed now, but the explanation simply that the public schools are exempt from these requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Okay, so I think we've got -- because you could read that that -- or maybe I can read that, that there could be the impression that at the building permit stage, all buildings don't have to worry about compliance with the public school facilities. Do public schools have to worry about the final site development plans when they're building public schools? Because if that's the case, maybe you could put it up with applications, say as part of review of all applications, paren., except for public school facilities. MR. SCHMIDT: Well, I believe that the requirements are found at a different point in time than for building permits or development orders or plats. Schools have a different trigger besides these. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. COHEN: Right now there's a school board review process that's in effect for different stages of the review of how schools transpire. It's also set to expire, and it's under renegotiation at this point in time. So as far as how schools are reviewed in the process, it goes by that particular instrument. At the same time, if you look at the public schools facility element, we have a little time to renegotiate that particular agreement, because the next new school I believe is not planned until 2014, or 2016, one of the two. So it's something that we're currently renegotiating right now with the Collier County School Board. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm just -- to make this clear then, maybe the paren. should come after that, rather than before that. Because here's what I don't want the impression to be, is that somebody applying for a building permit, let's say for an office building or a residence doesn't need to deal with public school Page 10 1 January 16,2009 facilities at that level. Just a matter of I guess legally or in English where to put it. And it's usually odd to have a paren. ahead of something. Nominally they follow what it is you're addressing. MR. SCHMIDT: If I can still clearly indicate that I mean only the building permits, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So I think that it would be better and building permits and then say except for public school facilities. Because when you lead off with the paren., it's like you're saying except for public school facilities, building permits. MR. COHEN: Corby spent a lot oftime in Wisconsin in his planning career, and they do things different up there, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's Pennsylvania Dutch I think the way he did it. MR. SCHMIDT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess Heidi, I mean, this is a legal thing. Wouldn't you put the -- do you see where I am as the paren. is following the word and? So you're actually addressing and, not the building permit. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So you want to put it after the word building permits? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think it would read clearer. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that may not be true. Because then that would say that public school facilities are exempt from site plans and final plats. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm saying you would -- applications for final site development, final plans and building permits except for public school. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you've just said -- now you've exempted them from everything -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, if it's -- Page 102 January 16,2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as opposed to just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, one at a time now, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. She can't type as fast as COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a grammatical thing that maybe legal should work out. I mean, you're right, there is a list. And the illusion might be that it applies to the whole list. Anyway. COMMISSIONER CARON: I agree. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We can work with Corby to make sure the language is clear. MR. SCHMIDT: I believe that's the reason it was structured the way it is, but we'll look again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, my question relates to concurrency, then. I know these are -- or at least this one particular piece is to make an exception, one exception, the way I read it, building permits. But in concurrency they're required, aren't they, to be a participant in development with us, with the county? I'm trying to understand why -- I mean, is it only building permits that we're talking about? MR. SCHMIDT: It is only building permits that we're talking about. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So we're saying that everything else they have to be concurrent. They have to stay with us. And building permits because they're another governmental entity? MR. COHEN: Can we-- MR. SCHMIDT: The answer is yes. And for other reasons, yes. And there are other government entities with other kinds of exemptions, but this is the one we're referring to here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Page 103 January 16,2009 MR. COHEN: But with respect to overall concurrency, if you don't mind, let us take a look at Chapter 163 to see if there's an exemption in there. I think there's some -- MR. KLATZKOW: They're all concurrency requirement. They have to put schools in. When there are enough students out there, they have to put a school in. It doesn't matter about the roads -- MR. COHEN: I think -- well, that's what I'm getting at. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, it's -- they're required to put the schools in to meet their concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we 're done with 28, let's move to 29. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move to Appendix H. And Appendix H is the meeting the requirement to extend the CIE out for another five years. Is that generally the idea? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. If you do not have a long-term concurrency system, you should at least show them a long-term schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it's obvious that this one was faked, because all the numbers every year thereafter are all exactly the same. MR. SCHMIDT: In fact, DCA does not require us to show a revenue stream in the out years, but we try to do that in order -- for ourselves to give us an idea. But we do show you a predictable project list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, predictable. Well, I mean, I think what you're saying to DCA is well, you want it, here it is, it's phony as all get-out but this is what we're going to give you, so -- And if you turn to the -- not the first CIE-l, but the CIE-2 of Appendix H, how can you have no impact fee revenues again? So Page 104 January 16,2009 you're not -- so parks is going to be in debt forever. Boy, that water park cost us a lot of money, didn't it? Because they got zero impact fee revenues and zero community -- we're not going to buy anything for 20 years in this county -- for 10 years, I mean. Is that what this is saying? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. Another worksheet that this derives from shows us that the first time a paid for project appears is after these 10 years. MR. COHEN: One of the things that transpires in the AUIR is that the county is getting additional community parkland through interlocal agreements with the school system. So there's other things that are in there that make up for some of the deficit. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, I understand what you did. I'm not sure it's the right thing to do, but you did it that way, or somebody did. Then the fifth page, we get into the favorite subject of landfill tipping fees. So we do away with tipping fees in the future. That's good to see. Is that what I would derive from that? MR. SCHMIDT: The same thing could be derived as we have from parks. There's activity going on, but there are no tipping fees going toward a capital project during that period of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. COHEN: If they were going to do cell construction during that time, they would allocate tipping fees for that construction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GRAMATGES: In may, Mr. Chairman. This is Phil Gramatges again. All it means is that the tipping fees that we collect are going towards the operation of the landfill, not towards any expansion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Got you. Page 105 January 16,2009 MR. GRAMA TGES: And of course that can change. That's way, way out there in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And anybody got anything else for the balance of the book? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I do not think it's a good idea to start the next book with less than 30 minutes left. If someone feels the same way and they want to make a motion to continue to Tuesday at 2:00 in this room, that would be a good thing. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Murray. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. 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: The meeting is continued. ***** Page 106 January 16,2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:33 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 107