Loading...
CCPC Minutes 01/20/2009 S January 20, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida January 20, 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 2:00 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 (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer (Absent) 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 Thomas Eastman, Real Prop. Director, CC School Dist. (absent) Page 1 January 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the continuation of the Planning Commission meeting to review the CIE and the potable water sub-element and the public facilities element of the Growth Management Plan. The meeting started on January 16th, 2009; was continued to this room to 2:00 today. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the ro II call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Eastman is absent. Commissioner Kolflat is absent. Commissioner Schiffer is absent. Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a couple housekeeping matters. The first one I wanted to mention to you is we all received books in the mail last week for the rural land stewardship area that's going to be discussed next Wednesday morning starting at 8:30 at the CDES room at Page 2 January 20, 2009 developmental services. Now, it's very important that as many of us can be there. Hopefully we'll have a quorum. Because we had polled everybody prior to that day. And that date was picked because we could have a quorum. So it's important to be there. It will be, though, over at developmental services on Horseshoe Drive starting at 8:30. We're scheduled for Wednesday and Friday. And based on the reading of this document, I would think most assuredly it will take all of at least those two days. However, in reading the document -- and I wanted to suggest this to everybody who has not read it yet or maybe has read it but where you can maybe focus your efforts, it's broken down in a series of phases and sections. We've already had some of those presented to us in a previous meeting. The most important thing for this board is as the land planning agency of Collier County, it's our duty to review all Growth Management Plan amendments. This is a presentation of a committee report, so it's really not a review like we would do on transmittal or adoption. It's just simply their report. We're going to get familiar with it, we're going to ask our questions, and then it's going to move on to the Board of County Commissioners. But our portion of the report would really and should be focused on the Growth Management Plan amendment section. There are two sections: One is what they call substantial changes and the other are just general changes, including the substantial. I think to save anybody that is interested in reading time, you may want to focus your attention on Phase II, section two of the book you received. It is the complete GMP amendment section. It contains the insubstantial and the substantial, it contains the ones that weren't changed, it contains everything. And as the LP A, our goal would be to walk through the language Page 3 January 20, 2009 in that section and ask questions and make changes or recommendations or suggestions based on what we read. The rest of the book and the other book that was with it is more of backup to how they got to the changes. But I would suggest to everybody on this board that our methodology to get through this most effectively would be to focus on the changes of the GMP language in that Phase II, section two of the book. And I think if we do that, we're going to get to everywhere we need to be and we'll actually accomplish what we're supposed to be doing in regards to just the GMP focus. So that's a suggestion. I do have a hand-out, although it's jammed up at the copy machine next door. So during break or whenever, I'll pass it out to you. DCA has -- is processing a new section of9J-5. 9J-5.026. And it's to deal with just RLSA's. It is not finalized yet. And Collier County is not really under that, because it came out -- Collier County was initiated before the state came up with this plan. But I just thought for background it would be good information to know that when RLSA's are formed in the State of Florida, they'll be formed more consistent with this document that when I get all the copies I'll pass them out to you and I'll leave one to the record. And you may want to read it for background reference, if you run out of reading. So that's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I'm worried about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I did. So I started reading that and Florida statutes and all kinds of stuff. So it all was -- it all comes together, though, next week. And Mr. Wolfley, did you want to say something? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Chairman, I'm sure you read my mind or I read yours. You took most of the steam out it. But I just wanted to let everyone know that this is the last place Page 4 January 20,2009 we got to go in Collier County and where we're moving, and we have to pay attention to this. The details here are critical. And as Commissioner Strain said, we had -- I'm on that committee, by the way, and have been, and we went over reams and reams and gigabytes of computer work to get to where it is. I agreed with some and some I didn't. Regardless, this is important. This is very, very critical how we approach that. And I'm going to have a lot more to say when it comes -- when we start on Wednesday. But this is our last bash in the Collier County, let's try to protect it. And that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, let me -- where we left off last week was a review of the CIE. It was CPSP-2008-6. I believe we completed most of that review, subject to what may come up as we review the next item, which is CPSP-2007-6, and that's the potable water sub-element and the public facilities element. In reviewing the first one, we noticed that there was an appendix missing, which we now have gotten in front of us. During our break at 3:30 today, I'd like to ask the members of the Planning Commission to review the -- it looks like maybe 35 to 50 pages of information. If there's anything in here that requires more detailed review than just an acknowledgment of what's here to have a complete package, then we'll have to postpone some of our voting on these until we can come back and have time to review these. But if the Commission is comfortable with looking at the package and realize if it is just supporting documentation and it's nothing that needs any additional time, we can finish hopefully today with our votes on the matter. So with that, Corby, I think the next thing we probably are going to move right into is the water sub-element. Is that in agreement with your ideas of what we'll be doing today? MR. SCHMIDT: It is, Mr. Chairman. MS. VALERA: Good afternoon. Carolina Valera, Principal Page 5 January 20, 2009 Planner, Comprehensive Planning. We heard hearings on this proposed GMP amendment back in September of 2007 before the Environmental Advisory Council, this board, the Board of County Commissioners. We then sent a draft of this amendment to the Department of Community Affairs, DCA, for their review and comments. We received back a letter that -- it's in your binder with our comments in regard to that draft. Most of the comments has to do with the methodol -- population methodologies that we used. As you know, we used at the time the latest information that we had. But that population methodology we used was not what was adopted in the CIE. And so we received comments back in regard to that. Our potable water has to be consistent with our adopted CIE. Since last year we had been in talks with staff from the Department of Community Affairs. And finally, and as you know, after the board adopted our new population methodology, they suggested to us, send this plan when you send the revised capital improvement element and the new methodology. So that's what we're doing, and so here we are today. Weare in the second phase of this amendment, the adoption portion of this amendment. And hopefully now we'll have solved the consistency issues in regards to population methodology consistency in regards to the projects that are mentioned in the 10-year water supply plan and that are -- that will be recorded and in our adopted CIE. Some of the other comments from the Department of Community Affairs, as you know, have to do with private utilities. In your binder you've seen communications from county staff with the private utilities. We tried as much as we could to obtain information from them. We -- for the most part we did. And to the point as you saw in couple of the letters that are in your binders, those Page 6 January 20, 2009 conversations were halted by two of the utilities, the Orangetree utilities and the Ava Maria utilities. So we tried as much as we could. We even met with staff from the South Florida Water Management District. We told them about those letters from the attorneys from these utilities, and their comment at that meeting were if you demonstrate to us that you have tried, that's what we're looking for. That's what was said verbally in the meeting. So with that, I think we're ready to respond to your questions. As you know, Phil Gramatges is here from public utilities. I have to thank him and his staff. I mean, it's been I believe a long journey to get to here, so I appreciate their work and all their efforts in this matter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If it's okay with the Planning Commission, I'd like to suggest we move through this book tab by tab where the relevant tabs start. Then we'll just do as we always have done, couple pages at a time. The first three tabs, the ORC Report, the ORC Report response letter are back enforce without a lot of things that you may want to question, but the ORC report document is where we start getting into some meaty issues. So let's start by asking in the first two tabs the -- well, the first item is not tabbed, that's a staff report. Then we have the ORC Report, and then the ORC Report response letter. Those are fairly generic. The first real document is the ORC Report response document. So up until the ORC Report response document, does anybody have any questions? (No response.) MS. VALERA: And if I may, Mr. Chairman, and just as a matter of housecleaning, there's a binder for public view outside, if anybody needs to look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the overwhelming quantity of public here today, is -- I don't know if one binder will do. Page 7 January 20, 2009 MS. VALERA: I just needed to say it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As someone said to me, this is one of the most important things we do, and this is the one that nobody shows up for. It's like this year after year. Well, the first page of the ORC Report response document, and we'll take the first page, then we'll take every two pages after that. Anybody have any questions on Page I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, let's move to Page 2 and 3. Are there any questions on Pages 2 and 3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, in the fourth bolded paragraph on Page 2, I read the various documents that talk about the consistency. It says provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, regarding the consideration of regional water supply plans and the adoption of comprehensive plan amendments do not require the consistency but coordination with South Florida Water Management District. And of course that's where a lot of the writing is about. South Florida disagrees with our position, and we keep insisting we don't have to be consistent with them, we have to coordinate with them. Why wouldn't we want to be consistent with the agency that's giving us the permits? I mean, because where I'm going is in the same relationship we seem to be having with some of these smaller treatment plants that are out there that won't respond to you, if they don't want to work with us, then why are we giving them permits? Why don't we just stop issuing building permits until they are? And I'm just wondering why -- what happens with South Florida, we get to a point where we basically say no to them, where does it go? And maybe -- Phil's standing behind you, maybe he wants to answer that. MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's important to understand the statutory difference between consistency and coordination, and it Page 8 January 20, 2009 would be appropriate for Mr. Gramatges to answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. GRAMATGES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities division. Simply means that we take orders from them or we coordinate with them. That's really what it comes down to. And in fact, I would say that we consulted with an outside counselor on this, and this is the kind of response that they provided in West Palm Beach, specifically. Because if we are consistent with what South Florida Water Management District tells us to do, then we are going to be following precisely what they tell us to do. In other words, they are going -- by inference going to be running this utility from Tallahassee. And that's probably not something we all want. Definitely the public utilities division does not want that. Now, we need to consider what they tell us. We need to try to make sure that we are as consistent as we can be, but we cannot commit to doing precisely what they tell us to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, are you telling me that by being consistent with them we would end up -- they would set the level of service, they would tell us how many pumps to put on, what the efficiency rating is of our system, what kind of systems to use? MR. GRAMA TGES: That's essentially the implication, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So all of all utility facilities would be in their control just because they were trying to be consistent with their water supply plant? MR. GRAMATGES: Essentially they would dictate to us what it is that they would want us to do. And we would have to follow along and put the plants where they wanted to be, we would have to use whatever facilities they wanted to use. I mean, it would take us down a path that will eventually lead to that conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The plan that they are talking about, is Page 9 January 20, 2009 there a -- can we see that plan? Do you have a copy that you could e-mail to us? I mean, if this plan is that bad that it gets in and talks about how many pumps we have to have, what our level of service is, I want to see the plan. I'm curious -- MR. GRAMATGES: No, I'm sorry, sir, I'm not implying that they're doing that in this particular plant. But what I'm saying is that indeed if they were to go to that detail, being consistent would mean that we would have to do just that. Obviously they are not going to try to go that far, but if they are going to give us a plant that we disagree with, we have to have the option or we have to have the flexibility to say no, we disagree with you. Let me give you one good example, sir, if I may. They want us to rescind a request that we have for consumptive use permit for potable water, for freshwater. They don't want us to put through a request for that consumptive use permit. We have disagreed with them. We have scientific data that demonstrate that using that freshwater will not do any harm to the freshwater aquifer. But they are refusing to accept that, they are refusing to accept our science, and they're pushing it aside and asking us to go away. We're not about to go away. Consistency would mean that we would take that and we would run with it, and we're not about to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's a good example, Phil, but -- so what happens? They're telling you run along, little boy, and you're saying no, I'm not going anywhere because I know what's best for my county. Who solves that impasse? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, ultimately in any impasse, the ultimate arbiter would be an administrative law judge. I'm not implying -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Because South Florida is the one who has to grant the permit. I mean -- Page 10 January 20, 2009 MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it doesn't go to an administrative law judge. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. But they cannot act unilaterally. In other words, they have regulations that they have to abide by and they have statutes that they have to abide by. They cannot write law as they go. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. Thank you. MR. COHEN: Let me -- if I can add something-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. COHEN: -- to the difference between consistency and coordination as to why Phil's department and public utilities feels this is very important. The lower west coast Florida water supply plan specifically -- and it gets into absolutes with respect to alternative water supplies and doesn't allow them the flexibility to pursue and document why they may want to use freshwater, if it's available. And the science proves that. If they had to be consistent with it, they would be not left with any choice and they would have to basically do with something that's a lot more expensive alternative, as well as something that may not be necessary in this county. And they need that flexibility. So that's why the consistency issue comes on up and the statute specifically says coordinate, it doesn't say consistency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, there's going to be more on that issue as we go through this, so maybe we can get more clarification as we go along. Thank you for that. Any questions on Pages 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under Page 5, the fourth paragraph says, for privately held or investor owned utilities in Collier County covered by this plan, Collier County has limited regulatory authority Page 11 January 20, 2009 by which to require private held or investor owned utilities to provide information. Now, first of all, does the PSC have any authority to demand information that we could use that advisory board to obtain? MR. GRAMATGES: We don't have the authority, but obviously others do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The reason I'm asking is because we do -- I thought we did have authority. And let me read you the House bill that established the Collier County Sewer Water District. There's quite a few points in there about what we can and can't do. Well, let me take that back. I'll have to find it during break or as we're talking. Jamie, maybe you could answer the question about the PSC. If we're having trouble getting information, can't the PSC demand information? Because we do have to issue building permits that are supposed to be based on knowledge about levels of service being sustained in certain areas, and if we don't know that they are, why .can't we get the cooperation from these utilities to -- in the future? I understand the issue about the cost of the report, but to me that should be a built-in cost. And I'll try to find where that was referenced in one of the documents I have. MR. FRENCH: The levels of service are established by the utilities themselves. And that's tied back to their exclusive franchise that they received from the board. Public Service Commission has no authority over Collier County when it comes to private water and wastewater matters whatsoever. We -- under 367, and I may stand corrected, but I believe it's Chapter 367 that establishes the rules of the PSC. A county can basically take that authority away from the state. In the event that we give that authority back to the state, we give it back to them for no less than a 10-year period of time. And then Page 12 January 20, 2009 again it goes back to my discussion last week where you have no local representation other than you've got a governor appointed board that makes decisions out of Tallahassee for your local county on your private utilities. But no, sir, unless it is a -- the PSC would have no authority over that as far as a local code goes as far as supplying their water supply numbers. As far as your question regarding why do we allow them to continue -- why do we continue to issue building permits, I'm only assuming, and maybe I'm wrong, but I'm only assuming that you're saying building permits within their franchised area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. FRENCH: Because it is up to the utility to make the determination whether or not there's adequate capacity. And we grant that to them within their franchise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we accept a letter from them saying they have the capacity, although we don't accept any -- when we can't get any evidence or any calculations from them, we can't demand the backup to show that their letter is valid. MR. FRENCH: Couldn't demand it, because there's no enabling law that requires them to provide it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe after next week and after the process of the next RLSA, there will be a policy put in the GMP that would require any new facilities in the RLSA area to require those reports. I don't know why we couldn't do that. But it's a good lesson to learn here today, thank you. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I had a question on the paragraph that precedes that. The paragraph talks about us using the mid-Hawthorne Aquifer, and it says here that South Florida Water Management is giving us some grief about that based on a lack of Page 13 January 20,2009 historical data. Is it the county's place to give South Florida Water Management that data? MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So if this is something we want to use, why wouldn't we have been providing that to them? MR. GRAMATGES: We have been providing that to them. We have at least two water consumption -- water use permits that have been submitted to South Florida Water Management District about two years ago. And we have been going back and forth with them in these submittals for that time. We have provided science that indicates that these aquifers will not be damaged by us drawing from them. And they -- they haven't really outright refused to accept that information, they simply keep asking questions about questions and about questions. And it is expensive for us to do that, it's time-consuming and, quite frankly, we are going to need the water some time and we need to get that permit. COMMISSIONER CARON: So we're sort of at a position where it's who can wear who down before 2011, right? I mean, that's what's happening here, they're trying to throw questions back to you to just throw monkey wrenches around and you keep throwing data back to them that costs the county, you know, a lot of money to figure out and conduct. MR. GRAMATGES: I certainly will not try to pass judgment on their motivation or their methods, but the truth -- the effect of those questions is that they don't seem to stop. We continue to answer them and more questions come. The type of studies that we have to conduct in order to be able to prove our point gets continuously more and more expensive and lengthy. And fortunately for us we request these permits with enough time to anticipate these delays. But we've had meetings with them. I personally have visited Page 14 January 20,2009 their headquarters in West Palm Beach to try to push these permits along. And we're paying consultants both from a technical point of view and from a legal point of view, plus our time as well. This is, once again, not only frustrating, it's expensive. COMMISSIONER CARON: Has this happened across the state? I mean, I understand South Florida Water Management isn't the controlling body, but-- MR. GRAMATGES: I would have to say that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Do the other districts do this? Do the other districts cause this much aggravation for their -- MR. GRAMATGES: I don't know if they have more or less than we do, but the truth is that they do have some of the same concerns and they do have some of the same problems trying to obtain permits. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, the act that codified the Collier County Water/Sewer District, are you familiar with the boundaries in which that act applied to? I mean -- MR. GRAMATGES: Somewhat, yes. I deal with that every day, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Ave Maria and places -- and Orangetree within the boundaries of that legislation; do you know? MR. GRAMATGES: Ave Maria is not within the boundaries of the water/sewer district, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the legislation, even though it went farther than the current district, it didn't include the whole county, it just included -- MR. GRAMATGES: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I needed to know, thank you. Okay, move on to Page 6 and 7. Are there any questions? (No response.) Page 15 January 20,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 8 and 9? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 10 and II? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, at the bottom of Page 10 there's a statement that talks about Plantation Island, Seaboard Village and Copeland that are served by Everglades City. Everglades City has a package plant, does it not, or a processing -- a centralized sewage and water plant, or they -- how do they process their water? MR. GRAMATGES: I am not sure, sir. I would have to speculate. They most likely would have a package plant, I would say, given their size. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because in the last line it says, these areas are analogous to the Golden Gate Estates portion of Collier County which is served entirely by self supply for which the county is not responsible for providing service. The only thing I wanted -- I don't disagree with that Golden Gate Estates is self supply and the county's not responsible, but it is not similar to the services that you'd get from a centralized plant that I know Everglades City has. So I just thought that was an odd comparison to make. I don't know who wrote it up, but it didn't seem to be comparable. MR. GRAMATGES: But it's analogous in the sense, sir, that they are -- they have their own utilities. So from that point of view, they have self supply. Obviously Golden Gate's self-supplied in the sense that they have their own individual wells per household. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 12 and 13, anybody have any question? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 14 and 15? Page 16 January 20, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last page is 16. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, in the middle of the paragraph on Page 16, the following sentence, should the water and sewer district read a request by South Florida to pursue alternative water supplies while traditional water supplies can still be utilized but no adverse impacts to the environment. Then it goes on, we would have -- further have to increase impact fees charged for new connections. We do have an adverse impact currently on the environment from our water withdrawals, don't we? Otherwise we wouldn't be having water restrictions. Our water table's getting lower and lower and the more water we use, the lower it gets. And I would think that's an adverse condition to the environment. MR. GRAMATGES: There is no science to demonstrate that we have harmed any of these aquifers with our draws. None whatsoever. Be it the freshwater aquifer or the brackish water aquifer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you have different phases of water restrictions, the phases get more increased in intensity, dependent upon the recovery time at which it would take the aquifer to recover. When we went into a Phase II, and I think last year we even got to a Phase III, it was because the aquifers couldn't recover within one season. That's the signal between the different phases. If the aquifers were acknowledged to go into that phase as not being recoverable, then how is it we're not having impact on them? MR. GRAMATGES: These regulations, these restrictions are imposed by the South Florida Water Management District, and they apply to an area that is much larger than just Collier County. So what they're trying to do is trying to avoid damage to the aquifer and try to provide actually not state-wide but southern part of the state-wide Page 17 January 20, 2009 restriction to keep this from happening. I assure you that we have no indication that we have caused any damage whatsoever to any of those aquifers, be it during the wet season, the dry season, or during the last drought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under goal 20, it says Collier County employs interlocal agreements as appropriate. Do we have interlocal agreements with Everglades City and Copeland to service the areas that are between -- there's areas serviced out there that I don't know if they're in our district or not. But are they -- how is (sic) those interlocals between them -- MR. GRAMATGES: We have interlocal agreements with the City of Naples, with Marco Island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those are the only areas that touch the Collier County Water/Sewer District boundaries? MR. GRAMATGES: As far as I know, they're the only ones. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for clarification on it. Going by the Chairman's point, in his mind he sees over time as population increases, water availability, natural water availability may decrease. At what point -- you have good science, you indicate, that you use, you test, you verify that there's no harm. Let's get on the record, how do we do that? How do we make sure that we have no degradation? I understand the anomaly of the season where we had -- and we have I think now recovered, that's my understanding, I don't know if it's true. But you can answer that, please, what is it that we use to verify that we're not in trouble? MR. GRAMATGES: We simply drill monitoring wells, and we drill testing wells. We draw water from those wells. We monitor the levels on the monitoring wells in order to determine the effect that that Page 18 January 20, 2009 pumping rate would have in those monitoring wells. We put the monitoring wells around our own well-field just to be able to determine what effect our well-fields are having on the aquifer. And whenever we want to put new wells, which is indeed what South Florida Water Management District is requiring us to do, we put test wells. When we pump those wells, we check the monitoring well and see what effect those -- that pumping has on the aquifer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so you can read that part of it. And then what about on the environment itself, on draw-down, the result on trees and other landscape that may be at their natural growth. Is there any check on that, or does our -- do our environmental people do that? MR. GRAMATGES: No, certainly. I mean, we have environmental consultants that do advise us on the effect that we may have on the environment. I need to point out, however, that none of our aquifers, none of the aquifers that we're utilizing for production are part of the water table. And the water table is the one that has the effect on the vegetation -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. GRAMA TGES: -- on the wells out in -- the private wells out in Golden Gate Estates and all that. We don't touch that. Weare below that aquifer. The freshwater aquifer that I'm referring to is the so-called Tamiami Aquifer, and that is separated by hydrogeology from the water table. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so basically as far as the open environment is concerned, that's dependent entirely upon rainfall and that barrier, and that will sustain the growth above. There is no pulling down of that water; is that what you're asserting? MR. GRAMATGES: There is no indication that if there is pulling down of that water, it is significant enough for us to be able to Page 19 January 20, 2009 detect it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm going to try to say this without being too strong about it. But when we say no adverse impacts on the -- I mean, it's in here and you just said it -- on the aquifers, I mean, that's impossible. I mean, there has to be an effect. Every breath we take has an effect on something. And it's almost offensive to see that there's no adverse effect. Maybe there's little adverse impact, but there's certainly not no adverse impacts. MR. GRAMATGES: It depends on your definition of adverse. Adverse effect means effect that would be damaging to the environment and damaging to the aquifer. So there's no significant effect. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, that would be more palatable. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, there is a -- in my view, adverse and significant are interchangeable for these purposes. Because if it's not significant enough to exceed the current established limits, then it's not adverse. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, let me ask this then: If the -- where does the Tamiami Aquifer end up? Where does it go beyond -- MR. GRAMATGES: Out to the sea. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So our taking of minerals and elements, water out of the aquifer doesn't have any adverse effect at all on its ultimate destination? MR. GRAMATGES: No, it does not. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It sends chills down my spine to hear that. MR. GRAMATGES: You can visualize this as a river that is Page 20 January 20, 2009 flowing to the sea. And in our case that river is very close to the sea, as you well know. So we are taking that water just before it goes on to the saltwater. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So if we triple the population in the area and we take three times as much water, that will not have any adverse effect? MR. GRAMATGES: I haven't said that, no. I'm saying that our current withdrawals and the withdrawals that we have planned that are covered by the request that we have for water use permit have not caused an adverse effect, and we have science that shows that the additional withdrawals will not cause adverse effect. That's not to say that if we double the rate that there will not be any adverse effect. We don't have any science, because we really have not analyzed that scenario. So I cannot tell you whether it will or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: South Florida in the straits there CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dave, with Phil's background in utilities, I think the questions that you're asking would more warrant an environmentalist who has hydrology study to -- I'm not sure we'll get anymore out of -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, right. Well, I would hope that they would be employing those types of professionals. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. And I am not proposing that my answer will be agreed to by the Audubon Society or by any other such environmental group. I don't intend to do that. All I'm telling you is that we have science that demonstrates that we have not caused any adverse effect on the aquifer. And we do not COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: As far as you know. MR. GRAMATGES: We will not cause any adverse effect with Page 21 January 20, 2009 the withdrawals that we have requested. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item in our book, besides the advertisement section, is Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 is the beginning of a series of letters from attorneys, and these are attorneys specializing I believe in water utility permitting and items like that. They're short exhibits, so let's just take them here. The first page is after Exhibit 1. Anybody have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, that page indicates that Collier County's trying to reach its ultimate goal of achieving a 50/50 split between traditional water and alternative water supplies. I don't see Collier County getting there with that split. Does the fact that -- where did he get this information from that we're going to. have a 50/50 split between the two water supplies? MR. GRAMATGES: That doesn't say that we are going to obtain it, that says that that is our goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any idea when the goal can be reached? MR. GRAMATGES: Whenever we get this approval on the water use permit, indeed. But as the population growth continues beyond the planning horizon of our master plan, we may need to have more both brackish water and more freshwater withdraws in order to maintain that 50/50 split. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the reason the 50/50 is important is the blending of the fresh with the brackish produces a less expensive way to process it; is that a fair statement? MR. GRAMATGES: That's a fair statement, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because in 2018, according to your water supply report, we're going to have a ratio of 84.35 mgd of alternative to 25.25 from traditional, which is beyond the 50/50 split. Page 22 January 20, 2009 And I'm wondering why we're doing that. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, that is if they do not -- if they refuse to approve our water use permit for the freshwater that we have requested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And how much difference -- what will that mean for the rate users? Is that a huge -- what kind of cost; do we have any idea? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, the only way to treat brackish water is with reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis is considerably more expensive than lime softening or membrane softening. Plus on top of that reverse osmosis removes all minerals from the water. We would have to add that back somehow in order to make the water more palatable. It just makes the water too soft. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is the least efficient system. MR. GRAMATGES: Reverse osmosis? Yes, indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you move on, in the future you're talking about having high pressure RO. Is that more efficient than the standard that we're using now? MR. GRAMATGES: Quite the contrary. Less efficient. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it's even less efficient. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any on Pages 2 and 3 of the attorney's letter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 4 and 5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then Pages 6 and 7. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the last three pages are 8, 9 and 10. And 9 and 10 are particularly important because they talk and recommend strategies for dealing with an issue that's going to be Page 23 January 20, 2009 coming up with the Picayune Strand and South Florida wanting to turn it into a proposed reservation. And because of that our chances of being reduced by our fresh water permitting allocation is increased. Is that a fair assumption or fair statement? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. If the Picayune Strand reservation continues the way it is, that would preclude us from getting any more fresh water at any time in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the strategies laid out in the attorney's letter I imagine would be important to consider, because they're supposed to be strategies that the attorneys think might help offset that loss of freshwater. Are we moving forward with those? Because there's a series of them in here, and there's one providing public information, which I'm sure we can always say we do that. Supporting a 50/50 goal. But I think that's only doable if you get your current permit, if that's applied for. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The third one is the county needs to press the district for a decision on its pending water use permit applications. Where are we with those current permit applications; do we know? MR. GRAMATGES: We have had several meetings with the South Florida Water Management District at their headquarters in West Palm Beach. We have requested an audience with their governing board. Weare continuing very aggressively in trying to pursue the approval of this water use permit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the attorney seemed to believe that the impending water reservation would be about a year from the time he wrote the letter, and that would be on June 10th of '08 -- or July 10th of '08. Do you think your permitting will be completed by Page 24 January 20,2009 then? MR. GRAMATGES: I can't really tell. It depends on how successful we are in convincing South Florida Water Management District that we have the right science or, for that matter, even the right lawyers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last item is most critical of the entire bunch, and it's about the agricultural interest in landowners who have permitted withdrawals currently. Apparently those are going to be grandfathered in to some extent. Your attorney says that the water transfer process is the only realistic mechanism available to the county for increasing future freshwater supplies. What have we done to meet that goal? MR. GRAMATGES: What he is suggesting is that whenever agricultural land is taken out of cultivation, that we take advantage of that additional water that would be available. And he used that to compensate or to demonstrate to the South Florida Water Management District that we can compensate for that withdrawal. Agricultural withdrawals of course are much higher than the kind of withdrawals that we need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And the ratio of irrigation for sod and other things, and lawns and other items like that is reduced. So when you actually have a consumptive use permit from a farm, your conversion gives you a lot less that you show you need when you go to developed areas. The reason this could be important is we're in the process of rezoning the entire eastern area of the county where most of the agricultural if not all of it is. All those massive water use permits and consumptive use permits are in place out there for tens of thousands of acres of currently existing agricultural. It is being looked at to be -- a lot of it to be transferred into development. In that transfer process there will be a Page 25 January 20, 2009 lot of excess consumptive use gallons left on the table. The county is at a unique position right now with the RLSA program coming up for review and going into a GMP amendment next year -- or this year, actually. Have we -- has your department looked at putting language in the RLSA area to address this issue and try to get as -- because I've read the entire language and I'm not finding anything that would even indicate this is being looked at. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we are working very hard with our outside counselors in order to try to do what we can in this area. We need to remember, though, that as far as the South Florida Water Management District is concerned, they don't think -- they believe that the people in Florida indeed own that water. So it's not a very easy process to take water that was for agricultural use and transfer it into consumptive use. Not at all. They're two very different things as far as the South Florida Water Management District is concerned. Now, I'm not familiar with the details of the language that you're referring to, but I can assure you that that's something that has been discussed extensively and that we are pursuing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, since I know your department is very keen on obtaining well fields everywhere they possible can, and I understand why, as long as the mechanisms are properly put in place, I think that's great. And that's what should happen. Will you between now -- and maybe Randy can answer this -- between now and the transmittal of the RLSA be looking at that policy structure for that area to be adding language that can either provide the well fields that you need and utilizing those well fields for the excess capacity between the conversion of agriculture and development? And Randy, you haven't done your data and analysis yet, and the program -- and the book that we've got is severely lacking in analysis, so I am assuming some of this may come out between now and the Page 26 January 20, 2009 time you're ready for transmittal? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, what will transpire is after your review and the EAC's review of the second phase of the RLSA report, the board will either direct or not direct, based on requests from their RSLA committee, for staff to undertake a special cycle of GMP amendments related to the RLSA. At that time it's my understanding that the GMP amendments that are in the RLSA Phase II report would then move forward through the process and they would need additional data and supporting -- data and analysis supports what's being proposed. I would assume that there's probably going to be some additional data and analysis be provided from the outside. Where it's lacking, we will address that as well with requests for additional information to see whether or not it can be generated in-house. The other thing we will be doing is routing the RLSA GMP amendments to every division of the department, including obviously public utilities, where they will weigh in on the impacts of the transformation of the proposals of specific agricultural lands and sending areas where the use of water changes obviously from agriculture to possibly to consumptive use permit in the future and what those impacts may be and how that would benefit them in terms of a less impact on the Tamiami Aquifer. And that's what we would expect them to comment on and utilize also in their permitting process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure during transmittal these kind of questions will come up again. So if the departments are looking at them, I hope that we're locking in with those kind of issues that we need to address. So that's good. That's the end of that first letter. There's a letter from the county attorney's office that's on Exhibit 2. This particular letter on Exhibit 2 on the last page has a conclusion that I'm not sure if it means we can demand things or it just says we have that right but we can't enforce it. Page 27 January 20, 2009 Are you familiar with the in conclusion comment? MR. GRAMATGES: I have certainly seen the letter. And the author of the letter is sitting in this room now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the boss of the author of the letter. I think Margie Student wrote it, and she's not here. MR. GRAMATGES: Okay, that's right. She sent that to Heidi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, would it be better if your department needed to take a look at this and see if there's any clarification needed, since we now have a differencing of opinion on some of these issues? MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to look into the issue. One of the -- one of my concerns is how do you compel it, when you come right down to it. I mean, we can pass whatever rules we want. The question then becomes how do we go about compelling it and then whether or not it's even worth the bother to go through that process to compel it. But I understand the concerns that the commission's raised and we'll take a new look at this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, part of my concern is if when we send this report back to DCA, while we could show them that we tried to get this information, they may not be satisfied that we didn't get it and may say well, you've got to get it. And if they do, then what does that do for us? And that's kind of why I keep pursuing and hammering on it. MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no, I understand that. And I'm not all that concerned, because my response to DCA would be well, go to the legislature and pass a statute to compel them to do this, I mean, if you have a problem with it. You know, why are you throwing it on our shoulders. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the assumption would be that there isn't anything in the statutes that currently would -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think there's anything in the statutes Page 28 January 20, 2009 that would compel them to do that, no. I think it's a legislative oversight, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on that memorandum? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they don't, we'll move on to Exhibit 3, which is a lot of correspondence back and forth between the various authorities in Collier County, trying to establish the levels of service and the information needed for the report. Mr. Cohen? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to add that Mr. Y onkosky is here at this time, and if you wanted to go back to the CIE and address those bonding questions at this time while you're going into another section, it might be appropriate to do that, if you'd like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fine. Good idea. Is that okay with everybody? Thank you, Phil. We're going to give you a break. Good morning, John -- or afternoon. MR. YONKOSKY: Good afternoon, sir, how are you all today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. How have you been? MR. YONKOSKY: Great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've been one of the people that have been here a long time. MR. YONKOSKY: As have you, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see many from the old days. We had a lot of questions last time, and I'm trying to remember exactly what originated the question. But it started to do with assessed values and values on -- I think it was per acre values on things like Parks and Rec. and established values on facilities. Parks and Rec. as example has a price on a per acre acquisition of $230,000 per acre. The question came about is we have bonds at Parks and Rec. that are fixed on a value that are used to support a facility. Page 29 January 20, 2009 And let's take the North Naples Regional Park. Let's say the bonds were 20 million. I'm not even sure what they were. But that bond had to have a -- we're trying to understand what kind of collateral and security was attached to the bond. Because part of the question that originated this whole line of thought was why are we stuck on this consistent high number for acreage when that's not consistent with -- may not be consistent with today's assessed or appraised values. And we're trying to figure out that reasoning. So part of it may be because our bonding has an established collateral need and the number's high for that reason. And that's kind of where we led to you, so -- MR. YONKOSKY: For the record, John Yonkosky, budget director. The North Naples Regional Park was acquired as part -- or was financed as part of a sales tax bond issue. It is one element of several capital facilities that were purchased with that bond -- those bond proceeds. I do not think that there's a direct relationship between the actual bonding of the sales tax and the per acre value. The -- we have several large bond issues that are sales tax oriented. The biggest bond issues that we have are sales tax and gas tax. The sales tax issues were not for a specific purpose, other than refunding and taking out some smaller loans to take advantage of a better interest rate. So that capital facility was one of several capital facilities that were funded with that bond issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I know that municipalities receive a certain bond rating, AA, AAA, whatever they call it. Are any of the ratings that we would receive in order to get a preferred interest rate on bonds, say, or preferred status, are any of those related to the valuation of our facilities that are publicly -- public facilities in Collier County? Page 30 January 20, 2009 MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir, they are not. We, with all of our bond issues, or the majority of our bond issues, purchased bond insurance. So we have a AAA rating on all of the bond issues and all of the bonds, because that makes the bond more -- I guess it's more moveable in the secondary bond market. Because we have a series of people that have committed through the insurance purchase, surety purchase, that have committed to make the debt service payments, in addition to Collier County. So if Collier County didn't make a debt service payment, someone else would make that payment. And that's the reason that a lot of entities have bought insurance. We have what is called an underlying rating in Collier County, and it depends on which of the three major rating agencies review it and what they're reviewing it for. But we have underlying ratings of AA, AA minus, AA plus, and that's very good for our market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then basically, in simpler terms, we don't have a mortgage on our public facilities, more or less. MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir. And that's a legal question that Mr. Klatzkow can answer. But my understanding is the Florida constitution does not provide or allow you to mortgage a building. Because then somebody would foreclose on it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, I didn't mean mortgage in the true sense of the word. I mean that they weren't used as collateral as support of-- MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- some other financial document. MR. YONKOSKY: -- they're not, but that's a -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can't mortgage the courthouse. You just can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's the only question I think originated from the meeting that we wanted to ask you about. Does anybody else have any follow-up on it? Page 31 January 20, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, John. MR. YONKOSKY: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good to see you again. MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fine with that. But what we have shown now is that there is no correlation to that number that is used as the placement holder. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Which makes the number less needful. Except for some other reason we haven't discovered yet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're working at it. You're trying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick away at it piece by piece. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's why we did go this year to using an acreage as opposed to this dollar figure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought we had -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had both. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We had both. COMMISSIONER CARON: I know both are here, but as was in the discussion during the AUIR, the focus was that this $230 (sic) is really a meaningless figure to us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're correct. You're correct, that did happen. That's because -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely, because -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- the questions we asked -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- made that evident that they said no, that's not meaningful. So I don't know why it's there, quite frankly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll find out next year. Page 32 January 20, 2009 Because if it shows up again, there are going to be reviewed questions about it. Okay, the next document is our Exhibit 4, which is a copy of the public facilities element from the Growth Management Plan. Any questions on Page 2 of that -- 1 or 2 of that plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Randy or Phil, Policy 1.3, it talks about potential water sources to meet the county's 2025 water demands include raw water from the Hawthorne zone one aquifer and the lower Hawthorne Aquifer identified in the 2005 water master plan. The county shall use these water sources as well as alternative sources, as permitted by the state, to meet the county's needs. Now, it's saying as well as alternative sources. And I would read that to mean that we're not considering the lower Hawthorne or the Hawthorne zone one aquifer as alternative sources. But yet your report seemed to indicate we consider them alternative sources for this 50/50 blend we're trying to reach. MR. GRAMATGES: I believe that there is a confusion of terms here, if I may. I think that in the context of what you're reading right now, alternative sources mean sources other than Hawthorne zone one and lower Hawthorne. As far as the South Florida Water Management District, those two aquifers, if you draw from those they're considered to be alternative water sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 3 and 4, any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 1.7, the county shall reference the water supply guidelines of the most current version of South Florida lower west coast. Why do we reference them? What's the purpose of that -- why do we even bother referencing them if we don't really want to follow Page 33 January 20, 2009 them? MR. GRAMATGES: I would have to assume that it is in order to demonstrate that we are indeed considering the input that we'd receive from the South Florida Water Management District. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the fact that we just referenced them means we're considering them. And the fact that we're considering them meets the intent of the statute. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. MR. COHEN: The choice, Commissioner Strain, would be we either reference it or accept it. And if we accept it, then we run into that consistency issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I'm just trying to figure out all the reasoning. Policy 2.3 is an interesting one. Ordinance No. 96-6, it says regulates the operation. How does it regulate the operations if we can't even ask for an annual report? MR. GRAMATGES: I would have to defer that to Jamie French. But indeed we do regulate them, but our regulation authority is limited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's like having a dog on a leash but the leash is a little bit weak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Jamie, if regulation means-- MR. FRENCH: The annual report that we do receive does not -- they provide us with all of their financials. I have the right to audit and I have the right to make sure that the levels of service are to the franchise terms. However, the water consumption or the amount of water that they've made, they do not turn those numbers into us, and it is not a condition of their franchise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we go on with that same paragraph, the second sentence says, all such private sector potable water supply service providers are required to meet the county's Page 34 January 20, 2009 adopted potable water treatment level of service. It seems pretty meaningless since none of them do. So is that another error in the GMP? MR. FRENCH: Sir, that's news to me. No one has provided me with those numbers, staff nor has the authority. In the five years I've been with the authority have they received the consumptive use numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you read on with that whole paragraph, it just elaborates more about basically what we've been looking for and how we're supposed to be getting -- and I guess this goes back to what we talked about in the transmittal is we're not getting it and why didn't we. If the County Attorney, in their future memorandum would take a look at that policy and if we need to be looking to change the GMP to correct these inconsistencies for lack of coordination, I'll use both words that the statute used, maybe we can get better language. And if we can't do anything, we shouldn't be telling everybody we are, so -- Questions on Page 5 and 6? Thank you, Jamie. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 7 and 8. (No response.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question on -- just for qualification on Page 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5, okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, where we talk about facility capacity and we have that number that we've used for a long time, the 185 now drops down to 170. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will any future document reference that facility capacity will be 170, or will we maintain 185? I'm trying to understand how this is referenced here. Is it really a true capacity or is it just -- Page 35 January 20, 2009 MR. COHEN: That's the existing figure that's there. And then in the next set of GMP amendments where we make updates that are staff initiated, those numbers will be changed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, but that talks of facility capacity. I find that interesting in that the capacity of the facility is certainly greater than the number that you place. You're able to make more water than you're talking about. This is consumption. It's a level of service standard and it's one that is deemed to be consumption. So it's not facility capacity. Am I correct? MR. COHEN: We'll make a note also to look at the title of that section as well too in the next section -- during the staff amendments that we do make as part of the 07/08 cycle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If you drop that down, your level of service is going to be there, then you're going to look like your plant capability for the long term is a lot further out. And you guys have been telling us it's not. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct, Commissioner. Yeah, the capacity of our facilities is much larger than 185. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think that's important to relate there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 7 and 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, there's Policy 5.2, or actually maybe it's Randy or Jamie, I don't know. Let me read you the last sentence. No existing private sector or potable water treatment systems shall be permitted to add customers unless all levels of service standards, LOSS, are met and operations are in conformance with all FDEP standards. Now, this seems to work well with the Policy 2.3 saying they're required to meet our standards. And in here it says if they aren't, they can't add any customers. Page 36 January 20, 2009 And that's kind of where I was going with -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Permits. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- trying to get cooperation out of these facilities. But again, I don't know how much teeth this GMP has in regards to oversight on the private utilities, and so we'll just have to wait till the county attorney's office looks at that policy as well to see if there's anything there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Commissioner? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This is going to come up again I think in the rural -- the RLSA discussions. Because obviously those are just simply developments called towns and ham -- well, hamlets may not be there, but large developments. And then I'm looking at Objective 3 on Page 5 and then Policy 5.3 on 7. When they are -- when we allow them to build these, what are the -- their level of service is based on what it is at the time or at build-out, or when is that -- how is that done? The level of service -- in other words, in reading through here, it looks as though -- I'm confused, I guess, in reading this. When do they have to meet that level of service? MR. GRAMATGES: I would have to defer that to-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Prior to, you know, giving the development order or -- I don't know when that happens. MR. GRAMATGES: I don't believe that they can meet the level of service until such time that they have started to operate. So to do it ahead of time would be difficult to first determine and then prove. So they would have to begin to operate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a standard. MR. FRENCH: And I'm going to do my very best to answer your question. Can you just repeat it once more? As far as the level of Page 37 January 20, 2009 service. How do they establish that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, we discussed that we're going to be -- and in any development that the facilities are -- whether it be roads -- any infrastructure. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: When is that measured? You know, we're going to give them a development order, you can go ahead and build your town. When do we check on the level of service? MR. FRENCH: Generally what happens is that they actually go through a permitting process in order to establish the franchise. Now, within the franchise they have to be able to show that they can provide service to meet the -- whatever the county's level of service is or whatever the DEP's level of service is within a five-year period. In the event that they cannot -- so in other words, they get a franchise, they have to serve within five years. If they do not serve within five years, then they put their franchise in jeopardy and the county at that point could recall that franchise. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So a case in point, Ave Maria. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would assume that their level of service is pretty darn good compared -- for their water and sewage, compared to the residents they have living there right now, because they didn't anticipate this -- MR. FRENCH: They're permitted, so far as I recall, up to nearly five million gallons per day. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which would take care of -- MR. FRENCH: It's more than the school. And the plant side is pretty good. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, okay. All right, is that what we're looking at then in the future in the RLSA, in the towns and so on? Page 38 January 20, 2009 MR. FRENCH: As they would come forward. The only other one that we would have, so long as -- and the only way you could do this is that you would actually go through a permitting process, as I spoke of earlier, that if it was outside of the Collier Water and Sewer District, if you were -- and not a package plant serving a mobile home park or a school, but if you were actually going to serve a community, then you would actually go through the planning and zoning applications, you would go through public utilities to make sure that that is not going to be an area that they're going to serve. So the county really has the right of refusal to -- whether or not to grant them a franchise or not. So if they intend to develop, everything goes through fine, they go before the Water, and Wastewater Authority, they're granted their franchise. At that point, like I said, they've got five years. And then as far as the level of service, those are established within the franchise as well as with the DEP. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So we in essence control that. MR. FRENCH: We do control that. We control who gets a franchise and who doesn't. Whereas before those were granted -- you weren't required to do that through the Florida Public Service Commission. So long as it was outside of the water/sewer district of your county or city, you could actually go to the Florida Public Service Commission, the county had so many days to basically object to it. And if they didn't, then the Florida Public Service Commission would grant -- generally it's around a 30-year franchise. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. You had said that within the five years or at the end of five years they have to show you that they could meet the standards? MR. FRENCH: They have to be able to serve within their sewer district. Now, in the -- or within their service district. Page 39 January 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Are they giving you reports yearly or at the end of five years? And aren't those reports sufficient enough to answer the other question? MR. FRENCH: They provide an annual report to their levels of service as far as the amount of water. We only see the financials. I would not see whether or not they had a -- they would show it on their assets. I would see assets as to whether or not they build the plant or what the costs were. For instance, Ave Maria, we started offwith $18 million. And then as that $18 million bank started to dwindle down, a plant came out of the ground. So that's exactly how a franchise would start. But over the five-year period -- now, in the event that they had other residents within their service district, and good example, that was with Orangetree with Orange Blossom Ranch, that Orangetree was not prepared to serve. So what then would happen is that the developer would petition the Water and Wastewater Authority. We would issue what they call a show cause order. Show cause order basically asks the utility, do you intend to serve, and if you do, what are your plans, and what is the time period. And they have to respond within a reasonable amount of time, set by the authority. Generally it's 30 to 90 days. And in this particular case, the utilities stepped up, spent some money and expanded not only their service area, because it was still within their franchised area, but they added capacity both to the water plant and they already had enough on the sewer plant. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sir, what was that you said? Who issued it? I mean, what got expanded, the Collier County or Orangetree? Page 40 January 20, 2009 MR. FRENCH: On the example that I used for the Orangetree -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You say they and I missed-- MR. FRENCH: What I mean is the utility. With the Orange Blossom Ranch example -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. FRENCH: -- that was already within their service area. They did not have to expand their service -- their area as far as their franchise area. They were not providing service to that area. In the event that they chose not to serve that area, then we could -- the Water and Wastewater Authority could cut that area out and then that developer could have come forward and asked for a franchise or put a package plant in that would not have to be regulated by the county . COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But you were talking, the "they" is Orangetree. MR. FRENCH: Orangetree, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry. Thank you. MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry. Sorry for the-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, no, that was me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next three tabs are documents that may not -- they're existing documents for the most part. There may not be a lot on them. Let's take tab five. Does anybody have any questions on tab five? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hate -- Jamie, I hate to keep you bouncing back up from the room or not, but tab five is Ordinance 96-6. Is that the ordinance that you fall under? MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that brings me to a question Page 41 January 20, 2009 on Page 8. Section 1-3, authority of the Collier County Water and Wastewater powers and duties. Number nine: By final order to require regular or emergency reports from a utility including but not limited to financial reports as the authority deems necessary. And it goes on about different reports there. But it's including but not limited to. So why couldn't you get the reports that are needed and required by the comprehensive plan? MR. FRENCH: As the regulator I would not have come to the Water and Wastewater Authority and asked for that. Staff could have. But again, if the attorney's argument for Orangetree was that there's nothing that's binding me to do this, this is -- and remember, everything we require these private utilities to do, they take -- it comes out of the consumer's pocket. So if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But our utility department's doing the same report that's coming out of our pocket, so why shouldn't the people who are getting serviced by Ave Maria pay whatever it takes to get a report done? MR. FRENCH: I'm not arguing with you, sir. But again, they're going to take that into consideration to try to keep the rates down and say show us the benefit. And again, I can't speak for the Authority, but bottom line is that staff could have petitioned the Water and Wastewater Authority. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by this section, wouldn't you then have been able to demand it? MR. FRENCH: I can't demand it unless the Authority tells -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the Authority then could have demanded it. The Authority is the Board of County Commissioners. MR. FRENCH: The Authority can be the -- yes, sir, they are the ex officio. They are the board -- they are the Water and Wastewater Authority . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Oh, I love this circle. Page 42 January 20, 2009 So Phil's got to turn around and ask the Board of County Commissioners to tell you to go ahead and get this accomplished, and then we can get the information we need on a regular basis and however they handle it's their problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way I read that, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might give you some insight into your memo, Mr. Klatzkow. MR. KLATZKOW: Now, I said, it's a question to compel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there it is. MR. KLATZKOW: Not really. I mean, I'll get back to you, see if we've got the right to compel them. It's one thing to ask, it's another thing to demand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just -- it's such a -- it seems like such a simple request and a simple process, and everybody benefits from it because the documents are complete, they go to the ORC Report -- I mean, the DCA gets it, everybody's happy. Why don't we just do it? I just don't understand the resistance. It just baffles me. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to say, I mean, but the language says that you can require, not just that you can ask. So isn't that a little stronger? Isn't that, you know, the shall and may routine here again? I mean, maybe not, Jeff, and I don't want to-- MR. KLATZKOW: I've got to tell you, I don't know that I want to go to the Code Enforcement Board with an issue saying Ave Maria hasn't issued us this type of a report, and then the Code Enforcement Board does -- what I'm saying, if they say no, what do you do? And that's what I have to close the loop on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Code Enforcement Board, I don't think they have -- what would they have to do here? MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. Because if they say no, what do you do? I mean, we've already asked them, they've said no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they enacted by the powers of Page 43 January 20, 2009 96-6? Because if they are, we just retract the inaction and take the powers away starting in -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's smashing a fly with a cannon now. Let me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But how's -- I mean, this is a simple request. I just can't believe the flack that the county's gotten in trying to get the -- cross the T's -- MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and dot the I's. I mean, I agree with you, you're right, we didn't start making this a big issue, we just said get the report. And next thing you know it's all of a sudden become a do or die issue. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. We asked for the report, they said no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: So what I'm saying is well, I've got to find out what the answer is to now what. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, gotcha. Exhibit 6. Does anybody have any questions on Exhibit 6? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two sections after that. There'll probably be a lot of -- I mean, I have quite a few questions on the 10-year water supply, so we get into that. But Exhibit 6 is the interlocal agreement, interlocal service delivery agreement report from August, 2004. So it's an existing older document. Then we have the ordinance proposed, depending on how this outcome of this review is. And we finally get into the 10-year water supply facilities work plan. Does anybody have any issues up to the 10-year water supply facilities work plan? (No response.)l Page 44 January 20,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, take that fun document. And by the time you get past the table of contents and the acronyms, you're finally onto Page ES-1, which is the executive summary. And that's the first page of the document. And after that one, we'll go two at a time. Does anybody have any questions on ES-1 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, the second paragraph of the executive summary, under the requirement of Florida Statutes, the 10-year water supply facilities work plan for Collier County must include analysis of all water utilities in the county not serving a specific local government. And these utilities include: And there's Orangetree and Ave Maria. Now -- and that's referencing Florida statutes. So now we've got ordinances, the GMP, Florida statutes, the public water authority, or whatever else you want to call it. So hopefully between all them we can find a reason -- we might be able to get this information. What does that second paragraph mean, if not that you have to get these reports? And if it's a statute that's a reference, maybe you could provide that to the county attorney's office. MR. COHEN: Well, that's the problem we have. We're required to put it in the report. And at the same time they're saying no. So we're caught in between as a staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'll let these legal people figure out, but I certainly think it'll be an interesting outcome. Are there any questions on Pages ES-2 and ES-3? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get into ES-4 and ES-5. The tables on ES-4, did we get -- on the top of the table where it talks about the different design capacities, if you total the ones up that are on line, they total 52 mgd. That's consistent with the AUIR. The AUIR indicated that in 2012 there was a plant going on line that Page 45 January 20, 2009 would have given us the capacity. Did we get that plant completed last year -- I'm sorry, in 2008. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, we did complete that plant in 2008. And that's the -- our old facility at the south water plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The available facility capacity on ES-2 where it talks about the mgd, is that usable storage volume? Is that the same as usable storage volume? Is usable storage volume another number that you use, or is that equal to any of those numbers on ES-2? MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm sorry, specifically what line are you talking about, sir? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fourth line down, available facility MR. GRAMATGES: Available facility capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the same as useable storage volume? Because I find useable storage volume referenced in other sections of your document, and I was trying to correlate it. MR. GRAMATGES: No, it is not. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I -- MR. GRAMA TGES: This is the production capacity of all the facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you look on the second table and you look at the permitted amount mgd annual average. 2005, it says 5614, and 2008 it's 6382. Your table in Section 6-1 is consistent with 5614 right through. Why is there a difference between the two tables? MR. GRAMATGES: Okay, so you're talking about table -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you look at ES-2 and compare the permitted amount to the permitted amount shown on the facilities capacity analysis in Section 6, table 6-1, they're not consistent on that line. And I was just wondering if you know why. MR. GRAMATGES: Let me take a look. Page 46 January 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because it does have a -- it will produce a different surplus and deficit calculation. Tell you what, Phil, we're getting close to a break. If you want, you can look at -- I can give you those comparisons during the break and that way we'll kill two birds with one stone. So why don't we come back at 3:35, take a IS-minute break. Thank you. (Recess. ) MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome back from the break. And before we got into an explanation here for a minute, I want to pass out what I didn't have earlier, because the copies came through. Hold on just a second. If you could pass those down, Mr. Vigliotti. And Donna. I have one I'll make sure, Cherie' , you get it. And Randy, I have enough copies, if you don't mind, at some point send them off to the other Planning Commission members before -- those that aren't here? As long -- MR. COHEN: Yes, sir, they will be mailed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as they get them before next Wednesday. Thank you. Yeah, Carolina, that one goes. Thank you very much. Okay. Phil, I understand you figured out my question. Go ahead, . SIr. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Table ES-2 is analyzing the capacity with the necessary permits in place to demonstrate that we will have sufficient raw water capacity on 2018. Table 6.1 is trying to demonstrate that if we do not get the additional permits that we need and we continue at the permitted amount that we have right now, we will eventually run out of capacity Page 47 January 20, 2009 on 2018. In fact, thanks to Ms. Valera, she pointed out to me that a response to the ORC response on Page 4 of our letter we address the same issue. And it's shown -- and it says that as shown in table 6-1 of the revised plan submitted by Collier County, there are no water deficits to meet future water supply needs until 2018. So indeed, it's not a discrepancy, simply that those tables are trying to address different questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The efficiency of the two tables, the raw water requirement is the raw water needed to make a certain amount of finished water. It is calculated by dividing the required treatment capacity at 170 by the efficiency of the treatment process. So if you take the raw water requirement, and that stays the same, how does the raw water requirement relate to the permitted amount? Or does it? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, the raw water supply is indeed directly related to the amount. The permit gives us permit to withdraw raw water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what happens is the deficiency hits in 2018 because your raw water requirement exceeds what the permitted amount is available at that time without the permit being -- MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- revised. Okay. That gets me to where I needed to go. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could I have a little -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Are we going to require or at least try to attempt to get a little bit more -- and I hate to use the word control, but confidence that we can get information from these new towns and townships in the RLSA? Or is it going to be the same situation? Page 48 January 20, 2009 MR. COHEN: Let me answer that for you, Commissioner. And I'm going to use Big Cypress as an example. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Perfect. MR. COHEN: Big Cypress is a DR!. As part of that DR!, there's an application for development approval. There's specific questions that are asked in that application with respect to potable water and how it's going to be supplied. The applicant has to answer those questions. In conjunction with that, there's a stewardship receiving area application which is in essence analogous more or less to a PUD but a lot more involved. In that document there's also a requirement for them to address potable water and how it will be addressed. When -- and you'll see both the DR! and also the SRA. When you do, one of the things that happens in conjunction with the DR! is that there has to be a development order that's approved by the Board of County Commissioners. It would be appropriate for you at that time to make a recommendation on how that private utility is dealt with with respect to regulation and what they are required to do. There's your control entity. And there should be -- more than likely it will be a developer's agreement in conjunction with the SRA as well, too. So there's two different places you could spell it out. And the board could then put those in two different areas or legal documents, and that's your control factor. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm hoping we remember that coming up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I can assure you, I bet you we'll remember it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I think we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any more questions on the executive summary section of this report? Ms. Caron? Page 49 January 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up. Phil, when I asked you earlier about the additional efficiencies that you were going to begin using, one of them being the high pressure RO, you said that that was less efficient than the standard one we're using today, correct? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about the ionic exchange that -- MR. GRAMATGES: Ionic exchange is more efficient than RO. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But is it more efficient than the other things, what we're using now? MR. GRAMATGES: The motion efficient process is lime-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. GRAMATGES: -- softening. After that is membrane softening. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. GRAMATGES: After that is ionic. And after that reverse osmOSIS. And it varies. I mean, obviously it depends on the supply and the kind of water and the salinity and so on. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why would we even be thinking about the high pressure reverse osmosis if it's less efficient than what we're doing now, or less efficient than ionic exchange? MR. GRAMATGES: The reason why we want to use high pressure RO at the north water plant is because we have four wells that have gone saline. Those four wells are sitting there not being used. And that -- and I'm not a hydrogeologist, but when we talked to our consultants, they first say that that is something that is not very common, but it does happen. Secondly, that they would recommend that at some point in time we continue to extract from those wells. Because if we do not do that, Page 50 January 20,2009 that salty water may indeed somehow find its way into the rest of the well-field. So we have to draw from those wells, we have to process that water, and for that reason there is a tWo mgd high pressure RO facility planned for the north water plant. And by the way, that is independent of capacity. If you look at the AUIR, you will notice that we moved that project, we left that project in the same schedule that it was before, because it's not there necessarily to produce additional capacity but to try to avoid problems in the future. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just so I'm clear on something here. Maybe I can help, too. The use of the word efficiency here is, I think -- and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong, certainly -- I think it's related to the process itself, that it's more expensive, it's more challenging, it's more time consuming. And the result, though, is that you get a better water product; do you not? I'm trying to understand whether we are using efficiency -- whether we're hitting the word efficiency over the head as being a bad thing because we're saying it's not as efficient. How are we using the word efficiency there? MR. GRAMATGES: Let me explain. We process brackish water in order to extract salt, the soft salt from that brackish water. The more salt there is in that water, the more salt we have to take out. That salt has to be moved out of the membrane in dilution. In other words, when you push the water through the membrane, part of it goes through the membrane as potable water, part of it remains inside the membrane, it's disposed of. Now, if you have more salt in the water, you need more dilution water in the waste to be able to carry that salt away. So the more salt you have in the water, the less deficient it is. Page 51 January 20, 2009 Because a percentage of potable water that you can extract from that water diminishes. Am I making my -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I used to have responsibility -- an operation for a reverse osmosis plant for chemicals, very strong chemicals, so I'm familiar with the process. And the way you're describing it, I understand.-And in the sense that, you know, it takes more -- you have to clean them, back flush them more often, et cetera, et cetera. And in that context, they are less efficient than something that can run rather easily through a process. So I just wanted to be sure that the public understands as well that it's something we must use, if you will, that we don't have a lot of choice as we get deeper and deeper into the brack. MR. GRAMATGES: You're absolutely correct. And it's not a deficiency in the process, per se, it's an intrinsic quality of the supply water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, and just a follow-up. For instance, an RO system may -- for every gallon produced, that the flush may be five gallons or whatever that -- that's what I took is the efficiency. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay, so -- MR. GRAMATGES: That's what I tried to-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So what is ours now? MR. GRAMATGES: -- explain to Commissioner Murray. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What is ours now? Where are we with that? MR. GRAMATGES: The reverse osmosis system that we use right now is about 85 percent efficient. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Which means for every gallon we produce -- MR. GRAMATGES: I'm sorry, 75 percent efficient. Page 52 January 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So that means for every gallon we use, we throwaway four? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Is that how you do that? Okay, throwaway or flush four. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You would have anyway. MR. GRAMATGES: That's right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your product is what you're really talking about, not -- the efficiency is a cost factor. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, the higher you go, the less deficient it is as well from the use of energy. A high pressure RO requires much more electricity because you need bigger pumps. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, yeah. MR. GRAMATGES: So it goes both ways. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And the flushing water goes right back down into the -- back down in another -- gets away, correct? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, the flushing water is pumped down quite a bit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. MR. GRAMATGES: It's going all the way down to a very saline aquifer. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So that was -- there it was. My point was going to be from earlier in questioning, there's no impact, because you're sort of replenishing but at a lower level. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, we are-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Bad thinking. MR. GRAMATGES: -- we're putting the flushed water in a different aquifer than the one we extract the water from. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're getting questions from a guy who's growing exotic plants that will defoliate all of Florida, so -- just Page 53 January 20, 2009 to let you know. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You are absolutely killing me. Did you forget that they're noxious, too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, noxious bad plants. Back into the executive summary, any other questions on the ES pages? There's nine of them. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, on your table ES-3, you go down a bit and it says NCRWTPHPRO, 2012, and you have 2.0. The AUIR has a 3.9 mgd for that time period. Is that any relationship to this 2.0? Do you know why they'd be different? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, there is a -- and I'm not looking at the AUIR right now, but of course the AUIR has several tables. And the 2.0 is the potable water capacity coming out of it. There is -- if you calculate the raw water going in, of course it's more than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just says new plant constructed capacity, 3.9. So that new plant you're saying here is -- the project that they're talking about, the design capacity of2.0 for alternative water supply, that's just a portion of the 3.9? MR. GRAMA TGES: It is the reliable capacity for that plant. 2.0 is the reliable capacity to that facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on the ES section? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, let's -- we have section one. There's a handful of Section 6. Let's just take it a section at a time. Anybody have any questions on section one? If not, it's only a couple pages. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Section two? Anybody have any questions on section two? (No response.) Page 54 January 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It goes down to page -- to 2-9. Phil, on the second page of section two, it's a map. The map shows the boundaries of the water service areas. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Board of Commissioners has specially said we are not going to supply water to Golden Gate Estates in the foreseeable future. And they ruled out 10 years and 20 years or whatever. Yet you guys are collecting impact fees because the dotted line on this page is in the Estates where we're now never going to have water. Or I shouldn't say never, but we're not going to have it within the time frame that House Bill 0849 allows you to have it in in order to charge impact fees. So we need to fix this map. What does it take to pull the boundary back to where the County Commission said to put it? MR. GRAMATGES: The County Commissioners I believe have -- well, this is part of the special act. And the boundaries of this district were drafted by the special act. We would have to modify that act in order to cut back on the boundaries of the water/sewer district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, does the 10-year water supply plan reflect the commissioners' wishes to -- MR. GRAMATGES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- cut back on the district? Well, why doesn't it then? MR. GRAMATGES: The 10-year water supply plant does not address that. At the time that this plant was created, there was no requirement, as I understand it, from the board to cut back or to reduce the footprint of the water/sewer district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any doubt that the board indicated they wanted to do that now or directed that to happen when that gentleman came forward and we found all this out? MR. GRAMATGES: I don't have any doubt, but that's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a recommendation from this Page 55 January 20, 2009 body when this goes forward to reduce the service boundaries to be more in line with what the Board of County Commissioners has expressed their desire to be would be something that I guess everybody would understand, because I certainly intend to add that to a list of things that I've got growing here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You are referring to the fact that the County Commissioners so stated that they were inclined to have that withdrawn, you know, brought back to the limits -- trying to say this in a proper way. Are we being -- and I don't mean this in an offensive way, but are we being redundant? I mean, it's already been stipulated, has it not, by the County Commissioners that they wanted this done? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if it has, I'm not going to approve a plan without making that stipulation as a requirement, because -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we weren't asked to approve that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not arguing with you. But I just thought, I'm pretty sure that I remembered seeing County Commission where that issue was raised, and I thought you were referencing it, quite frankly, where they stated unqualified that they wanted that drawn back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my comment is if we're putting a plan through that isn't drawing it back and if there's reasons why they can't do it on this plan, I still want to make it clear to the Commission that this body reviewed it and at least one person, if not all of us, are expressing similar intent that we heard from them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Gotcha. Now I'm clear as to what you -- really where you were going. Thank you. Page 56 January 20, 2009 MR. GRAMA TGES: Let me clarify that this is the official map as it stands right now. The process of changing this map is, I suspect, a lengthy one. And therefore, when this is submitted to DCA, this is how the district will look like. And that the board has expressed a desire for us to change it is a fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if -- I'm not -- but the problem I have with this map is this allows you guys to go on and continue to go on to charge impact fees for the areas that will not now by -- the acknowledgment of the BCC will not have water and sewer for the immediate 10 years, and your empowerment act says the following: The District is empowered by this act to levy and collect water or sewer impact fees only within the then existing geographic boundaries of the district. If the building structure or land use on the property for which impact fees have been paid is not authorized to connect to the district's systems within 10 years of the date of such payment, the property owner holding legal title at the end of the 10-year period shall be eligible for a refund of the impact fees without interest. So they've already acknowledged that you're not going to be out there for 10, 20 years. So I don't understand why we're continuing every time a home goes up asking for impact fees in an area that we'll never use them for. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would it be reasonable to recommend a second map be prepared, showing -- while Mr. Gramatges indicates that this is a requirement under the statute that would provide it, how about a second map that would disclose our intent to modify to the boundary that is appropriate, and have that included in here with our recommendation? MR. GRAMATGES: The board would have to approve the boundaries of the -- the new boundaries for the water/sewer district. I would think that probably it would be presumptuous on our part to put Page 57 January 20, 2009 a map in here that will anticipate what the board will approve. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which board? MR. GRAMATGES: The Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they expressed themselves pretty clearly when they reviewed the East of 951 study -- MR. GRAMATGES: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -~ and they basically concurred with the study. And so if you were to draw a map concurrent with that study that they already blessed, I think we'd be in good position to argue that this is not where we're going to go, we can stop charging people impact fees for a system that's never going to be on line, because by our own enabling act we shouldn't be doing it. MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, I assure you that we are not going to levy impact fees in those areas that the board have told us they don't want us to levy impact fees, whether we have the power to do it by the statute or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, the gentleman -- MR. GRAMATGES: Let's put it this way: Our jobs depend on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman that opened all this up who had that home out there where he paid a fortune in impact fees and he lives way out in the Estates, are you giving him a refund? MR. GRAMATGES: I can't speak to that. That's not my department. I don't have responsibility for that. But I would suspect that we will; I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there's hundreds of homes that could be in this situation, based on the dotted lines on this map. MR. GRAMATGES: I don't know if it's hundreds of homes or dozens. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, dozens. One. Any individual that has been putting up money he shouldn't have had to put up I think deserves a refund. But that's beyond what we can do here today. But at Page 58 January 20, 2009 least I'm going to suggest that this panel recommend a revision to the map. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would hope that -- so in other words, that recommendation that I made, you wouldn't prepare such a document. You wouldn't prepare -- Randy, you wouldn't prepare such a document? MR. COHEN: At this point in time, I think the board has expressed an intent that the process be effectuated to modify this map and has directed public utilities not to correct impact fees. Now we have to go through that process to modify the map. The map that's set forth right there are the official boundaries and that's what we should be forwarding to DCA. And what would be recognized is the official map. I think it would be appropriate for the CCPC to provide a recommendation based on the intent of the board to expedite the process and the mechanism by which the boundaries could be changed. And then what we could do as part of the potable water element that we send up and when we modify that as part of the next series of GMP amendments, then we could include the map as an attachment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that would get us there, Bob. Because I think it's got to go through a process. I think when you change these dotted lines, exactly how many dotted lines you change has got to be acknowledged. And I agree, it's going to take some time. But I just want to -- at least I would think it'd be good to note that as it goes forward. So that was my point of discussion. We're on section two. Are there any other questions on section two before we go to section three? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions on section three? (No response.)n Page 59 January 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As you might guess, section three goes all the way to section four. Are there any questions on section four? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm moving fast through this, I'm assuming if you have questions, they're somehow tabbed so you know how to turn to them. So if I'm going too fast just slow me down, everyone. Then there's two more sections. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Section four, you've got sections 4.1 through, and then you have figure 4.2, and you have figure 4.3. It gets a little confusing initially, but we can work our way through it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want to go on to section five then? Anybody have any questions on section five? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, I've got one question on section five. If you look at table 5-6, and you look at the raw water requirement total,-74.1, I believe that's through the year 2018, by the way that table looks. Then you go back and look on Page ES-4 and you look at the raw water requirement for 2018, it's inconsistent with Table 5.6. In ES-4 it's 62.66, and on table 5-6 it's 74.1. I just need an explanation, because I may not be reading everything I need to read to get there. MR. GRAMATGES: Okay, summary of existing water treatment facilities. Now, ES-4 you said, 6.6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if you turn to table two on ES-4, and you'll go to the third line up from the bottom where it says raw water requirement, 62.66. Is that the same number that we're supposed to find on Table 5-6 where it says 74.1? Page 60 January 20,2009 MR. GRAMATGES: I'm looking at table 5-6 and I don't find -- I think we're talking -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't see the same thing you see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Table 5-6 on page -- oh, okay, I'm on Page 5-6. It's Table 5-3. My apologies. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, gee. You're scaring me. You slipped up. It's the first time I've ever seen you slip up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't slipped. I'm still reading the right number. Number's right, table's wrong. Minor discrepancy. You see the 74.1 total on table now 5.3? On Page 5.6, verse table ES-2 on Page ES-4? Oh, Cherie', good luck getting all this down. They're getting punch drunk with this stuff here, Phil. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, I'm sure that there must be a reason. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phil, I'd be happy if you e-mailed us the reason. I don't think it's going to change the dynamics here today, but it was a discrepancy I caught and -- MR. GRAMATGES: We should have -- I should have had one. I reviewed this document, I assure you, many times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would you mind e-mailing us the reason? I don't think it's going to affect the outcome of to day's meeting. MR. GRAMATGES: I'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to thank the Chair and Mr. Gramatges for the fun that we had with it. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Must be just a typo. MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, we have to take ourselves a little bit less seriously sometimes if we are to keep our sanity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's move on then. Anything else on section five? Page 61 January 20, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if there's nothing there, then section six is the last part of the document. For the remainder of that document, are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give everybody a few minutes to make sure their pages aren't got (sic) any notes on them they want to ask. Okay, Phil, I thank you for all the enlightening experience we had here today. MR. GRAMATGES: You're welcome, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN:. I think we've gotten through it. And that brings us back to what we have to finish with on today's agenda, and that basically is the motions on the two issues that we're to handle today: One being the CIE and the other being the water update report. Trying to find my agenda. It's here somewhere in this pile. Here, it is. F or discussion amongst the board members, and maybe Randy, you could help us through some of this, I made notes on the first meeting for issues that were still outstanding. I can relay them all to you to see how you feel about it. In that discussion there were some three or four items in the CIE that seemed to be -- still remain. One is a suggestion to look at an analysis of doing a one-week -- one time a week pickup for solid waste disposal to see if there's any savings that could possibly happen there. I think that's a reasonable thing to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners in reviewing the CIE. Is there any obj ection to that or anybody think we shouldn't do that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's fine. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a good idea to Page 62 January 20, 2009 recommend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, do we have any reasons why we -- that's out of bounds for us, or is that in line with a recommendation we could proceed with? MR. SCHMIDT: Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other one is we talked about some of the costs in the road system, and one of those was the landscaping issues. There was a suggestion that we look at MSTU's for --localized MSTU's for landscaping. Does everybody like that idea as a recommendation, or any thoughts on that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't remember where the case was made, but somebody made the case that we have an overall MSTUB (sic), I think it called. I think that was at the County Commission that they made that when that issue was raised. In other words, that there's -- all of it is taken into consideration. I thought it's already there. And I'm trying to figure out whether or not we're -- what we're going to recommend will fly. Say again what you want to recommend? That we have individual MSTU's? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That we look at -- that we recommend to the County Commission to consider localized MSTU's for roadway landscaping. And they consider it. If they look at it and they say it can't be done because we have an MSTBU or XYZ, then they don't go any further. But it was a thought that was discussed. It might be one to save money during these times and might be something to look at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I hear your words, but I'm trying to understand where the areas would be. Do we have boundaries? Page 63 January 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It would be -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just an open recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Open recommendation. The people -- it's a suggestion. And for example, there was a little bit discussion in one meeting about the newly completed Vanderbilt Beach Road extension between Livingston Road and 951. There's medians there. They put sod in them. The medians look great. But the people in one community decided they wanted to have the medians all landscaped. And I don't know, I'm a tax payer, I don't see -- I don't have a burning desire to care if a median's ever landscaped in this county, but I know other people have different opinions. And if they live in areas where it will benefit their community and benefit their house values and they want to do it, then maybe they ought to look at MSTU's to get that done. In these times. I mean, in the old days it didn't matter too much, but right now we're running short on funds to do such things. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you mean that for instance on Pine Ridge where in front of Vineyards it's landscaped, you go further east and it's not. What are you suggesting, who would pay for it, the taxpayer or let's say in this case the Vineyards? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some communities want landscaping in the medians in front of their road systems. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Private communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some communities have done that on their own. I know one that did all the medians and the county took it over afterwards. There's others that have done the landscaping and maintained it afterwards. There's others that have put an MSTU in it and it was perpetually provided tax base for the county to take care it and install it. Page 64 January 20, 2009 All I'm suggesting, if a community wants their medians in front of their development landscaped, let them look at doing it through an MSTU. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's my thought. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the only -- that's all I'm suggesting, we look at it. I don't know if it's even been looked at. So that's the only suggestion that I was asking this board to consider. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think it hurts anything to COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- make a recommendation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm in agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know if it will go anywhere, but -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, it's a good idea. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that it's essentially already happened. All the planned landscaping, if I'm not mistaken, that was in the transportation plan is done and over with. It was done as of -- yes, as of this last -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what they did is they reduced the total landscaping that they were going to supply in a certain transportation zone to 1.8 million -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- from whatever it was. COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's it. After that there's nothing in the plan beyond that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't know. But I thought if there was, and they would consider doing localized MSTU's, if people insisted upon it, that would be a way to do it. I mean, that's all I was suggesting. Page 65 January 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: No, no, no, I'm just saying, ifit's not in the plan somebody would have to come forward and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And pay for it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- say we want an MSTU because we want this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I think that's the right way to go. COMMISSIONER CARON: So, you know, I think it's already happened, Mark, is all I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well-- MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and clarify that for the record. There are additional medians that just have grass in them right now. And the board as a matter of policy decided to expend funds for additional landscaping for specific roadways as part of its unfunded mandates. They made that policy decision. There are additional segments of road, an example would be Immokalee Road, that's to the east of 951, going out that direction, it doesn't have that type of landscaping in it. So there are other roadways that could fall under that category. So the recommendation, if the board so decided to, would be appropriate. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I just wanted to express it to the rest of the Commissioners and see if there's any problems. And the other item that we discussed and it was -- with some discussion from the county attorney, was not to clutter up the GMP with additional things that aren't needed. And one of them that was added that really didn't need to be added because Nick acknowledged it could be done in another forum would be the removal of the bridge report. Tieing it to the GMP might be problematic in the long run, because it isn't easily changed if it's tied into the GMP. Page 66 January 20, 2009 Now, those are the three things that pertain to the CIE that I have notes on. I also have notes for two or three items that pertain to the water/sewer element. So if we want to take a motion on the CIE to recommend approval subject -- with the following suggestions to the BCC, and the suggestions being take a study of the possibility of going to trash pickup once a week; consider localized MSTU's for landscaping medians and landscaping roadways; and to remove the bridge report from the CIE, as it can be put forth in another reporting mechanism that is more easily modified. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just have a question about the trash pickup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get the motion and seconded first. Made by Mr. Murray, seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Now discussion. Yes, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're just -- you're just recommending that they look at the cost. We're not making it seem like we're recommending one day a week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just look at the cost. Do a study to see if there's any feasibility to it. If it's offered and it's a good idea, maybe it's a good thing to look at. But I don't -- it would be nice to take a look at it, because I know from comparisons to other communities some have found a savings there. It may not be possible in our community, but maybe it is -- maybe it is. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's other issues, like that -- I think that with the trash -- I mean, there's the -- it's a lot warmer here a longer time of the year and people have the trash outside their house or in their garage, or stormy -- and when there's hurricanes coming, it's tough with the whole trash can full of trash for three, four weeks or Page 67 January 20, 2009 something, could be, till you could get a trash pickup, if there's damage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Again, I think we're just trying to find ways to consider if there's a study that can be done or a review that can be done and it can be acknowledged it's feasible and saves money, I think we ought to look at it. If it doesn't, they won't do it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I just think there's other issues besides just the saving of the money that should be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I'm sure that would come out in any report, though, too. I mean, they wouldn't -- if the money is saved but it's in the end going to cost more because of another consequence, it would come out in such a study. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you're probably going to find that when the county signed their last agreement with water -- Waste Management, that that study was done with all of its ramifications, as Commissioner Homiak indicates. Because it is more than just a simple cost equation, it's cost plus. I think one of the reasons -- I'm just trying to remember from a Waste Management presentation that I heard, but I think one of the issues was the reason that we do it twice a week, part of the issue was all the condos that we have, and they can't handle a trash pickup of only once per week. They don't -- the facilities can't handle it if we only go to once a week. So I mean, I'm trying -- I don't remember all the details, but -- MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, if I may, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. GRAMATGES: The analysis was indeed made, and we did consider all those options. And as I expressed on Friday, partly the issue was, as Commissioner Homiak has said, some communities cannot tolerate a once a week -- in fact, some households cannot tolerate a once a week pickup. And if you're going to send a truck to Page 68 January 20, 2009 pick that up, it's not going to be beneficial to just deprive the others from the pickup. We probably would have to come up with bigger containers, as was one of the things that came up there. And the issue about having to keep garbage around for a full week rather than three days or four days, it's an issue as well. But the most important outcome of that study at that time was that the savings was minimal. We have a contract with Waste Management, and we -- there are some things we can do, some things we cannot do. And of course Waste Management is seeing this as income. So obviously the savings that they would provide us would be really minimal. At the time of the study, I don't remember what the savings were, but I am sure if we conduct it again, we'll find the same problem. Having said that, however, we certainly will abide by whatever recommendations you issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The discussion was in the context of the option of multiple times a week, if some people wanted it. And I understand your argument that if you're going down the street you might as well get them all. There are sections of the county that are predominantly condominiums, predominantly multi-family. Maybe those people want and need and have required two days a week. But I can tell you, living out in the Estates, I'm not sure everybody out there needs two days a week. I mean, I certainly don't. And I see my neighbors on Saturday morning, he'll go out and there will be very few trash cans if any on the whole street, yet we're paying for twice a week. So I'm just trying to find a way to save money. If there's no reason to look at it, I'm fine, too. I'm just suggesting. MR. GRAMATGES: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't anything I'm going to live or die by, but-- Page 69 January 20, 2009 MR. GRAMATGES: I was trying to provide some more information, based on your comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And maybe if you provide that to the BCC they'll say okay, well, it's been looked at so that's fine, and they'll go on. I think that's the only point I was trying to make. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, Mark, I've heard an awful lot of people -- and I agree with the once a week, that could be a great savings. But what I'm afraid is that we're going to -- we may need to get provided larger recyclable containers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They only pick those up once a week, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I understand. But I've heard many people just throwing -- the reason they want it twice a week is they're throwing the recyclables in on, let's say a Saturday instead of the pickup on Wednesday. That was my only concern is that that may be an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? I didn't mean for this to get involved. I'm sorry. I thought this was real simple. No, I don't mean you, Mr. Murray, I mean the whole discussion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I think it's perfectly fine that we're discussing this. It's intelligent. Would it be reasonable and feasible -- well, feasibility is a question -- but would it be reasonable to modify that recommendation to just focus on the Estates or in the rural lands so that it can have some meaning? Because I think savings are possible. I don't know what that would do to the contract, I'm not sure that's meaningful to us, but I'm trying to -- and I appreciate your recommendation, your suggestions. And the problem is just like our code, it deals with the entire county as though it were one thing. And in truth it's urban, suburban Page 70 January 20, 2009 and rural. And what we do in the condos, sometimes we have to have three times a week pickup. But yeah, I would agree, out there you probably don't need it as often. So would it be maybe a prudent recommendation to seek to have a reduction in certain areas? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all -- I mean, I think that comes under just the acknowledgment that we ought to consider looking at once a week pickup for wherever it can be used. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, all right. But I'm concerned with that kind of a recommendation so open-ended could be dismissed out of hand. And I think it's meaningful-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then elaborate. How would you suggest the wording? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, see, I haven't been here as long as you, so I'm as familiar with the area that you would like to see reduced. Could we say all of Golden Gate Estates? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, because I wasn't speaking for any particular district. My only -- again, I went to Ohio. They only have it once a week and they told me that the people who want it twice a week pay a little more. But everybody had those huge containers and they never used them more than once a week for most of them. I thought heck, if that saves money, why don't we look at it here. And that was the only thing I was trying to get to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate completely what you were doing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I don't want to stand up and say the other -- some party in the county may not need it or that Golden Gate Estates doesn't need it when other people may. I just thought we ought to look at it and the option, and it's getting more complicated than it needed to be. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think if we're going to do a study, let's do a study. You're going to have to negotiate with Waste Page 71 January 20, 2009 Management, whether it's a part or a half or whatever. Let's just do a study, tell us if it makes sense and move on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How long ago did we do a study of such for that specific purpose? MR. GRAMATGES: I believe it was done about three years ago. I'm going from memory, but I believe it was about three years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say consider looking at once a week pickup? That's so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- innocuous. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. I appreciate where you're going. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There, is that simple enough? Okay, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying 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: Motion -- was that an aye, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 on the CIE. Now, let's look at the potable water sub-element for the adoption. During the discussion we had several issues come out. And Randy, or Corby, you Carolina, someone needs to tell me if they're appropriate for this document. First one that I think we all talked about at some length was the Page 72 January 20, 2009 redrawing of the service boundaries for the water and sewer district to coincide with those recommended by the Board of County -- those acknowledged by the Board of County Commissioners after they reviewed the east of951 infrastructure study. That's number one. Number two: Look at adding language to the RLSA GMP amendments -- and I know this is coming up, so it will dovetail nicely -- for a policy that requires water and sewer reports in the manner that we need them for the GMP. And number three: Again, adding to the RLSA language policies some language that promotes the conversion of the consumptive use permit from ago to development. And also to the county for those areas that have excess in their ago consumptive use permit once they're converted. I'm not sure, Randy, how that all needs to be worded, but that's the gist of what I think were the three items that may have a positive . impact on the water and sewer element in our discussions. Do you have anything else? MS. VALERA: No. MR. COHEN: The other item was that you wanted us to remedy the inconsistency between the table on I think it's Page ES-4 and also MS. VALERA: And that will be an e-mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Table 5-3 and table ES-4. MS. VALERA: But he requested just an e-mail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't think that needs to be in a motion. Let Phil just get that fixed and tell us how it was done and be done with it that way. I don't think we need to highlight that to the BCC. MR. COHEN: Okay. MS. VALERA: And Chairman, I do have a note about that, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm sure it will get done. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to be included in the motion, Page 73 January 20, 2009 but you're going to follow up on that 170 versus 185 capacity versus -- you know what I'm referring to, early on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had facility capacity table at 185 in one section of your exhibits. MR. GRAMATGES: You were going to look at the heading. MR. COHEN: That's correct, there's a heading. MS. VALERA: The heading. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I didn't know if you made a note of it, and -- MS. VALERA: I did. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I was just reminding you. MS. VALERA: And I think what we agreed was that as part of the GMP amendments that will have to -- that will have to follow up after adoption of this 10-year water plan, that we will make the changes and we will look at the heading. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good. As long as you guys are going to follow up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're looking at three suggestions, and two involve new RLSA policies and one involves the changing of the service boundaries to be consistent with the infrastructure study that was done. Is there a motion to make that and forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a motion of recommendation with those stipulations? COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, Vigliotti. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. Page 74 January 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Okay, before we adjourn, I'd like to remind everybody, Wednesday, 8:30, CDES. And if you really want to save some time reading, I would suggest you focus on that part of the Phase II report that is the -- contains all of the Phase II section two that contains all of the changes to the amendments so we can work from that report. It would make it much more consistent, I would believe. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- about the location. I would think that this particular meeting is going to be well attended. I hope -- I sure hope it is. Why was that rooms nine and ten over there at the CDES building -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because one person -- two people couldn't attend the times that this room were open. And one of those two persons is Mr. Midney, who is from Immokalee. And I think it would be absolutely critical that he participate. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only way he could participate were on dates that this room was not open, and we have to go to that room. So -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. Page 75 January 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made. Seconded. All in favor? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:22 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 76