Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/21/2009 S Joint AUIR September 21, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE AUIR MEETING OF THE JOINT SESSION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida September 21, 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 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION at 2800 Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Koltlat Paul Midney ( absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti (absent) David J. Woltley (absent) Productivity Committee Members: Gina Downs Douglas M. Fee (absent) Janet Vasey ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page 1 A VIR 2009 SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., on Monday, September 2], 2009, AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, CONFERENCE ROOMS 609/610, 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC/PC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE SPECIAL MEETING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPCIPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE SPECIAL MEETING. ALL MA TERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC/PC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPCIPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES, CA TEGORY A AND CATEGORY B. A. AUIR OVERVIEW - MIKE 80SI B. IMPACT FEES RELATED TO THE AUIR - AMY PATTERSON C. ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT - CHIEF RODRIGUEZ D. OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT - CHIEF McLAUGHLIN E. COUNTY ROADS - NORM FEDER/NICK CASALANGUIDA F. DRAINAGE CANALS AND STRUCTURES - NORM FEDER/JERRY KURTZ/STEVE PRESTON G. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM - JIM DELONYIPHIL GRAMATGES H. SEWER TREATMENT & COLLECTOR SYSTEMS _ JIM DELONY/ PHIL GRAMATGES I. SOLID WASTE - JIM DELONY/ PHIL GRAMA TGES J. PUBLIC SCHOOLS-ALVAH HARDY K. PARKS AND FACILITIES - MARLA RAMSEYIBARRY WILLIAMS L. COUNTY JAIL - CHIEF GREG SMITH M. LA W ENFORCEMENT - CHIEF GREG SMITH N. LIBRARY -MARLA RAMSEY/ MARILYN MATTHES O. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES -JEFF PAGE P. GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS - SKIP CAMP/HANK JONES 3. PUBLIC COMMENT - The Chainnan will open the agenda for Public Comment after each of the categories noted above. 4. ADJOURN September 2009 AUIRlCCPC/PC AgendaIMB/mk 1 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the September 21 st meeting. It's a joint meeting between the Collier County Productivity Committee and the Collier County Planning Commission to go over the AUIR. And for those people who hate government acronyms, because we have so many of them, that's the Annual Update and Inventory Report. And it's the prelude to the budget process for Collier County. Item # 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (AND ROLL CALL) So, with that in mind, will everybody please rise to pledge allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, would you do roll call, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Caron is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent, Mr. Vigliotti is absent, Mr. Woltley is absent. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Koltlat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. Page 2 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from the Productivity Committee, we have Ms. Gina Downs and Ms. Janet Vasey. And I see a space for Mr. Fee when he shows up, ifhe does. So with that in mind, that is a quorum for the Planning Commission, so we'll be able to move on for today. The agenda is basically a walk-through of the various different departments with an overview by Mr. Bosi to begin with. We're taking it a little out of order, from what I can see. We're going to have an impact fee presentation right after Mike. And after that we're going to the fire districts, the Isle of Capri and Ochopee, first. I think that's probably a good move, since otherwise they'd be sitting here for eight hours today. With that in mind, Mike, I'll turn it over to you. Item #2 REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY ON PUBLIC FACILITIES~ CATEGORY A AND CATEGORY B MR. BOSI: Thank you, Commissioner Strain. Just a reminder for everyone, please, to speak with -- into microphone. The meeting is being recorded and broadcast live, so we want to make sure to pick everything up. My name is Mike Bosi with Comprehensive Planning, Planning Manager. Today we are here to review the 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report. That is a -- the prelude process for the establishment of the update of our capital improvement element of our Growth Management Plan. The AUIR contains both the Category A facilities, which are the facilities that make up the concurrency management system, as well as Page 3 September 21, 2009 the Category B facilities, which do not make up our concurrency management system but are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the level of service standards that we have established for this county are being maintained within all those respective areas. A new aspect this year within the A UIR process will be the review of the capital improvement program for the Collier County School District. As you recall, this past year the public school facility element was adopted with -- into our Growth Management Plan. And per the public school facility element, Objective 4 states, the county shall adopt by reference into its capital improvement element the school district's annually updated financially feasible five-year capital improvement plan. The recommendation being sought from the advisory boards regarding the schools is that there is a recommendation to include the district CIP by reference within the County CIE and that no inconsistencies are contained within the district CIP and other planned capital improvements within the AUIR. Additionally, on the agenda we had Amy Patterson to be able to make a presentation. I've spoken with her. She really doesn't have a formal presentation, but she said she'll just take questions as the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee would see fit. There is a component within the staff report where we do describe the impact fees. If I call your attention to Page 8, it highlights the new methodology for the indexing of the County's impact fees. Basically we are now using a two-year average between 2007 and 2008 data to establish the indexing fees. And you can see the comparison of what that indexing fee increase compared to -- the current method compared to the previous method. Additionally, related to impact fees, the Productivity Committee has been working with the park impact fee, and there has been a recommendation from the Productivity Committee at the August 29thE Page 4 September 21, 2009 meeting which would basically have a reduction to the park impact fee for the various dwelling unit categories. On Page 9 provides the reduction within the new methodology suggested by the Productivity Committee. For a single-family detached house it's an average of 17.8 percent reduction. For multi-family, it's a 39 percent reduction. For mobile home and RV it's 29.6 and for hotel-motel it's a 30.38 percent reduction, based upon the new methodology we recommended through the Productivity Committee. And they have spent this past year, I think past year and a half reviewing the impact fee study, the methodology, how it's established. And that recommendation is being made to the Board of County Commissioners related to the park impact fee. Within the staff report, the individual recommendations from the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee are contained on Page 11. By separate motion for each of the Category A and Category B facilities, staff is seeking a recommendation from the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission. The planning Commission, just for -- on October 15th, your second meeting in October, we will be back to the Planning Commission so we can present to the body the recommendations that you will be making today, just for the concurrency and agreement that these are indeed in fact the recommendations that are coming out of today's hearing as well. I'm not sure how the Productivity Committee -- we won't be back to the Productivity Committee. But traditionally Ms. Vasey or another member of the Productivity Committee summarizes their motions. I'm not sure how you would like to take that this year, Janet. I'm not sure. MS. VASEY: We just have a small sub-committee this time. We're not going to be rotating in and out according to the different facilities. So it will be Doug and Gina and I. And we will take votes as a sub-committee and then we will take our recommendations back to the full committee at our next meeting Page 5 September 21,2009 in October. MR. BOSI: One of the trends that you've noticed from year to year, this is -- obviously this is an annual repeating process. And one of the things that as you take part in this in a year to year, you see the changing trends within population within this county. It's highlighted within the staff report. The early part of this decade, the population growth that was experienced by this county and the demands that were being placed upon the infrastructure and service providers to bring new improvements up to the level of service standards established by this county in as quick a manner as possible. Well, those conditions everyone has experienced -- everyone realizes that those conditions have changed. And on this chart, and it's contained also within your staff report, it contains the five-year population projections that are provided to the county from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. It's the state body that performs population projections for every county, for every jurisdiction to utilize for the capital improvement . programmIng. As you can see, the five-year growth percent in 2005 was at 24.5 percent, increased to 31 percent in 2006. And then subsequently, 2007, 2008 and 2009 that five-year increase of population has decreased considerably. 19.7 percent in 2007. And in 2008, the changing conditions, we said well, the next five years we only expect a 12 percent population increase. This year currently we're looking at under eight percent population increase. Basically what we're saying is right now we have a declining population base, and we are trying to find out through local efforts but all through the state efforts is what will be the new growth reality for this county, for the State of Florida, but also for Southwest Florida, for Collier County as the macroeconomic situation starts to repair itself Page 6 September 21, 2009 and starts to found a foundation and a recovery. Well, what does that mean for the in-migration to the State of Florida? What does that mean for the in-migration to this county? We're not quite sure right now. We're not quite sure where that growth rate is going to go. But as a county division and as a county department, we are looking at the improvements that will be necessary, that will be needed when that growth rate starts to come up. And we're trying to evaluate, are these the most efficient plans, are these the most effective plans to be able to serve the population to its greatest extent. When that need does materialize, when we see that the growth rate does start to increase and we do start seeing more demands placed upon our individual systems, we as a county government will be responsive and we'll be able to put the most effective improvements to be able to serve that individual demand. And just as another example of, you know, will that growth rate come back and what will it be, to give -- I looked at the population of the State of Florida on a 10-year basis. And if you look at the visualizer or the television screen, it basically has your year and then it has your 10-year growth rate. And, you know, we've heard many times that this economic slowdown and this population decrease and the issues that we're experiencing is something that's very unique and hasn't happened before, that it's profound, similar to the economic slowdown of the Great Depression. And if you look at the population increases by year to year, you saw in the Forties, between 1940 and 1950, the 10-year population increase for the State of Florida -- or not for the State of Florida, but for Collier County was only 27 percent. Now, if we utilize the 331,800 population number that BEBR has prescribed for us for 2010, basically that would say from 2000 to 2010 we've had a 32 percent increase in population. Page 7 September 21, 2009 Just to put up there that we have had decades where we haven't had 100 percent, where we haven't had a 75 percent increase in population. We've had a decade towards where we've only added a small amount of people. And subsequently following those decades we've had robust growth. I'm not sure if we're going to have a similar pattern following this past -- you know, this economic slowdown in this past decade of growth or limited growth, but it does show that through the cyclical nature that the amenities and the attraction that Collier County in Southwest Florida has to the number of residents, not only throughout this country but through international markets in attraction to the State of Florida, that there will be demands placed upon this county. And we want to be ready to be able to handle these demands as a government and provide the level of services that this county has grown accustomed to in demands from its government. And with that, I would open myself to any questions that you would have for the overall process, any specific questions to the staff report from any of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into the program, I would assume, like we have in the past, we will take it a part of a section at a time as we work through each page and I'll ask everybody if they have any questions as we go through two or three pages at a pace. On this particular effort, Mike's presentation is the first -- I don't know, it's about a dozen pages prior to where it says Category A in your book. Do we have any general questions from anyone at this point? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, on Page 6 you reference Senate Bill 360. What does it mean that they delayed financially feasibility? I know that doesn't apply to us necessarily, but just out of curiosity, what did happen there? MR. BOSI: I think Randy Cohen, our director of comprehensive Page 8 September 21, 2009 planning, would like to address -- MR. COHEN: The legislature previously had adopted, in its previous Senate Bill 360, a financial feasibility requirement for all governmental entities by December 1 st of 2008. Due to the economy and some of the financial realizations affecting local governments, they actually modified in this last legislative session the financial feasibility requirement to December of 2011, because only 25 percent of the governments -- well, approximately 25 percent were financially feasible. Our direction from county management and from the County Board of County Commissioners is, regardless of that change is that we will retain our financial feasibility as we move forward. That way we don't have any future deficits. So that's what transpired. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, the other question is, when does the information from the census get into the BEBR numbers? Do they adjust it at that time, or what happens? MR. BOSI: The official count, April 1 st of 20 1 0 is when the census will be conducted. It won't be until 2011 towards where that information is filtered in. I'm not as tied-in to how the individuals within the University of the BEBR have connections with the census, but I imagine all -- the early returns that will be provided by the census will be shared with the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research to be able to incorporate the vacancy rates, to incorporate the populations for the individual jurisdictions. So I would say the next AUIR you won't have an intluence from the census. But the following year you will have the information that's obtained through the census process to be able to incorporate it within the population projections that are contained within the AUIR. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the last question is that when we look at these population studies, is there a large bank of Page 9 September 21, 2009 empty units that could essentially tlesh up real quick? And are they represented in the potential of that? That latent empty units, where does that apply to these numbers? MR. BOSI: And you're really referring to the vacancy rate. And that is one of the issues. And I think you will hear Norm and Nick speak to that as well. The vacancy rate, those individual units that are out there that are constructed that aren't occupied, they -- at some point in time they will fill with into either seasonal residents or full-time residents and will exert pressure on the individual systems, and there will be not be corresponding impact fees or corresponding additional revenues to provide for those impacts because they've already been paid for basically when the COs were issued. Right now the vacancy rate is one of the biggest questions that we struggle with as a comprehensive planning department. And we're looking towards individual census numbers to provide us with a better understanding of what that individual vacancy rate is so we can better account for what is that slack in the system that can be taken up relatively quickly without any additional revenue coming into the system to be able to aid to system expansion. But no, those numbers aren't contained -- those numbers aren't contained within the numbers that you see within your book. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when we look at this number, especially this year's, we are looking at this number plus the potential of a major jump if things stabilize across the country. MR. BOSI: Yes, you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the reason a lot of people aren't here is they can't sell the house back home. The instant they can do that, they're here. MR. BOSI: And I think that's why when I mentioned the -- we are most certainly tied in. As you hear, you know, it's a world economy. Page 10 September 21, 2009 Our local real estate market is more tied into the global economic -- I'm seeing than most real estate markets because of the nature of it and the attraction that it has to not only to residents within the Midwest and the Northeast but also residents within South America, Central America and within Europe as well. When the real estate markets within those markets starts to become more active, I think you're correct, we will start seeing that migration again. Because the amenities that have made Southwest Florida so attractive, and in particular Collier County so attractive in the past, I don't think those amenities, I don't think those conditions have changed. I just think that the financial situation has changed somewhat. And until those financial situations become more akin to what's normal, what's stable, it's preventing that intlux of population that we've had in the past. And an additional thing, I think once the economic situation within Collier County begins to stabilize and once economic growth and economic opportunities presents itself, that will also aid or that will also add to the demand that the individual area will be subjected to, bringing in individuals like myself and other professionals who have moved to Southwest Florida or would like to move to Southwest Florida based upon economic opportunity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair, I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Murray, Ms. Downs, then Ms. Vasey. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Looking at Page 5, Mike, and relating to schools where it speaks in essentially the middle of the paragraph, it says located consistent with existing and proposed residential areas they serve and are approximate to appropriate existing and future land uses. Just so I can understand a little bit more clearly, land uses would also include, would it not, roads, sidewalks and other things? Page 11 September 21, 2009 Is the AUIR -- in connection with schools, does the AUIR consider those aspects of it? Are they included in this AUIR as a projection in any way? MR. BOSI : Well, based upon the lack -- there are no new schools being proposed. So in this AUIR -- there's only a 222-seat expansion in Laurel Oaks Elementary that are being proposed by the school district. And that facility is fully served by urban infrastructure and . serVIces. If there was a new school being proposed, that is most certainly __ is there an adequate road system, is there an adequate sideway (sic) system to serve that individual school that's being proposed? That is part of this process, that is part of the inclusion within the school district public school facility element within the Growth Management Plan, to make sure that our infrastructure plans are married up so there's not an inconsistency created by a new school that's being proposed that isn't being serviced by those sidewalks and roads. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's very important, and I recognize that we haven't got anything new. But certainly accounting for it is the critical factor. Now, it's by reference for the schools. How then -- will you be having separate line items for those items that are ancillary, if you will, to those schools, or how shall I say, not ancillary but certainly related to that activity? Will that be associated with the schools or will it be associated with the normal process? In other words, increments within each of those AUIR portions, like roads and -- MR. BOSI: Well, the individual -- a good example is roads. The primary infrastructure that services the schools and the basic requirement is adequate road system. And with that, sidewalks as well. They will have to be -- they will have to be proposed -- they will have to be contained within the AUIR, ifnot already existing, to service Page 12 September 21, 2009 whatever school is being proposed. One of the -- if you remember about three years ago with Vanderbilt Beach extension and the uncertainly as to when that road was going to be put forward, as well as the EEE, the high school off of the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, there was an inconsistency within the timing. One thing that this slowdown has allowed is that EEE has been pushed out to the later years of 20 18, 2019. It has now allowed our infrastructure planning for roads and that school to marry up within the same time frame to make sure that there's not that inconsistency. And that's really what this pause and what this slowdown has allowed, each individual division and department to look out, look at each other's capital improvement plans and make sure that there's going to be more consistencies within the plans that are moving forward. So, yes, there will be as they're put forward. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's very good. And I hope that's possible to continue that. I know that also my recollection that the schools' concurrency matters, that there seem to be -- there's a six-month or more lag in the planning process. And how are we going to capture those issues? Now, none of this is apparently relevant to this moment; however, it is part of a planning process and it is an issue that we will face. So how do we -- what have we done to made sure that we capture all of this information and keep it concurrent? MR. BOSI: Every month myself, Michelle Mosca, we attend a school working group with Mr. Eastman and Ms. Amy Taylor from school facilities with the jurisd -- with Everglades City, City of Naples and the City of Marco Island. On a monthly basis we sit on a long-range planning purview and we talk about issues of capital improvement, infrastructure Page 13 September 21, 2009 improvements, timing, what the growth rates the schools are experiencing, what the growth rate the county's experiencing, where the pockets of growth are at, making sure that there's a much better information flow between the two bodies so there is consistencies within the plans that we are contained. That process has been going on now for over four years. But with the inclusion of the public school facility element, we now have more structure and a more direct response or more direct programming that is going on and information exchange that's going on between the two bodies, which is to everyone's -- I think to everyone's recognition a terrific improvement towards where we were at just five years ago. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excellent. Really, excellent, that's great. That's going to give folks a lot of confidence. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Thank you. Since we are in a population that's contracting and not expanding, and we would all agree that's temporary, but obviously you are able to adjust from year to year the BEBR figures that you accept and put to use. You dropped from a high BEBR to the medium. Was there any consideration to dropping to the low BEBR numbers? And if not, why not? MR. COHEN: By Florida statute every governmental entity within the State of Florida is actually required to use medium BEBR projections, okay? If you want to change from medium BEBR to either low or high, you have to provide justification for doing that. We're currently at a point in time in this county where we have a lot of vacant units. We don't know how those vacant units are going to come back into the system, whether or not they're going to be seasonal, whether or not they're going to be permanent, what that population per household will be, what the timing will be. What we know is that those rooftops are there and eventually those units will be Page 14 September 21, 2009 filled. I think it's incumbent upon us as a governmental entity to take a look at the census data when it comes on in and see whether or not it actually captures our population as it is. We have a lot of concern with respect to the vacancy rate and the timing of the census and how that works. So we're going to have to modify -- monitor not only the census data but the BEBR data that's moving forward, because the census in 2010 is going to form that base year. And we have a lot of concerns because BEBR normally ratifies its population data by looking at electrical hookups. And we have a lot of vacant units that keep their electric on now just for mold reasons and others as well, too. So we have some concerns in that light as well, too. So we are monitoring that. I think local governments across the state are very concerned. There was a report that went to the legislature about two weeks ago from their demographics specialist pertaining to long-term growth rates where in the past we were adding 400,000 people to the state every year, and they've recognized that when the economy does rebound, that will probably be changed to around 200,000. So we're going to have to very carefully look at our population projections in the future and analyze it accordingly. This is not a good year to do it, but in the future we definitely need to take a good look at it. MR. BOSI: And I would add, within the Growth Management Plan when we did go to the BEBR medium, we did put a provision within the GMP that says that we have the ability every year to look at the utilization of the BEBR medium, and if the board saw fit they could request staff to analyze whether it would be prudent to move to a BEBR low. I'm not sure -- I don't think staff feels comfortable right now that we know enough right now about what our growth rates are going to Page 15 September 21, 2009 be in the future to suggest that recommendation. But that is a provision within the GMP that says on an annual basis the board can revisit that issue, whether it's appropriate to utilize the BEBR medium or to change to -- or explore the possibility of going in either direction. MS. DOWNS: Are you aware of any other counties that may have changed to the BEBR low? MR. CO HEN: In the past, only one governmental entity actually requested going to BEBR low. And DCA said no and they provided documentation to the effect as to why as their population flattened out. I'm not aware of any this year. I can contact them and ask them. I think with what's going on in the state and in all the transition and all the unknowns, that a lot of governments are kind of sitting back and waiting to see what transpires more than anything. They don't want to have a knee-jerk reaction to it. But -- MS. DOWNS: Would you do that, would you look into what other counties may have switched to low? MR. COHEN: Sure, no problem whatsoever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey, then Ms. Caron. MS. VASEY: I'd just like to make a couple of general comments. The Productivity Committee just went through the FYI0 budget review. And I'm sure you've all read the papers and followed what happened. In FYI 0, there was a $30 million drop in property tax revenues as a result of the property values dropping. That would be what would have been collected if we had kept the same millage rate in FYI0 that we had in FY09. We had a meeting last week, and Commissioner Coyle told us that the expectation is that there will be as significant a drop in FY 11. That's the general feeling at this time. So as we go through the Productivity Committee review of the AUIR, we'll be looking to be very careful about any increases, any programs that use general fund dollars. Because if we have another 30 million drop, we need to find places where we can take that money. Page 16 September 21, 2009 As you probably know also, there was a 13.3 percent increase in the general fund tax rate to bring the revenues back up. I think if we -- you all know that the first year of the A UIR comes pretty quickly then into the budget year. And a lot of the decisions that are made here are generally accepted then in budget. So I think we have to be very rigorous at what goes into the FY 11 year. And I just wanted to tell you where we're coming from in our . reVIew. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mike, on the first page of your staff report, in the second paragraph you make a statement that says, under no circumstances can a project be removed from the five-year CIE where the reason is lack or decrease of revenue. Is that a state __ MR. BOSI: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. However, am I correct in saying that projects can be removed if there is no need? If the growth doesn't rise up to meet-- MR. BOSI: Demand is an acceptable reason; therefore, lack of demand. One thing that needs clarification. On your Category B facilities, you can remove at any time. These are only related to the Category A facilities, which the state monitors for concurrency management. Lack of revenue is not an acceptable answer to DCA. Lack of demand is. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, another question on Page 8, Mike. Looking at that little table there, it strikes me as interesting. Government buildings, it seems to me that the percentage is still too high. Why is that high like that? Page 1 7 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, if that's a better question when we get to that Category B facility -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. In other words, going into depth, fine. But you had it at the outset, so I addressed it at the outset. MR. BOSI: And I would suggest we will raise that with either Hank from government buildings or maybe Ms. Patterson from the impact fee would be able to address that as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay, not a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw you look around so I knew oh, oh, he's in trouble. Anybody else have any general questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I've just got a couple. On Page 4 on the top, I found it interesting that your bold writing said that the department or division, if they've placed a capital project in the first three years, they're guaranteeing that construction will be completed during that fiscal year. And then below it says they were guaranteed a financial source as well. And I'm used to guarantees, I deal with them every day. So let's say -- I can't think of anybody we can use -- oh, Nick, let's use Nick as an example. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, surprise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifhe says he's going to build a road and he doesn't do it, does that mean he's canned or what happens? MR. COHEN: We would like to see that, but -- no, I'm sorry, Nick. What the Board of County Commissioners' direction is, is that they did not want to see specific projects in the first three years unless the funding was in place. So the direction is to any division or any department as part of the CIE or the AUIR, that if you're going to put it in those years, we want it complete in those years. Page 18 September 21, 2009 Now, we have had some situations in transportation in the past which we're all aware of where we've run into either utilities underground or some other issues as well where it's been pushed out a little bit. But the main thing here is that the dollars and the funding is available to complete the projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But from the department head's perspective, though, to be fair, the dollars are only available to them if the political process retains them for them. Meaning each year that they adopt the budget, if they see a different priority, can't they move those things around? MR. COHEN: Well, in most instances, and I'll use transportation as an example, and Nick can correct me if I'm wrong, normally those projects that are showing up are either under construction, the RFP's have gone out and the projects have actually been let, you know, they've been bid on out, and they know what's going to transpire in terms of timing. I see Norm's up there so he can add to that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm's anxious to get chewed on this morning, but this isn't the time we were going to do it. But go ahead, Norm, you're more than welcome. MR. FEDER: By all means. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I think the key in what you have on Page 4 is your planned use of those funds and the commitment of those dollars. Obviously in transportation you got a number of phases, a number of issues you deal with in production. So if the budgeting is there, let's say, for a construction phase, and we have some permitting issues or items that take it out of that fiscal year and move it to the next fiscal year, those dollars on a capital program will typically roll, knowing that you're already maybe five or six years into commitment of dollars in that demand and that programming. So it's not a new item that comes in. We decide in an AUIR to do Page 19 September 21, 2009 a project and then don't do it that next year, you're a seven or eight-year process through that. And in the case of one I can think of, Oil Well as an example, the intention was to let that this year. We're fairly close to letting it. But we have about four issues that we're resolving, three of which are almost resolved and one close. And then we're going to be letting it. It probably won't make this fiscal year, obviously, with the 30th coming upon us very shortly, but it will be close after that. But that is the anticipation is that you do it in that year, and we've committed. And when you mentioned the other one on construction, that's not really the commitment of the dollars, that's the year that I let it. And in the unfortunate part of two projects where they were delayed by utilities, but generally we've delivered on the program as set. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the guarantee is only as good as the ability for the department to perform based on permitting, based on funding, based on a political process. And the reason I'm making this point is all the planning approvals that we do at the Planning Commission is contingent upon roads being at a certain place, water lines being where they're supposed to, solid waste being available. And with you saying there's a guarantee, it was kind of like a project we got into on Davis Boulevard just recently. I was one of the no votes on that project because I didn't have a lot of faith that the improvements on Radio Road from Radio Road to the intersection of 951 necessarily would happen in the time frames in which this project was going to be limited in its development cycle. And if it doesn't happen, the project is already a failing road. You can't really guarantee the state's going to do that road. And that's why the guarantee that I see on Page 4 is somewhat hollow in that regard. And I just thought it was an interesting word to use for what you can't control, so -- Page 20 September 21, 2009 MR. BOSI: And you're right, the individual departments and divisions are guaranteed to everything that they can control within their authority will be provided for. But as you said, the political process can provide them with a U-turn that's, you know, that's outside of their control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the other -- another item on schools, and Mr. Murray got into it a little bit. We have a school section in here, but really, the ability for this body to do much with the schools really is just to make sure that what the schools are saying in their section is tied to the infrastructure or the other facilities in any of the other section. But from the school perspective, we're not -- we don't carry any weight with the school board, I don't believe, or how __ do we have any interaction there? They're going to actually vote on this I think before it's resolved anyway, aren't they? Isn't their voting period ahead of our final approval on it? MR. BOSI: Their CIP will be approved before the Board of County Commissioners approves the final AUIR. And then also the CIE, more in particular the CIE, which is the capital improvement element, which heads the reference to the CIP. Basically the role of the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee related to the review of the school's capital improvement program is just to ensure in a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that there are no inconsistencies being created by the proposed CIP. But you're right, the -- because the school district manages their own concurrency management system. It's contained within our Growth Management Plan, but it's contained in a nature that's different than the other category of facilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, my last -- MR. COHEN: I think it probably warrants an explanation as to why they adopt their CIP prior to ours. And it has to do with budget years. Their budget year starts July 1 st of every year and they're Page 21 September 21, 2009 required to have that CIP in place. And obviously we don't act in our A UIR and CIE until after that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was one of the issues you highlighted when we adopted their process into ours, or when merged the school system's actions with ours back, what is it, six months ago when we had that concurrency addition, so -- And my last question is the population that you've predicted for the next five years. Would I be right to assume that the only population included in there for the RLSA would be changes in Ave Maria to any great extent? Or were you guys knowingly predicting growth out in the RLSA in the next five years outside of -- substantial growth outside of the Ave Maria project? MR. BOSI: In the population allocations, the BEBR gives us a static number, and then we as a comprehensive planning department, based upon the past year's permitting process will allocate what percentage of those populations are going to be spatially distributed throughout the county. Based upon the past COs of this year, there is no other areas other than Ave Maria that would be associated with population growth in the RLSA. We didn't try to incorporate whether Big Cypress was going to be -- because that's so far out. And we only utilized the CO pattern for the past year that guides us into how we're going to allocate our spatial distribution of the BEBR population. So yes, correct, it would only be within the Ave Maria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a follow-up question? COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, no, I was just going to comment on the school's portion of it, that dichotomy in when we __ our budget years are is not going to affect us this year, it may not affect us next year, but down the road that could become a real problem for this county. And I know we discussed that when we were going through the Page 22 September 21, 2009 school concurrency, but I just see that as out there looming as some potential -- really a problem, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You bring up an interesting point. I had this vision in my mind when you were explaining about how you took this glob of information and decided to spread it about, and it went to Ave Maria and RLSA, because that's the only place you can logically conclude it goes. Doesn't that create an aberration, though, in the projection, in the planning projection that would then cause roads and other things to follow it? I mean, I recognize you're in a pickle in trying to figure out what to do with this unwieldy thing they've given you, but what then -- how do you work that? MR. BOSI: Well, remember, this is the -- the AUIR and the CIE is for a five-year window. And in our five-year window we are utilizing what BEBR is projecting, and we're basing it on our past year's CO issuance. So in the short run it seems like it would be a problem. But our long-range projections, every improvement you're seeing within the Capital Improvement Element, for roads in particular, are taken from their long-range transportation plan. And that long-range transportation plan, and Nick may get into it a little bit more, and it relates to what -- an additional project that they're undertaking, which is the master mobility plan, which is the next phase of the East of 951 Horizon Study. Nick's going to try to bring a little bit more specificity to the focus of what is going to be developed in the east of 951 area. But what happens is we'll have allocations of growth for the Big Cypress, for the other villages and towns as to what those projections are on the long-range. And as we get to the five-year window, we kind of fit it in towards what the numbers that BEBR is going to provide us Page 23 September 21, 2009 and where that next immediate need of improvement is going to be, grabbing it from the long-range transportation plan and put it into the five-year specific window. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I understand. But that requires then that the budgeteers end up doing a lot of place holding. They end having to plug in numbers that may not be reflective of any truth. MR. BOSI: Well, that's -- and we do it on an annual basis. And it's something that it's constantly -- it's almost a misnomer to say we do it on an annual basis. The planners and the budgeteers are constantly running the numbers, trying to change based upon the conditions at hand, not only on the long range but on the short term, as to how the changing conditions are marrying up and where those reservations need to be. Is it an exact science? No, but it is a science that tries to be reflective to the changing conditions and the changing demands towards where those needs are going to be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you. I understand the difficulty . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to our -- well, our next agenda item is an impact fee discussion that I think you said Amy would just as soon defer until we have specific questions as we go through the rest of the categories. And ifno one has an objection to that, we can proceed that way. So that would take us out of sequence. We're going to pull up two Category B discussions first. Both of the fire districts that are controlled by the county, the Isle of Capri Fire District and the Ochopee Fire District. We'll start with them today. And hopefully they we won't be sitting through a day or two's meetings waiting for their brief issues. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission and the Productivity Page 24 September 21, 2009 Committee for having us early on the agenda. I'll be here on behalf of Chief Rodriguez, who is on vacation. MR. BOSI: It's Page 223 within your books, the start of the Isle of Capri. Sorry, Chief. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's okay, go right ahead. MR. COHEN: Chief, she needs you to identify yourself for the record. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I'm sorry. Alan McLaughlin, Ochopee Fire Chief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 202. Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that the earlier or the later edition book for you? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The fifth revision. Before you, you have the AUIRs for both Ochopee and Isle of Capri. We'll start with Isle of Capri. And I'll ask if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we start with Isle of Capri. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one thing is the concern is the need for the Mainsail facility. How many of those buildings that are -- would be covered by that are sprinklered buildings? I know the highrises are, but -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: All the new development within Hammock Bay is sprinklered, including the single-family units that are in there. Nothing on Mainsail Drive. The Mainsail buildings and the Tropic Schooner portion that's covered Isle of Capri is sprinklered at this time. The new facilities in the back, the maintenance facility and the water facility are currently in the East Naples Fire District. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So even though the ISO Page 25 September 21, 2009 timing's out, they are highly protected buildings and -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that should make us a little more comfortable. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Under the aspect of fire, correct. The other four-minute response has to do with the EMS responses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Isle of Capri? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, I have a couple of questions here. Unit costs. And I have read your explanation. I kind of want to ask you to explain your explanation. Last year your unit cost was $1,230,000 per owned station. Your available inventory was that one station and your required inventory was a little bit above that. You've drastically changed your numbers, you're almost triple in all categories this year. Can you explain how we got there? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: From what I understand, I was talking with Chief Rodriguez, the allocation costs that they had were old numbers, and a lot of that had to do with the station replacement. The cost of current construction standards to Cat 5 because of the location significantly increases that replacement. And the vehicle costs they had originally have gone up considerably. The NFP standards have raised the cost of engines about $140,000 apiece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last year at 1,230,000. You're now at $3,424,000 for the same single station. From an impact fee study basis, and I guess Amy may have to answer this best, you do collect impact fees, do you not? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: They do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Amy, I hate to ask you this, but I Page 26 September 21, 2009 need some information on impact fees. If this gentleman is collecting impact fees and he had to almost triple his value this year, how does he do that in correlation with the impact fee study, since it probably was the same impact fee study or similar that we had last year as well? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record, Impact Fee Manager for Collier County. Your question is how it affects the impact fee study? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, if you have an impact fee study that provides the rational nexus between the amount of fees that you charge versus the costs of the facilities, how do you justify the fact that we had an impact fee study last year that justified a unit cost of 1,230,000, yet this year that same unit cost has gone up to 3,424,000? MS. PATTERSON: The last impact fee study done for the dependent fire districts was done in 2006.2009 would have actually been an update year. That would be the time that we would capture those updated costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So from 2006 to 2009 you had triple the value in stations when everybody else has been seeing the opposite? MS. PATTERSON: It's possible if it's the reasons that they're-- if they're having to build to a higher standard because of hurricanes and other things, then those would be things that would have to be addressed during the impact fee study process. So right now they're collecting impact fees based on the old costs that would have been built into the study. And when and if the impact fee is updated, it would reflect a portion of or all of the new cost, depending on what's appropriate. It is not a guarantee that all of those costs would be incorporated, we would have to make sure that that's all appropriate to be included in the impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does this mean that the impact fee rate goes up? MS. PATTERSON: It does. If there were that dramatic of an Page 27 September 21, 2009 increase in cost without some other mitigating factor like big credits, if they were receiving large amounts of ad valorem taxes to offset, then it could mean a dramatic increase in their rates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we've gone from 2006 to 2009 in a recessionary market. Land values have dropped, costs for labor have dropped, costs for materials have dropped from everybody. Yet we're being told an impact fee study is going to show that the costs have increased to a point of almost triple and that there's going to be an impact fee increase because of that? MS. PATTERSON: Well, we would have to vet out those numbers. What they're showing is as the potential costs would have to be vetted out for the appropriateness of being included in the study. And also remember, if the study calls for an impact fee that's even triple, doesn't mean that the Board of County Commissioners has to adopt that rate. They may be satisfied with their current rate. And that just sets -- the impact fee study sets the maximum rate that can be legally applied, it's not the rate that has to be applied. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but the basis of the study is what concerns me. I don't think anybody's seen increases to this magnitude and cost over the last three years. If anything, we've seen just the opposite. And if you have a study that shows this kind of an increase and somehow the original number was justified at the time, and it must have been justified for quite a period of time prior to 2008, because we had impact fees for years on fire -- MS. PATTERSON: Since 1997. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I don't understand this, what I consider a very substantial change over a three-year period in a market that was down, not up, when you would expect just the opposite to occur. MS. PATTERSON: And I expect that the consultant would ask serious questions. Any time you see numbers that are increasing that much, even in a regular time, not a recessionary period, the consultant Page 28 September 21, 2009 goes through those numbers very carefully to make sure that there's not some anomaly, that there's a rationale for that. It's not just something that's just put in at face value. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe I'm not understanding, then. The consultant isn't the one that provided this unit cost of 3,424,00? MS. PATTERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, where did that come from? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Chief Rodriguez. MS. PATTERSON: From the fire district. That would be based on their most recent costs -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe accept this number, then that could be the basis for an increase in impact fees? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No. The AUIR is representative of what -- the value of the building. It has nothing to do with impact fees. The current value of that building prior to this year's proposal was less, which you saw last year. The relative cost of replacement -_ and that's what this asks, what is the replacement value of that building -- is going to be twice what it is last year, because that building now has to go to two floors. And with the new NFP A standards for fire stations, it has about another $180,000 alone in just sprinklering. So when you start looking at the value costs, and we went back and asked the engineers and asked the construction people what's it going to cost to replace this building to today's standard, this building built in 1975 in a Cat 5 zone next to the water? Well, we have to go two stories with it, we have to go up. Now, if you have to replace your home to Cat 5 standard, it was built, whenever, 1975, and you paid whatever for it, you're going to probably pay five times what you paid for it then. And that's what this . IS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So in the past year this has changed? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: He put the values in for this current Page 29 September 21, 2009 year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where did he get his values from? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That I cannot answer. I'd have to get back with you on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: I guess the only question I would have is, consulting the 2008 AUIR, the Isle of Capri Fire Control and Rescue District, the unit cost they had allocated was $3,308,700. That is only about $100,000 less than this year. So maybe I'm not understanding what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that may be my -- I turned to the same page last year. Maybe you had a different -- looks like you did. I was looking at Ochopee. You're right, my apologies. So -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- never mind. I was reading the Ochopee report from last year. It's on the same page as this year's Isle of Capri report, so -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I'll answer that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you -- oh, you can answer Ochopee? We haven't got to that one yet. Okay, anybody else have questions after I've wasted so much time on Isle of Capri? Go ahead, Janet. MS . VASEY: On Page 202, you show an available inventory of the 3 million, four, and a required inventory of the end ofFY14 offive million, one. But then you show zero as the proposed AUIR for the five-year period and zero for the surplus or deficit. And it seems to me that if you're showing those numbers, you're either planning to build it in the five years or it is a deficit. MR. BOSI: And let me echo what Chief Rodriguez had said to the advisory boards last year and to the Board of County Commissioners. Ideally for response time, for ISO response times, that Mainsail Page 30 September 21, 2009 Drive location will be constructed. But based upon the limitation of their funding, based upon the impact fee revenue that's projected, based upon the lack of revenue that they have, unless that money materializes, they will not build that facility. So yes, I mean, based upon the level of service standard they should have that building in the inventory. But unless that money is available from the impact fee revenue, they have no plans on moving forward with it. MS. VASEY: So it doesn't show as a deficit? MR. BOSI: And I guess we could have shown that as an individual deficit in just -- identify the money alloca -- or the money necessary to construct the station, but it was the decision of Comprehensive Planning and the Isle of Capri basically to show that as a desire to meet the need but that the Isle of Capri was not going to move forward with it unless the funding was available. So I guess -- I mean, it's a matter of semantics. We can show it as a deficit. We could show it as a deficit to be able to satisfy that ISO response times. If you'd like to, we can modify the book moving forward to the Board of County Commissioners. But that station is not going to be constructed unless the money is available. MS. VASEY: Right. It just seems like it's unclear as to what the intent is, if you're not showing it funded in the five-year program but you're showing it as a requirement for that five-year program. It's just unclear what you're planning to do with it. MR. COHEN: Ms. Vasey, your point is well taken. I think what we need to do is show it as a deficit, note that the funding source is unavailable, and that way the BCC will fully understand that there is a funding deficiency associated with impact fees as they move forward in considering this particular item. MS . VASEY: And are we totally sure that there is -- that this is an absolute requirement with the ISO ratings? I remember -- I wasn't in last year's AUIR, but the year before I Page 31 September 21, 2009 remember looking at some of the things in it. It wasn't clear to me that that was an absolute requirement. The times were very close in how long it takes to get from your current station to the Mainsail properties. So are we sure that that's an absolute requirement? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Absolutes are -- saying absolute is -- nothing's an absolute. A fire station's an absolute requirement. ISO bases itself on distances. Time is part of that distance. One point five miles is going to be your best rating. And I happened to do the ISO rating for Isle of Capri at the time. To provide a better rate for that area, their recommendation was to put a station within that area, which would also provide service to the area of Fiddler's Creek that is in Isle of Capri district also. Because once you get up into that area, you're getting at 4.3 miles and that was beyond their ability to capture a better rating up in that area. So that's what it's based on. It's not -- is it an absolute? No, it's not an absolute. Does it provide a better service and a better insurance rating for the people, which is a reduction? Correct. At what cost? You have to spread that over 20 years. MR. BOSI: And if you look at -- Page 2 of7 gives you the spatial justification for that I.S-mile drive time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But before you go off that subject, just so Janet realizes it, Fiddler's Creek is less than two miles down the road from the East Naples Fire Station. So why wouldn't they then benefit from that ISO rating being so close to another station that you have an interlocal agreement with? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The ISO is a little particular on how they take in stations according to mutual aid agreements. They don't count that as part of the primary district. It's an adjunct that's added into it. There's nothing we can do about that, it's just the way they do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So even though there's a station two miles or less up the road, you have to put one right next to another Page 32 September 21, 2009 project, close to another station because it's a different fire district, so that the people could benefit from an ISO rating that they already really have the protection from because the other station's right next to them. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Absolutely. City of Naples has a station three-quarters of a mile from Goodlette Road. They don't get that benefit in East Naples from that, it's just an adjunct to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, if there was ever a need for consolidation, you've just made it. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's been an ongoing problem with ISO for years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody-- MS. VASEY: That just kind of makes the requirement seem very iffy in real life. You know, I can understand how things are calculated, but as a real term, you know, in reality for taking care of meeting the requirements for fire and saving people and property and all of that, I'm not sure that it's a real strong requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of the problem, if we move that extra required inventory to deficit and the Board of County Commissioners sees that then as a need and they'll use that to justify either more impact fees or more taxes, there really is no need. There is a need for these fire departments to start cooperating once in a while and form one district so that people can benefit from having stations side by side or not have to have stations side by side. I'm not sure if the solution is putting it into the deficit category without a firm understanding that the example being used is already met by another district and there's no sense to adding a station that close to another district's station. MS. VASEY: Well, maybe that would be the way to handle it, though, is to show it as a deficit with a footnote that says this is not a high priority requirement. It's recognized that according to ISO it's needed but in reality there's some question as to whether it is needed Page 33 September 21,2009 or not. And so, you know, with that highlighted, it might make it more understandable as to what it is and whether it really needs to be met any time soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd hate to see this used as justification to change -- more taxation, when it really is not needed in this location. But I think that would be a good idea. MR. COHEN: And just for clarification purposes, the footnote you would want us to clarify the mutual aid agreement and reference that, between the fire district? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't it be more broader than this, that if there are stations within a radius, regardless of which district it is in, that station should be considered in responding to whether or not another station for any particular district is needed. I think that would solve it from a much more global perspective. Not just in the Isle of Capri but anyplace else in Collier County where we have multiple stations or proposing to go next door to one another just to cover one's district. That's foolish. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Chief, the response time isn't the only factor in the ISO rating. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, the ISO rating covers multiple things. Fifty percent of that rating is your water supply, 10 percent's your communication system. The other 40 percent has to do with the training, to types of trucks, how many people are on the trucks, locations of stations, there's -- that packet's about that big. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Type of construction. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Type of construction, right. There's a lot of things that are involved in that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason that's important is that these are really mostly new buildings, at least in the Hammock and probably Fiddler's Creek. So these are buildings that would rank Page 34 September 21, 2009 extremely high on type of construction and have sprinkler protection, probably. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: The oldest ones in there, Tropic Schooner and the Mainsail buildings, were built in the late Seventies, early Eighties, the two-stories in there, unprotected, Type 3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all the questions on the Isle of Capri element? Anybody? COMMISSIONER CARON: The last statement that was just made should be further footnoted, that's another reason not to build the station is because of the ratings, all the buildings, they are newer buildings, they are all sprinklered, they -- you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Unfortunately the ISO rating is going to take the worst building, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some buildings in that vicinity, such as Port Au Prince and places like that where the buildings were built back 40 years ago or 30 years ago. So I'm not sure that that would fit in all -- would be the same unilaterally. So I'm not -- know if that would work or not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the ISO equation it might not be good. The practicality is they're safe new buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we'll take up discussion on Ochopee at this point. And Chief, rewind back to where we started talking. Every number I said and every word I said applies to Ochopee, not to the Isle of Capri -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Okay, let me go back to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are the ChiefofOchopee, so now you can explain what you did. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yeah, those questions I can answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't get away from it this time. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Not looking to. Last year is the first year in the AUIR we looked through this. I Page 35 September 21, 2009 had some questions on how the statistics were run, how they were gathered and who put them in there prior to me taking over Ochopee. I got with Mike this year and I had some real concerns about what was being shown in the statistics for last year. Replacement costs of structures and buildings from our analysis was far off from what they would be. After going back to the -- some of the builders and asking them questions and getting some estimates of costs, going back to our vehicle apparatus manufacturers and asking current replacement costs, these are the numbers we came up with. Now, if you look at the first one, if you flip over in your page, you see a considerable increase. And the one you're talking about is basically the Ochopee station that the county owns. That's our station out on 41 called 66 at the top of Page 246. Originally I think that was about 240 or 430,000 last year with some costs of some replacements of some items in there. If you pull that one out from last year. Well, that's a metal building. You can't replace a metal building in Collier County. So to replace that building with a CBS structure and Cat 5 construction, because we're in a five zone, that's the cost, today's cost. So if I'm replacing a metal building, yeah, $245,000 would have been fine. And that's what was in that for numbers of years, from what I understand. I cannot replace that building today because I can't put a metal building up. MS. DOWNS: Can I correct you? I think you mean Page 224 is the costs that you're talking about. CHIEF MmLAUGHLIN: I have Page 246. MS. DOWNS: No, that's not our page. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: That's not your page? MS. DOWNS: Page 224. Page 36 September 21, 2009 CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Okay, different book. MS. DOWNS: Is that what we have, or do we have a different book? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: This sheet? MS. DOWNS: Yes. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Your 224? My 246, sorry. My correction. Anyways, if you look at the top there, that's where that cost replacement comes from. We did some adjustments on -- the equipment vehicles were kept there because the one prior was not relative to the vehicles we actually had there. We had actually put some at auction and moved some things around. And what the actual equipment was in that facility, we went back and did an inventory of that what actually was in there. If you look at the building cost of replacement for Station 60 in Everglades City, we don't currently own that station, but if we had to replace that station, that's the current cost to replace that facility today, and the current updated cost of the vehicle and apparatus in that facility stationed there to replace it today. If you go down and look at the current replacement cost of the station of Port of the Islands, we currently own half of the marina at $843,000. That's less the 430 to $450,000 renovation that we have to do plus the apparatus that's going to be stationed in there. Excuse me, the apparatus is listed there. And then of course at the bottom you see what we currently have for our office and contract rental descriptions. So that's where those numbers come from and that's why those increases are. We've added a station at 1.4 million almost that wasn't in last year's, and we've updated the current cost replacement of the two facilities that we currently use. And that is a significant increase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's a lot easier to explain that way than when you were trying to do Isle of Capri. Page 37 September 21, 2009 Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Chief, isn't Ochopee in the Category 5 -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- storm surge? And yet the price of the building seems considerably less. CHIEF MmLAUGHLIN: Well, that particular building is inland and it is a fallback facility. It would not be a fully functional facility. And if we replaced it, we wouldn't replace it with the size of the facility we currently have. That's why that cost is less than Capri. Capri's a four-bay facility. We would not replace it with a four-bay facility . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My ques -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You wouldn't have to go to second story as you indicated? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No, we're further inland. We just have to meet a wind load. We have no wat -- we don't have a storm surge there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is your expectation of the building after a Category 5 storm goes over it? I mean, the fully functional fire station? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. Same as your new ASC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good luck. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yeah. Well, in Everglades City that's -- the cost of that one is we have to go up because of the location. We get a Category 1 with oncoming, we have to leave. We got water -- you know, Fay last year we had water up to the top of the driveway. So we realize that the facility in Everglades City, to replace that will have to be a two-story facility to function. We have to meet 18 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With complete utilities -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Complete utilities to function. Page 38 September 21, 2009 Everything would be up on the second floor, generators, living. The water would come in, the water would go out, and basically go walk downstairs and clean the mud up. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You hope. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Hopefully. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the Ochopee Fire District? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, your third item on Page 224, which is your 246, it says donations, Station 61, Port of the Islands. And then it lists a series of costs. What was donated? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: What page do you have? I'm sorry. I read -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have 224, you've got 246. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: 246? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's that one we had previously -- you just held up a few minutes ago. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: To answer that, just give me a second to grab that back. Here we go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your third block. It says in the beginning -- well, it talks about donations. And the Everglades City one, I see the land is zeroed out, so I assume that was a donation. But the one below it, Port of the Islands, there's nothing zeroed out. I'm just wondering what was donated. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: At this time nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So there is no donation for Station 61, so that word probably doesn't mean anything in that case, right? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Page 39 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Chief, isn't 61 the building the county bought and you're going to be within it? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: We purchased half of the marina facility. Basically that half we purchased is empty until the funding's available to renovate it. That renovation cost has been estimated to us at $430,000. Currently there is a grant into FEMA for station reconstruction that's out there that so far we haven't got a pink letter on it. And they've already started the process. We currently are operating out of the motel under a lease agreement with Port of the Isles, LLC. So we are there functioning, but we are functioning out of the hotel at this time, temporary interim basis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the important point is you bought your way into the building, so -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. We own 50 percent of that building currently and we're in the process of renovationing (sic) it so we can put it as a full-time facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions on the Ochopee Fire District? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on Isle of Capri Fire District? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we wrap these two up, we can seek a vote on how we want to stand on those two. Mike, I'm assuming it's appropriate to do that as we move through this instead of at the end? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a recommendation that we forward with approval as presented. Page 40 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- okay, motion's been made and seconded. However, the Isle of Capri -- we've got to take them separately, first of all. The Isle of Capri was the one that we suggested making the change with a footnote, moving the value to a deficit and adding a footnote as we previously discussed. And Mike, are you clear on that change to the Isle of Capri? MR. BOSI: The one thing about the footnote I thought it would be more appropriate to have it localized where we're not trying to have a global issue, but based upon the newness of the buildings, that they are sprinkled, that within two miles the East Naples Fire Department can provide service, even though it's not recognized by the Isle of Capri, decreases the need for that Mainsail Drive location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think you can't include all the subjects you just said, because as we noted, not all the buildings within this radius that has to be in are necessarily all new, they could be older. So we were kind of thinking that may not be the right thing to throw in at this time. So I think you were going to focus on the fact that there are other stations close enough to this area that we don't have a problem with the radius response time, or something to that effect. I know you'll word it more properly when it comes back to consent. Chief? MS. VASEY: Could I give it a shot? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, absolutely. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I don't want to speak out of turn here, and there's certainly not of the purview of the Commission or the Board, but I have talked with Chief Dyer, and that station you're talking about, they have in their long-term plan to close and relocate inland further into Fiddler's Creek down the road, which would move it further from that -- at that side of Fiddler's Creek. And I just had that Page 41 September 21, 2009 discussion with him a couple of months ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're also looking at a station over on 41 which would be on the north end of Fiddler's Creek-- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and they'd just drive straight through the proj ect. And I know the land's already been donated. So there's a good possibility it will actually get on the property instead of off the property -- CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: It's actually about a mile and a half further to get to the other end. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, isn't the concern with the footnote in one case the way it's presented it shows that there's a need that's not being met. The other way would be it would show that the need's being met but it's not being funded. Essentially the same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let Janet take a stab at the language and see if you still think that after she -- MS. VASEY: Okay, what I was going to propose for our side is that we show the $1.6 million as a deficit, that was rounding, and then say as a footnote we do not believe a new station is essential at this time because other fire stations are within close proximity and other factors decrease the immediate need, and not get real specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Works for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is that describes, you know, a lack of need, not a lack of funding. So I kind of like it the way it is in the way it's presented, where they're showing that there's a need. We have reasons why we don't think that need has to be met or that level of service, as opposed to showing it as a deficit in funding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, wouldn't the suggestion that it is shown, if it were shown as a deficit, wouldn't that in fact drive a budget? I mean, I recognize you can place the numbers in there and then Page 42 September 21, 2009 put it on hold, which is -- I see this number as being placed there primarily, as I am interpreting it, obviously, primarily in the event that there's a catastrophe that causes them to have to rebuild it, and that's how much the estimate would be. This is not an accounting document, correct, the A UIR ? We've been told this is not an accounting document. MR. BOSI: It's not a strict accounting document. The financial side is provided to give a clearer picture, but primarily it's a document that shows that we are satisfying the level of service standards that have been adopted by the county. It's more about satisfying demand than it is about making sure that the financial side is intact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, in this particular matter we're not satisfying that, are we? And we're saying we can't satisfy that because we have no resources, no means of satisfying it. So what -- by placing it as a deficit, what is the net effect other than knowledge? MR. BOSI: That's all it is, is knowledge. Because, I mean, Chief Rodriguez has said many times, unless there's funding they're not going ahead. They're limited by their millage caps. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. BOSI: They're not seeking money from the general revenue fund. They -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As long as it's not used at the predicate for driving something. You know, especially I think Mark brings out a good point, consolidation would tend to work out some of these problems, but that's perhaps far away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS . VASEY: I would disagree with Brad that our statement addresses finances. It says we do not believe a new station is essential at this time because other fire stations are within close proximity and other factors decrease the immediate need. Page 43 September 21, 2009 So ours is about need and demand, it's not about the money. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's why I'm saying is if you show the deficit in the level of service, you're discussing the need and the demand. If you put money in there and then show a deficit in funding, justifying the deficit in funding by lack of need and demand, that's all. I mean, we're going to come to the same point. It's not a big issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go there, though, if you try to meet the level of service standard, we already meet it. So we're not in violation of a level of service standard. We're only in violation of the political boundaries of fire districts -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so from an LOS -- from a level of service standard, is there any need for any additional unit here? And the answer is probably no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But because of the fact that he, you know, shows it in the year '14 as a requirement, that's where he's saying we have a need. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: He's looking at six years down the road with the reconstruction of the last two towers, and some additional units are supposed to go into that area. Now, I will let Chief Rodriguez address that further, because obviously he has more information than what he's just given me. But I do know that that's why that six years and that year down the road and not two years down the road, because the estimate is when this falls through and they restart, that construction projects look to restart about six years down the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it boils down to this is, you know, one is we want it, we can't afford it. The other one is it says we really need it but when we really analyze the neighborhood, we don't need it. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: And again, as addressed by Mike to Mr. Page 44 September 21, 2009 Murray, this is an MSTU. There's no general fund coming to bail anybody out here. If the money's not there, it's not getting built. That's the bottom line. It is a level of service aspect, trying to improve the level of service to some citizens in an area. Again, if you got to look at call statistics and how often Engine 90 and that crew is actually running back and forth to other areas, they supply quite a bit of mutual aid and automatic aid to Marco Island. And I'd let Chief Rodriguez address that. So when you're looking at actual call statistics, number of times they're in the area, call volume in an area, all those have to be put together and compiled to look at what the need is. Then of course there's a level of need to the people. What are they willing to pay for, what do they want? And that's what the bottom line is. The need and the level of service should be driven by what the people want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Janet? MS. VASEY: I think maybe the answer is in footnote two when it says the Mainsail Drive station has been postponed until year six, which is FY15. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: 15. MS. VASEY: So technically it's not even in this AUIR. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Technically, you're right. MS. VASEY: So perhaps the answer is to take it out of the required inventory and perhaps provide a footnote that says in year 16 this is out there. But that takes it out of the five year. MR. BOSI: And basically what we would do is basically change the two to one, leave the footnote and expand the footnote as requested by the advisory boards? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a better move. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is everybody in concurrence with that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, much better. Page 45 September 21, 2009 MS. VASEY: Yes. CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: I think Chief Rodriguez would be in concurrence with that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That makes us look better. Because either way the other two, we're going to look like we have a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion and the second, and this is strictly for the Planning Commission side of things, was to accept the report with the caveat that we're going to reduce the required inventory to what's existing so it balances out and we don't have this issue. And leave the footnote to explain that in six years we have an issue that we'll have to deal with. Does that work for the motion maker and the second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Works for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, from the Planning Commission, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion carries 6-0. Let's go to Ochopee. MS. VASEY: May I make a motion for ours? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah, if you guys are going to vote, that's fine. I don't know if you voted or not. MS. VASEY: I mean, you know, two of us, but -- as our Page 46 September 21, 2009 sub-committee -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just nudge her and say, what do you think. MS. VASEY: We'd like to make the same motion. Do I hear a second? MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, if you guys disagree, that will really be interesting. MS. DOWNS: It could happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the Ochopee Fire District. Is there is a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll, it can't be the same, it's got to be without any -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion we approve the Ochopee Fire District as presented. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Seconded by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing, I'm not too comfortable with the value change. I understand it in this particular case, and I certainly would ask Amy if she could e-mail me the -- is she here? Okay, we'll, I'll catch her afterwards. I'd like to see the impact fee report for the fire service for Collier County. So at some point if that could be e-mailed to me, I'd appreciate it. And I'll explain to you on break, Amy, what I'm looking for. Page 47 September 21, 2009 So with that in mind, any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. And you guys want to do your thing? MS. DOWNS: I'll make the same motion for productivity. Do I have a second? MS. VASEY: Second. MS. DOWNS: Any discussion? No. MS. VASEY: And a vote aye? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The process is fun, isn't it? CHIEF McLAUGHLIN: Thank you. See you next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chief, thank you. See you next year. Chief Rodriguez will be well prepared to know what the questions are going to be. Okay. And before we go into the most tedious one of the -- I mean, the transportation part of the day, why don't we take our break now, because we're five minutes away. I'd rather not interrupt the presentation. Page 48 September 21, 2009 Take a break, we'll come back at five after 10:00 and resume. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay everybody, welcome back from the break. And we left off finishing up the two fire stations, and we're moving into the Category A facilities. The first one is county roads, transportation department. And the court reporter asked me to make a note of one thing. Any members of the public or county staff or anybody using this podium, that microphone isn't transmitting too well for her to hear things so she can type them fastly, so we need to talk slower and very -- pronounce each word very carefully so that she can get that for recording purposes. And with that mind, we'll go into transportation. Norm? MR. FEDER: Thank you. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. I'm going to be fairly brief. I'm going to ask Nick to walk you through the A UIR. We have since 2000 built over 400 lane miles of roadway, 240 new miles of roadway and 160 reconditioned roadway miles. I raise that for two reasons. One, to hit the issue that during that time the maintenance over the last nine years predominantly has either been done or under warranty for the major arteries around the county. And so therefore our maintenance needs have significantly increased as we brought of this new on line. And that's something we've hit some in the AUIR. I know the AUIR is typically just capacity, but we're trying to remind people that we need to maintain the investment that we've made out there. The second reason I raise it is I hear that now we have managed to have job done. We've accomplished it. The emergency is over. That six years of not building anything and then they all came, we managed to get rid of that backlog and we're now well ahead of the game. I'm here to tell you that's not the case, folks. And if we assume Page 49 September 21,2009 that, we're going to replicate the past. Granted, we don't need 11 active major construction projects at the same time ongoing. We don't have that anymore, I don't think we'll see that. But we do need to continue to meet the capacity at the same time we find a way to meet our needs for maintenance, or else we find ourselves in a situation where we're going to replicate the past or where we just consume the capacity we have and then all of a sudden declare an emergency and take nine years to catch up again. And that won't be me, it will be my successor, I'm sure, but nonetheless one that I hope not to leave as a legacy. So what I'm telling you is we need to continue. Now, having said that, we also need to work within our revenues and our means. And as you see in our AUIR, three of our four major funding categories are down. Our impact fees are down dramatically. We're about 17.5 million, which looks good compared to most out there right now, but nonetheless that's down from almost 70 million, 50 million, 37 million down to 1 7 and a half. So you can see a definite drop in impact fees. Our gas taxes have never been indexed, therefore their buying power has always been going down. But in real numbers, gas taxes are going down. Our ad valorem is shown generally straight there, but it's actually going down a little bit each year. And 14 million of that is to pay for bond referendums in the past. So the revenue stream is rather tight. Our A UIR reflects that, as well it should, to be financially feasible. But I also call your attention to the fact that we do still have those needs out there, and that we're going to continue to try to address them, but obviously within financial feasibility. I say that because we're going after grants. That's the one area, there are actually now four that I mentioned, went up. And the other is we did not take the 50 million in commercial loan monies that was set Page 50 September 21, 2009 aside for us by the board. We held it for a couple of years to see whether or not we should move on it. Now we've decided that until we see a revenue stream that shows we have the ability to pay back, we're not going to borrow that money. So that is out of the AUIR, as Nick will go through in more detail. So just to give you a background, we still have needs. We've got a growing need in maintenance. Our program is fairly conservative this cycle. Obviously it needs to be financially feasible. And so that's what we're working from. And with that, I'll ask Nick to walk you through the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Norm. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director. Planning Commission members, Productivity members. On your first page of the AUIR, we have our typical budget sheet. And a couple of questions that were brought up earlier, I'd like to answer just to tie them in as I have notes here. We've gone a good job with the planning commission members to tie in development ordered rights to actual projects. So we talked about slipping projects due to permitting or utility jobs, a lot of the PUDs you approve will say something like no COs for the project until the project is let. So we tie those two together. To Mr. Murray's question about population, our AUIR does not use population numbers at all. It's all based on traffic counts. Population numbers come into long-range transportation plan update. And then we start looking at population numbers. Federal Highway in their infinite wisdom has gone to year of expenditure. Where we have that projection cone, that 25-year long-range transportation plan, they want to refine that cone down to year of expenditure where we're dealing with population numbers and what year we would do a project 20 years out. We think that's ridiculous and other communities and jurisdictions also do. So we'll Page 51 September 21, 2009 work on dealing with that as well. Your first page, if you look at, we have our average cost per lane mile is based on our impact fee study that was adopted recently. That's the most current number that there is right now. Design, right-of-way and construction at the bottom of your page have not changed. Roughly the same time frames. Your next page kind of tells the picture in a graphic format of what you see on the first page. If you look at the two __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Nick, before you go to the next page, under grants and reimbursements, there's a $50 million figure __ MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- which if you look on Page 26, it's only 44, because you need to add in DCAs there. So it should read grants, reimbursements and DCAs for a total of 50, 120. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, thank you. Any other questions on the first page? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to seem to challenge your average number. I'm really more interested in getting an awareness of how it was composed. The average number that you have there presumably is based upon the amount, if you will, the whole that you've been working with and reflects then all highest numbers because of the conditions at the time when these contracts were let. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is this number in any way adjusted to reflect a most recent? While you use average, you -- you know, tell me how you composed it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No problem. They actually take out the highs and lows. And this comes out of the impact fee update that had Page 52 September 21, 2009 gone through tremendous scrutiny through the Productivity Committee. You can never get to that real time when you're doing something like the AUIR. Even the traffic counts get back-dated almost 12 months. So that number represents the number that's in the adopted impact fee study. How we get there includes the right-of-way, construction costs, utility relocations, it includes future constructions of overpasses, it includes a lot of different factors that go into that cost. It's also compared against DOT state numbers, and those get brought in for numbers as well, too. So other than to tell you that has it come down? We don't know until we put out a couple more bids. When Oil Well Road goes out or Collier Boulevard or Davis, we'll get a better feel for it. We went through a full update. And I know Amy's not in the room, but we go through indexing the following year and we look at some other numbers. But it's an amalgamation of a lot of different numbers that come in and it's based on the adopted study, and we have to use it based on the current study that's adopted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And does it -- is it wrapped around a four-lane highway, a six-lane highway, with sidewalks, with -- whatever? MR. CASALANGUIDA: All of the above. They take all different jobs you do -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it really is an amalgam of all kinds of -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You don't use this though as a base to construct a budget for any given road, you use your real numbers that you've come historically to understand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we actually do as part of the update for both our budget and the A UIR is we continually update our construction estimates. So the estimates you'll see in the further pages Page 53 September 21, 2009 are based on the most current estimates we have, not this number. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's important for the public to know and understand as well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to ask you, Nick, I know you have a presentation. Would it be better for us wait till finish your presentation or go through page by page as you go through the presentation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your pleasure, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, it's up to the -- we'll just ask questions. Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I was just going to say, if it allays your fears, I have looked at -- compared ours with state averages and other counties, and the price per mile used to be nine million a lane mile, and six million is well within the range of what's going on in the State of Florida. So it's a figure I'm very comfortable with, for what it's worth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, if there's no other questions on the first page, we'll __ Ms. Caron -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I actually do have another-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we'll get them page by page-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we may as well get them out of the way. At the bottom of the page, there is a footnote for your carryforward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: It says the carryforward includes the budgeted FYI0 carryforward and does not include project funding encumbered in prior fiscal years. Page 54 September 21, 2009 So those encumbrances that are going to come about, that are going to become known after October 1st, are they included in that number, even though the specific project isn't being addressed here, or will they be in addition? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would be in addition to your capital five-year sheet. What happens is -- and Oil Well Road is a great example. We expected to let it in the fiscal year '09. So it showed up as a -- we had it as a budgeted line item in there. What will happen is we'll do a budget amendment, take the money and carry it forward. So why you're not seeing it in your FYI 0 forecast, it's there in '09 as we thought it was going to be encumbered. And what happens in preparing this document with Mr. Bosi, this is what we're into almost every year, there's that time we have to submit the documents and they start going through the peer review process and the county manager report and the time we're actually letting proj ects. So you will see something like Oil Well Road show up in FYI 0, but you don't see it in this document now, even though it's going to be an FYI 0 project. COMMISSIONER CARON: So are you going to let us know all of these projects that are hanging out there? I mean, since you actually know them, you may not know down to the penny the dollar amount, you actually know right now today what those projects are and a ballpark of the dollar amount. MR. FEDER: Yes. Ms. Caron, if I can refer you to Page 26, which is our five-year work program. That groups of projects you see with no dollars shown on the top, that first group of 10 projects, add to that Oil Well because we thought we were letting that this year, okay, which is the two below that don't see dollars on the next line. Those are the projects. And all the monies that are still left on anyone of those projects, either available still and hasn't been expanded out of encumbered construction phases or the Page 55 September 21, 2009 like will be what will be rolling consistent with those dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that be part of your carryforward then? MR. FEDER: It is part of the overall carryforward in the sense that what we have, and at each budget time, at the end of the budget you look at what was actually encumbered. I encumbered 20 million on a construction project. I had pay-outs during the year of five million. Fifteen would then roll. But until you come to the end of the year, you don't know if I encumbered five, six or four or what. And so that's why that's shown that way. The monies the prior year, they were encumbered. The projects take a time before the monies are expended but they are encumbered initially at the start of the phase. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: And that makes for me a very uncomfortable accountability of each project. And since we're on to Oil Well Road, you know, you're boxing these funds from impact fees. Oil Well Road took impact fees from three areas: Fund 331, Fund 338 and Fund 339. I'm not suggesting any foul play, I just think it would be much more transparent to be able to look at that fund to see exactly what went into it and exactly how it was expended. Now, you're not going to be using those funds on Oil Well Road much at this time, so I'm wondering where do they go, who collects the interest on them? If that plan -- you know my feeling on Oil Well Road. If that gets extended out several more years, why not bring those funds back to those districts they came from and apply them to current projects where there is a population? MR. FEDER: Okay, as we discussed, taking Oil Well Road is done by a development contribution agreement. It provided for the impact fees from that district and the adjacent districts, which is really one other district in Golden Gate Estates, be allocated specifically to Page 56 September 21, 2009 the project. Over that time we've kept a full accounting, which is equivalent to what you're saying, boxed, of what impact fees have been collected. But recognizing just what you said, that we weren't moving on that proj ect right away, those funds, as we kept an accounting of them, we used in the other districts, as a matter of fact, where impact fees are coming from now on projects like Vanderbilt, on Immokalee sections, to be able to bring those projects forward rather than just reserving that money relative to the DCA. So unfortunately what I will tell you is the nature of the beast is that we go through and when we let a project, you try to use your least flexible funds first and your most flexible last. And your impact fees are your least flexible and have to be expended over a period of time or else returned if they're not used, theoretically. And so you go through that process and the accounting is fully there as to what was collected. The areas that we're now pulling from, because we didn't just save the funds from those two districts only during that time, are areas that benefited from that funds being spent earlier and the improvements made. MS. DOWNS: I have no doubt the accounting is all there, but it's not transparent to us. When we have the budget -- and this is just an example of Fund 331, $35 million. I'd really like to see specifics of how that fund is managed, along with a lot of other funds, but-- MR. FEDER: I'd be happy to do that. That's part of what we do through the budget. And it's detailed a little bit more in that budget, than their either further detail sheets, the one that you just held up, that show that. MS. DOWNS: Can you get that to us? MR. FEDER: Yeah. Any portion of the budget. If you have the budget book, which I know you've gone through, it's in there. And you've got the detailed sheets, you've got the roll-up into a fund level. Page 57 September 21, 2009 And the AUIR isn't trying to get to that level, it's even a further level beyond that. But to try to answer your question, they throw in that detail. MS. DOWNS: So for at least for those three funds, 331, 338 and 389. But seems to me any time you're boxing impact fees for years at a time, for transparency sake I think it would be much better to be able to see exactly where those dollars come in and out, where they flow or don't flow-- MR. FEDER: We'd be happy to give you that accounting. And I think you have it in your budget, but I will make sure that you have exactly that accounting you need. But I do want to make one clarification. We are not boxing. If I had been boxing, then I wouldn't have done some other projects, and I MS. DOWNS: I use that term loosely, boxed. I know it's different. MR. FEDER: Okay, thank you. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This discussion has come up many times. And that's the difference between the budget and the AUIR. They want to see more details, and we kept it out of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Nick, before we leave that comment, in last year's AUIR you were going to spend 25 million in '09 and 21 million roughly in 'lOon Oil Well. '10 hasn't occurred yet, so you show nothing in '10 for the expenditure on Oil Well. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's, as Norman pointed out, is in that line. It was supposed to be let, this job, this year, fiscal year '09. So in a new fiscal year' 1 0 you wouldn't have seen that 46 million. What you'll see is when we let this job, a budget memo will come forward, take it out of the funds. You'll see approximately $46 million -- I have to speak without Theresa -- minus any right-of-way acquisition we've already spent. So it could be $42 million. Or the Page 58 September 21, 2009 actual cost of the job come in in a budget amendment into the new year. So that is listed as a zero because it was supposed to be an '09 project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it showed in '09 as a -- I mean, '08 as a two-year project, '09 and' 1 O. MR. FEDER: Yeah, it showed '09 and '10, and your backup on that was the commercial paper loan to be able to meet that. So we showed it divided. We removed the commercial paper loan and we pulled the money into '09 totally and moved out some of the right-of-way phases. But yes, you did show it in two years in the '08 AUIR. And we're going to back that up if we're able to let it in '09 with the commercial paper at that point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know, the AUIR, shouldn't we know what's kind of smoking out there? I mean, all the facets that you're spending, shouldn't they be summarized? Isn't that what the AUIR is supposed to tell us -- MR. FEDER: That's exactly what it does tell you. And what facet are you not aware of? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the -- what facet I'm not aware of. Oil Well Road. Where does Oil Well Road show up on the front page? Why don't you just tell me that, then maybe I can answer it -- maybe that will answer it. On this Page 21 -- MR. FEDER: It is carryforward because it was assumed to be a '09. Because this, the '08 AUIR, led let to the budget that was '09. In the budgeting process we had already moved some of the 50 million and had pulled it into '09, both projects to be funded. We are not going to end up letting it exactly in '09, so that's why you didn't see any dollars there because it's all going to be carryforward. And we should be letting it in the next two or three weeks to construction. So we just passed the '09 fiscal year. COMMISSIONER CARON: But you said it's not in the Page 59 September 21, 2009 carryforward here. MR. FED ER: It is in that carryforward that is shown as proj ect -oriented. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can answer that. I spoke with Theresa. MS. DOWNS: Mr. Chairman? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have this issue almost every year-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: And to ask for further clarification, back in the '09 adopted budget, the project from Oil Well to Immokalee, Everglades Boulevard and Camp Keais/State Route 29, it showed as another major project with a cost of 24-and-a-half million. Now it's up to 42, 43 million, which I'm not faulting that, but where did that ease in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a different phase. It's a phase. If you're asking us as transportation to come with you to AUIR with a budget snapshot for a certain date, we're happy to do that. The issue we're into since I've been here every year is you are just -- we're still going through the budget, as you know, we're hearing the budget hearings now. All these documents have to be submitted two months in advance. So if you ask for a snapshot, we can do that. Just pick a date and say as of this date, because it's in flux. What our budget people do is go through every project and do a one-day reconciliation and say as of today this is cash on hand and how much balance we have on the job. Are we on target for the job, have we let the job. What I need to say, it's got to be as of a certain date because it changes. By the time you get this document, it's been submitted to Mike for how long, two months, and in process. So if you want to say we'd like to see a snapshot of your carryforward, you know, going forward, we can do that by a certain date because it's going to be inaccurate by the time you see it. Page 60 September 21, 2009 And we tried to leave out -- that footnote that we have tries to tell you that. We can't -- we don't have a handle on the carryforward until the budget's adopted until we hit our new budget year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aren't any of these numbers an estimate of what's going to happen next year just like your carryforward would be? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely, there are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to provide a good faith estimate of your carryforward, that would break it down as to what projects you're dealing with, it would be more transparent. I think we are trying to follow it. And if you compare last year's to this year's, it doesn't follow. That's the trouble that I'm having. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oil Well is probably the big issue, there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few circled when we get to that page, but Oil Well is probably the biggest one, yes __ MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is the biggest one. You wouldn't even see Oil Well, it would have been moved up to the top as an encumbered project if we had let it this fiscal year, if we didn't run into permitting delays. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even your encumbered projects have __ are spending money. That's the whole purpose. If you've got 20 projects out there being built, but you only have a budget that you're presenting to us that could show five or six, some people may wonder where all this additional money is coming from. And I understand that it's an encumbered money from a prior budget year, but it would be nice to have a line item here explaining that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you would like that and that's the direction going forward, we can do that. It's just going to have to be as a certain date. We'll do a-- MR. FEDER: It will be a projected-- Page 61 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well think any of this is as of a certain date. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, this discussion came up last year and that was -- we were trailing the budget so closely that we thought a lot of those questions were answered in the budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll discuss it when we get-- Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: I really do agree with you, Mark. When I looked at what was in last year's AUIR, you know, especially talking the Oil Well, in October of '08 it was in FY' 1 0 for Oil Well. In the budget, which was probably started what, February, March, it's not -- it's in '09. It's totally out of the FY'10 budget. So it went from the AUIR in FY'10, never was in a budget. It just kind of jumped in the '09 budget, because it wasn't in there when the budget was passed. So it seems like in just, like, five months it went from being in FY'10 to '09. And what made it so important that it had to jump the process like that? Is there some huge demand out there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's the demand is by contract that we're doing that. The actual western limit from Immokalee Road to Everglades has a demand right now, real time. The next section out by Ave Maria to Camp Keais, which is only a small section -- actually from Ave Maria entrance to Oil Well grade road is a small section, that's by contract. And you get that as soon as you are doing a project at the same time. If you have the funds, by contract you're supposed to do it at a certain date, a certain time. It was actually 2007 when we were supposed to let that job. The delays in permitting pushed us out. And we estimated roughly '09-'10. We'd like to have it all done back in 2007 but the reality is we won't have it ready to bid until fiscal year' 1 O. So it matches and it doesn't. But you're also dealing with permitting issues Page 62 September 21, 2009 at the same time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Mr. Chairman, that would take us back to Page 1 of our staff report, which the chairman brought up earlier. And I'm quoting, under no circumstances can a project be removed from the five-year CIE Capital Improvement Element, where the reason is lack or decrease in revenue. But we established that a lack of demand is a good enough reason to remove something from a Capital Improvement Element. I know you have a contract but you can prove lack of demand. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I can't take that out of the project. Our county attorney's office has -- you know, it's a legal binding contract approved by the Department of Community Affairs submitted as back-up material. And that's pent up demand. If they had -- if we hadn't hit the slowdown that we hit right now, that two-lane section of road would be failing. And we entered a contract in with them. So I cannot pull that project out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, when you wrote the intro to this whole thing, you put in on Page 4 what I previously read to you, which said please note that this year every department division that has placed a capital project in the first three years of the AUIR is guaranteeing that construction of that capital improvement will be completed during that fiscal year. That's your bolded part. Then you further said they're also guaranteeing financial sources. By not listing this, anything in the AUIR for Oil Well Road, does that mean it's not guaranteed? How does that fit into your language that you bolded and highlighted to us in the first part of the introduction if it's not even mentioned? MR. BOSI: I guess the issue is it's included within the carryforward but it's not specifically named and designated as such, so Page 63 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you guarantee anything then? If you're trying, if I asked you is Nick's job on the line ifhe doesn't do his guarantee, he just wiggled his way in for perpetual employment because he's not saying he's going to do anything. He's just saying it's all here but I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to do. And literally nothing is guaranteed then. So what is the purpose of your statement if we're not going to have the specificity of saying what's happening each year, and then those years being met? Regardless of the need issue. I understand the argument Ms. Downs is making but I'm still focusing on your intent and purpose in which you brought us into this whole thing this morning. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me help you out with that a little bit. Without the dollar value issues, it's not a dollar value issue. If it's a delay because of permitting, right-of-way acquisition, that probably should be footnoted in Mike's, guaranteed, you know, within the budget or promised within the budgetary constraints but subject to the issues that are outside the control of the budget. That is shown last year's A UIR in 09 and '10. And the only reason it gets adjusted is because of permitting issues. It wasn't a dollar amount issue. So there should be a footnote that says that, other than the fact that it's beyond Mike's control or my control. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would assume that if you can't get a permit then it's a good reason, or you can't get right-of-way, I understand that, it takes a long process. But then, too, also not to get a permit, you just may put the wrong thing on the wrong line one day and you don't get the permit and it gets delayed again for another submission. It's real easy not to get permits if you don't want them -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I'm trying to understand how there's any kind of quality control over what's being presented to us Page 64 September 21, 2009 and we don't have the blanks filled in, Nick. I guess that's the transparency that we all would like to have. And I think that's missing from -- MR. FEDER: Your quality control and other things, just so you know, everything that you see the blanks not filled in on that above line and then you see two below the line, the two Oil Wells, all those, other than the two Oil Wells, which are about ready to be let, have already been let. The quarterly reports on progress on those, the payments out, all the accounting are there. The numbers, the dollars were encumbered, the expenditures are out. If there's any change in dollars, they have to go through a budget amendment with the board. So the accountability is definitely there. The only one that you have as an -- interesting now is because it didn't get let in '09, it got moved in on the budget, is Oil Well. That's why we're showing zero dollars, because it was supposed to be let in '09. Move up to that top group. The reason we left it in the other group is to show you that we knew we're getting very close and it's going to go just after this fiscal year to be let. Now, we have the permits, but we have an issue on right-of-way that was dedicated and committed to us and then some constraints placed on that forwarding of that commitment. We have an issue with the fill that was to be provided in cost, and we want to make sure that we're getting it at cost, so we're going through a lot of iterations to make sure that we can tell the public we got it at cost. We do have one minor change to the permitting, which is a modification because a development that was to take on stormwater hadn't built out. And therefore, we worked through the board, got an agreement, along with the developer. We're going to utilize a portion of their property but not what we anticipated to be using. So those are the things that have held up the letting, which was Page 65 September 21, 2009 planned for July, which should be in October or November. So just so you understand. But there is an accounting on those dollars. What we show you on here and what that footnote from every year is, because until the end of the budget year, the start of the next, budget's approved and then there's an accounting, a full accounting shifted from one year to the next on carryforward. We don't have that now. We can try to do estimates, but in the past when we did that estimate, then it was why are you telling it. As Nick pointed out, it's again a slice in time. If you want a slice in time, we can do that or make a projection as best we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: So what I'm hearing is that it's being held up because there's various reasons, but right-of-way and fill issues are not being fulfilled. So someone's not holding up the other end of the contract, and yet you're obligating, you're keeping the county right on task with their end of the contract. MR. FEDER: We are resolving those issues. One has nothing to do with the contract, it's outside of, although it was committed as part of another issue. MS. DOWNS: Which one? MR. FEDER: It is Big Cypress that was to provide the CDD, to provide the right-of-way. And they're now looking at some things they're trying to get into the agreement that we're trying to get it finalized without some of those issues being addressed now. Just so you understand, the retention was outside of that agreement as well -- MS. DOWNS: That was not in the contract? MR. FEDER: Huh? MS. DOWNS: Retention was not in the contract? MR. FEDER: No, it is not in the contract in that area. It's a different owner. There is retention that is being handled within the Page 66 September 21, 2009 contract. That's not at dispute. What I have is another development along the corridor that was to take on retention. Unfortunately with the slowdown, they didn't build, so we didn't have it to then put into their retention ponds. So now we're going through and we have a modification that should be very shortly approved so we can let. Again, I could have let this earlier with outstanding issues. I don't want to do that. I want to make sure all those issues are addressed so we then don't have claims and other issues to face in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to be simplistic, but this is an inventory and an update report. And this is like I recognize what you've said to us. But it does make sense to at least have placed there within the document that shows that there's process, that there's something that we can relate to. Because for all intents and purposes, to someone listening, seeing this on TV, this is a figment, which we know that it's not. So it probably is advantageous. Now I hope it's not a huge amount of additional work, but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me take you a scenario. Because with what we've gone through, it's kind of interesting. We talked about doing this. You can see this work sheet that we talked about. I don't know what page it's on, it's your five-year work program. Page 26. This goes through the budget process just recently. And then we're supposed to update it after the budget gets approved, getting ready for the AUIR with the most recent engineering estimates. And then if you wanted to do carryforward, then it's everybody scrambling as of this date, this is what the carryforward is. We can do that. We just need an understanding from this commission, and also the board -- and the board understood that last year, is that it's a slice in one point in time on that day __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- okay. So if we want to agree that it's Page 67 September 21, 2009 going to be on June 1 st every year, we'll give you a synopsis of what it is. But this year's AUIR came a little earlier and actually overlapped the budget cycle. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In fact, it's just logical, if you're going to include it as a separate set of items, state that it's a picture of the day so that everybody knows that it's there as information and not reliable in terms of most current information. MR. FEDER: And we will definitely do that. I think what we tried to do, as you notice here, we did not list the projects. And that's the point I was trying to make at the top of that page. We just didn't show a dollar volume because until we have that roll forward we don't know what that figure is that's going to go into that next budget. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, thank you. I have a question that I'm trying to relate to the guidance. On Page 1 it says under no circumstances can a project be removed from the five-year CIE where the reason is lack or decrease in revenue. When I look at the last year's AUIR for Vanderbilt Beach Collier Boulevard to Wilson, there was about $30 million in the program. When I look at it this year, there's about $15 million in the program. Now, what is the reason for that kind of a decrease, if it's not lack of revenue? Has the requirement for that road decreased or what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not a capital project, it's right-of-way acquisition, so the phase has not been removed. The funding can be adjusted every year, DCA is perfectly comfortable with saying, you know you're planning to spend $8 million in right-of-way acquisition in 2011 on a project, and then next year you do your budget and you say, well, I'm not going to spend eight, I'm going to spend six because my revenue forecasts in my fourth and firth year are lower. They're okay with that. It's putting it in capital project specially in the three-year period that that's where you start to have a problem with it. Your third -- your Page 68 September 21, 2009 fourth and fifth year, you have of some flexibility, specially in the amount of allocated funds versus the actual project itself. MS. VASEY: Okay, so the project can't be removed but the funding can be modified. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The funding can absolutely be modified. And a project, when you say it can't be removed, that's also a subjective statement. You can make a case to DCA if it's not a demand issue to adjust your project. DCA this year by SB360 also gave you the wiggle room in your outer years as well as too. MS. VASEY: There's also flexibility in the three-years then you're saying for the funding? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Funding can be adjusted in the three-years, yes, ma'am. As long as the project doesn't come out. Because next year you may say costs have come down, I'm going to allocate a little less money to it, I didn't get my permits so I'm pushing the project out, I'm pushing one back. You just have to document to DCA why you've done it and what impact it has on your inventory of roadway systems. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I have one question. The Planning Commission, and we have to vote on projects that are going to have road impacts. I think it's Policy 5.1 or 5.4, one of them has a reference to the, we cannot approve a project unless it's already has concurrency or it is in the first three years of the five-year work program of the CIE. And I believe that's generally what it says. If you were to look at Page 26, the top section of this, there is no amounts in the first three years of the five years of the CIE. So basically none of those roads could have any new development approved on them -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, they're let -- MR. FEDER: They are all let and encumbered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. What I'm trying to tell you Page 69 September 21, 2009 is someone else -- say you guys disappeared, we all disappeared and someone was left in our shoes to look up and interpret 5.1 and say, okay, let's say that they're not going to spend anything in the next three years, therefore, we can't approve these projects. What we're saying is the transparency that you tell us there's there, put it in black-and-white on here even if it an estimate and it's a range that's going to move because of phasing or because lack of permits, it's better to be here than not be there at all. I think that's where the crux of everything we're trying to say here today is. Is that generally a consensus? So I think from an overall perspective your document needs to be completed on Page 26 as part of the AUIR. MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, once a project's been let, the capacity goes into your pages that show your capacity sheets. So it no longer becomes a deficiency once the project's been let. MR. COHEN: Commissioners, the confusion that sometimes exists is the projects still do exist in the CIE, and what will end up happening is it will be modified, you know, in the upcoming CIE when those projects are either let or constructed, and that's when you see those changes. And sometimes we have that period of time between the AUIR and the CIE change where we have that overlap a little bit and that's where the confusion comes on in. But I think providing that change will -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, we're hearing you loud and clear. We'll make sure there is a slice in time snapshot what tells you where the project stands, encumbered, with a rough dollar amount as of a certain date. I think we can do that, I think Theresa isn't going to throw anything too hard at me when we get back to the office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For those of us that don't live and breathe just these numbers all day long, it does help, that kind of -- for the future for reference -- Page 70 September 21, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can do that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that's what we're asking-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think, Nick, we haven't got past Page 1, so are you ready to go to Page 2? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. Okay, the two piecharts at the top. Obviously the comparison in total revenues is just really a picture of what happened on the page prior. One thing to note on your 2009 through 2013, you see $50 million in an aqua blue color, that was our commercial paper loan. I think we're one of the only departments, Amy, correct me if I'm wrong, we have not borrowed against our impact fees and we don't intend to. So we met with the board, county manager and said we can make this thing work without the $50 million. And they said, good, because you're not going to get the $50 million. So that's the biggest change. We have been successful in getting some grants, trip grants, advancement reimbursement with DOT and some federal grants. So our grant revenue increased from roughly 23 million to 50 million, which is good news. The charts below don't match in colors to the charts above. They're just showing you our revenues by category: Impact fees, gas taxes, general fund, grants reimbursements and commercial paper. And the colors are by year. So your blue was a three-year ago five-year look. Your red is a year ago. And then your current 2010 to 2014. Any questions on that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any stimulus money associated with any of it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The stimulus money went to the Marco Page 71 September 21, 2009 Bridge. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exclusively? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exclusively, with some additional local pathway dollars that have been spread around. But it was the vote of the MPO board to make that the number one priority. So that went there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Any other questions on that page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, I just wanted to kind of clarify one thing. You don't get any money -- you're not getting any subsidizing of your impact fees from the general fund, but you do get $14 million a year for your debt service from the general fund. So you are getting something that has real value and that the general fund is subsidizing that. And that decision was made, incidentally, after we entered in the big road building program and had to borrow a lot of money and the commissioners at the time made the agreement that we would fund the debt service out of the general fund. And that amounts to $14 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Your next page talks about the traffic counts and what we've done. Just one clarification on the second bullet. We typically update our surface volume thresholds, which is what you measure against. We expected it to be done by this A UIR. It will go into our access management resolution in about three months, because we're still Q/ A-Q/C'ing. So instead of have been updated it should take that sentence out -- will be updated. And that's just -- your surface volumes are what you measure against. A four-lane road, say, carries 1,800 cars peak hour, peak direction. And then when you're comparing your background traffic and your future traffic that's the measure you use against. Page 72 September 21,2009 And to the course of the past five years, we've done a lot of expansion. So we're going through countywide looking at every single roadway facility and saying what is the new surface volume, what can this road now carry as compared to what it did before. And we do make updates when a road is expanded but for an existing road, if the changes are has development come online, added new driveways to it, new median openings, that changes the surface volume as well, too. So we're in the process of doing that. Call out to the third bullet point. I know Mr. Feder my boss made it a point to bring it up, and I have to stress it again because it's an ongoing issue. There's nothing in this AUIR that talks about cost of ownership. And to me that's disappointing because your Annual Update and Inventory Report should talk about what you own and what condition it's in. And if that's the direction of this Planning Commission or the Board, we'll bring it up then as well, too. Because if you can't afford to maintain what you've built, what's the purpose of showing what you plan to build? And there should be section that documents we have X amount of facilities, they're at X amount of rating, and we plan to spend X amount of dollars to take care of these roads. It's not in the GMP, it's not required. But it's something we should definitely talk about, because it's going to become a bigger issue in the future. General observations, traffic counts, we're down to 3.7 percent across the board. There's a graphic on the page coming up, which is Attachment C. We started that last year because trying to get a visual of what goes on. The ones in green have decreased, getting better. The ones in red have increased. And you can see the ones in red on that graphic are typically roads we've opened up or roads such as Everglades going north. It's a small road. So even a minor change, the new school, Tom, that opened up up there now is starting to show more traffic down that facility. Not Page 73 September 21,2009 as much houses, but they're starting to see more activity because of that school. It's is not a failing road, and this is not a failing roadway map -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're going real good, real fast. I'm sure her fingers are burning right now. I want to bring you back to Page 23. Our Page 23. Just focus on this third bullet. And toward the bottom there is a sentence that says, and you're putting us on notice, the limited non-impact fee resources may need to be pulled out of capacity improvements to cover the O&M shortfall. This could reduce capital projects in the work program, resulting in concurrency problems, and could require an increase in the impact fee rate. Are you telling us that that's the high probability that's going based on the accounting that you have now, or is this associated in some way with your maintenance that you're trying desperately, and I agree with, to get it on here as an item? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's trying to tell you that if you don't put money aside -- and you can't use impact fees to do maintenance, let's be very clear on that -- you don't plan the budget. In other words, if we build 400 lane miles and we build another 400 lane miles we made it a point last year to tell the Board there is a cost of ownership. And it's not in that first five or seven years, it's in the seventh or tenth year, depending on what facility it is. If you don't put that in a program budget, you don't see it, you're going to all of a sudden get a call, a phone call, you know, your cover call, you own your mortgage, you own something. Well, you own the roads. John Vliet, who's in the audience right now, will say I have 10 facilities that are now below operating maintenance level and I need X amount of dollars. And if the Board says we don't have it in our general fund, then we take it out of that general fund portion that's in the capital to do that maintenance. Page 74 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I share with you your view, but I have a question that then becomes I think important to the rest of the AUIR and all of the other departments. You're looking for maintenance to be included in there. What then do we do about other organizations that also have maintenance needs? Will that become part of that? And I could treat this without difficulty, as a separate and significant item. And the others wouldn't rise to that level. This is certainly highly intense. But I think it's a question that needs to be at least posed at this point. MR. BOSI: The specific purpose of the AUIR is to maintain the concurrency management system. Therefore, it's for your capital improvements within -- added to your system capacities for roads and for all your other category of facility. It's for concurrency management purposes that the A UIR was created. What you're asking has the AUIR started to expand beyond issues of areas of concurrency management to go -- which are real, which are -- operation and maintenance costs are real, which do need to have to be considered. But the purpose of the AUIR specifically is to maintain the concurrency management system and the level of service standards. If it's the desire of the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners to incorporate more of a full budgetary process to the A UIR, that would be the individual discretion of the advisory boards and the Board of County Commissioners. But it gets back to the original purpose of what the AUIR is for, is to maintain the concurrency management system and make sure that the improvements are contained within there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, I have no problem with that thesis but I think, as I've said, we've been put on notice and I think validly. Because while it relates to -- look, you only have such a pot and it's only got so much in it, and if you start pulling money out for Page 75 September 21, 2009 maintenance activities, you're going to increase -- your capital cost are going to have to come from the impact fees, which tends to be in many people's minds regressive in items of ultimately what can happen. So I'm not asking for that, per se. I think it belongs in some place. It may not be easily accepted that it could belong in the AUIR. But the roads are almost a dynamic thing, and maintenance on them is almost as significant as capital. When you start taking a road section and repairing it to the extent of relaying -- I don't know, what's the word here, Nick -- MR. FEDER: Resurfacing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Resurfacing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Resurfacing, yeah. When you start doing that, that's a significant cost. I don't know, what is the answer? I'm going to pose the question and I have no expectation that we're going to get an answer right now. But quite frankly, I think it has to be shown someplace. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, you're hitting, there's is a good segue to this, I think. If a road's failing -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And we didn't plan this. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. If a road's failing and you're required to fix that road and that capital budget is $12 million, somewhere there should be a cost of ownership. Last year we had a budget workshop with the board in December and I said to the board, we as transportation are no longer going to bring you projects that just say that's a $20 million capital project. In the budget line item we're going to say $20 million plus one million dollars a year ongoing maintenance in perpetuity. Next budget item that we -- year that we go through you're going to see a line item that says maintenance for that project you just let. If a road is going to fail and you expect us to fix it, you're going to expect us to take care of it. Page 76 September 21, 2009 So if there's a concurrency issue, maybe one of the questions to the Planning Commission, we're about to approve this project, are you going to participate in maintaining the road that we built for you, because we can't afford to maintain that project as well, too, in perpetuity . It's definitely a question that's come up and we don't address it and it should be addressed much more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey, then Ms. Downs. MS. VASEY: Thank you for bringing up that sentence, that's got a couple of things in it that I'd like to pursue too. It says the -- it could reduce capital projects in the work program because of needing to use the money in O&M. Does that mean that some of the capital projects that are in this program are at risk of perhaps needing to be decreased to take care of O&M funding? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not right now, thanks to John Vliet and his team. He said, you know, I can milk this five years, I can do my job and maintain these roads. You are going to get to the point where Livingston, which is about to hit its seventh year anniversary, is going to come into resurfacing. So you're going to see in that new fifth year next time we do the budget, saying we need a larger portion of this unencumbered money, the capital general fund money to go towards road maintenance. It's going to have to keep coming up. So in your new fifth year when we get to 2015, you may have a capital project such as Golden Gate Boulevard that we're contemplating, it may have to wait one more year, because now a portion of those general fund dollars have to go on to maintenance of existing funds. So not in this five-year AUIR you're not at risk. We're letting you know that day of reckoning continues to get closer and closer and closer. MS. VASEY: That's of primary concern for me that we don't get Page 77 September 21, 2009 anything in the capital projects that we can't afford. Because it's going to be a rough few years. And now you're having additional requirements coming up. But okay for the five years. Then also you say that it could require an increase in the impact fee rate. Impact fees are calculated based on cost of construction and land and those kinds of things. How would this action require an impact fee increase? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you took your general fund portion of your impact fee calculation and you removed that and we said no longer will we spend general fund money on roadway construction because we have to push it towards maintenance, the credit that you get in your impact fee rate goes away; therefore your impact fee rate goes higher. Right now your general fund that subsidizes road capital projects is considered a credit it in our impact fees. If you pull that out that credit goes away. The impact fee calculation naturally pushes the fee up. MS. VASEY: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I'm wondering if -- of course you can't retro it, but is there a way to dovetail onto level of service standards in the future to change -- you know, you do level of service, you're building a road capacity of say D for the amount of traffic. Can you dovetail onto that level of service to say in the future not only are we building a road for capacity, whatever, but that we'll keep that the road up to a standard, develop a level of service for the maintenance that it's required to be mowed every two weeks or whatever, assign a level of service for maintenance? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We actually have that. MS. DOWNS: You do already? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have pavement rating conditions. John Vliet has a breakdown on a road of what it needs to be done. Page 78 September 21, 2009 But as you saw this year in the budget process, a couple of million dollars went onto additional landscaping. And we said we don't -- is there going to be any maintenance dollars that go with that? And they said no, just do the landscape and make the dollars stretch a little farther. So we do assign a value to each one of the pavement ratings that we have and John puts up the flag, it's getting close. So we have a system that we do. Funding it's another issue. MS. DOWNS: What I'm saying, take for instance the six million a lane mile to give you a level of service whatever, D. Can you not add level of service for maintenance on that of a half million, three quarters of a million? Norm is shaking his head no. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not in the impact fee rate. We're working right now, and I think John has met with one of our consultants, CH2, that's developing what is called a cost over a 20-year life cycle spreadsheet for every facility we have. We're trying to really get a grip on the cost of ownership. So he can plug in what that road has, how many lights, landscaping, pavement, curb and it will spit out in today's dollars what it will cost to maintain over a 20-year life cycle on a yearly basis. So we're working on that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I have one question. On your Page 26, and it pertains to -- I know you're not on that page yet but it's having to do with that maintenance issue on the third bullet. Isn't the 89 million being spent in 2010 under operations maintenance or not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: A portion of that is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we are spending some money on -- which says here, bridge repairs and improvements and collector roads, minor arterial roads. I'm assuming that's resurfacing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's enhancements and also widening. Sometimes we get to a capital project because you're either widening Page 79 September 21, 2009 or doing a certain activity at the intersection, you're including that maintenance aspect of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So of the 89 million, how much is maintenance and how much is new work, do you know? MR. FEDER: Most of it is technically new work. It is traffic operations, improvements, turn lanes, modification of signals. We do call making mast arms as opposed to span-wire changes, that's sort of in between the two. There's some of that in there. But generally speaking, the maintenance that we're alluding to, the resurfacing and those issues are in our operating budget, not in this capital budget. But there are some issues on intersection improvements and the like that are there -- and there's a bridge rehab that's there as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a quick thing. You mentioned Livingston as coming up here on its seventh year and going to need resurfacing. So are our roads running to industry standard? MR. CASALANGUIDA: When you say industry standard? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'm looking at this paragraph in here that says that urban roads last six to eight years and rural roads last 12 to 15. And that's the industry standard. So my question was, for example are the roads and their impacts in Miami the same as our roads and our impacts here in Naples? Shouldn't our -- I mean, my guess would be that our roads would last longer than they would in Miami if it were just an industry average. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We actually run to a typically a little bit of a higher standard. Your arterials are roughly seven years or so depending on -- 951, which we beefed up the typical section of it because we know there's a lot of mining activity on that road. Our typical sections are built to a little bit of a higher standard. In Page 80 September 21, 2009 other words, 951 that we're building right now, we went with a little more of a heavier typical standard because we knew that that road carries a lot of heavy vehicles. So, yes, the answer to your question is yes. And they're running about that time period. What we're seeing is some of our more rural roads are hitting that 12 to 15 year span and they are starting to degrade. So we're running about the averages. MS. DOWNS: Can I ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: What does that mean, build to a higher standard? We're talking about maintenance after its built. You're saying you're changing the mix of your asphalt or something? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. It's more than just the mix of asphalt. We'll run what we call a design year traffic. How many cars will be on that road and -- you know, truck factor and things like that. So we may beef up the subgrade base, the limerock, add more. We may go to a black base material which is even stronger, depending on what that road is going to be. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I think we're going into Page 26 when we got into questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nick, just out of curiosity, contingency, whenever I've done it in a budget, it's a little bit of slop that you need because you don't know what's going to hit you and you need to put it in there. And very often you don't use any of it. But the process here is to put in a number there. I'm sure it was a reasonable calculation. But then you use it to build your total. And what happens if in fact in the four years preceding the final year you Page 81 September 21, 2009 had occasion not to use any of it? What happens to that money? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's shown every year in the budget cycle. They'll ask us what we spent the year before and contingencies if any. And they typically do not accumulate. They'll look at each year and say okay, that rolls into a project now or that goes into a different category . What you'll see is a change order, sometimes for the benefit. A project will come on line and they'll say while you're here, can you do this as well too. That contingency happens. It's used to defend against a lawsuit. We are in five lawsuits right now. So that contingency money is to hire the lawyers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate its use, that's not my question. My question is on an accounting basis, I guess. I'm looking to see that we don't create an aberration by using numbers. We put placeholders in there and we generate a total number based upon all of these things. So if I understand you correctly then what you are saying to me is that when you do your actual budget as opposed to the AUIR statement, we will see the reflection of the reductions, we will see a real number. Ifwe could parallel these documents, this document and the budget document, we'd clearly see the changes, is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And I can assure you there's one lady in this room, actually two, that look at contingencies every year and see if we've spent them and how we spend them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's great. And I noted that there were a number of placeholders in here. And I guess, I don't know, I am always suspicious of placeholders that have the same __ you know, that are repetitive. I recognize that you have to do something, and maybe it's appropriate, but I guess I'll let the productivity people, if they desire to talk about that, I don't know, do it. But I just make a comment regarding it that it doesn't give me a lot of satisfaction to see numbers Page 82 September 21, 2009 repeated that are just placeholders. Yet I understand you really can't know those numbers. MR. CASALANGUIDA: What should worry you is that they're not increasing. If they're static and they've been static for many years, you know that you're doing the same work and with less dollars because you have more of accounting to work with. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, depreciation -- not depreciation. MS. DOWNS: Nick, don't you arrive at contingency, isn't it just a percentage each year? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Typically it is. But it can be adjusted down. And we have a requirement for reserves as well too, and I don't think it's shown in that as well. But typically it's a percentage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you want to make any comments on 26 before we ask the balance of our questions? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll let you all ask questions. I'm sure you have many. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions on Page __ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I had one more and I forgot it. I apologize. On the DCA -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The DCA consortium. I know that consortium is kind of like some of the leaves have fallen off the tree. Is this now -- this projection, it was kind of interesting, because it went from a million to 829,000 to three million, four. How is that reasonable relative to the changes in the consortium? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The consortium was adopted and they've actually all funded by letters of credit. So those numbers that you see in there represent each year that they're supposed to provide their certain funding. All the funding that's been committed has been backed up by letters of credit. So it's an approved DCA instead of a wish list. Because we went to the altar so many times, we actually had Page 83 September 21, 2009 letters of credit from them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that you've done that and I appreciate that. I'm not quibbling, per se, but I am asking, if the consortium had 20 members at one time and you didn't have letters of credit at the inception, and perhaps not even to a good period, and you started to realize some things were happening and you now have letters of credit for let's say 15. So you lost five. But over time it's theoretically possible with this terrible great recession we're going through that you could actually -- these few others might just have to drop out through bankruptcy and other. The letters of credit are a guarantee? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, they are. And everybody that's in the DCA has a letter of credit. There is no one in the group that was approved for development that did not provide a letter of credit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm not sure of as an instrument but a letter of credit is a demand on a bank, but it's not a bond. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's actually a little bit better than a bond, actually. The letter of credit has to be backed up through that bank. I think the requirements that County Attorney's Office has put on them is pretty stringent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're assuring us that regardless, that this number is going to be satisfied. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do I have to promise my job on it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on Page 26? Ms. Vasey? MS . VASEY : Yes, if you go down on 26 in the revenue section, which is towards the bottom, there's an impact fee COA revenue line that's running about 17.5 each year up to 20. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MS. VASEY: As I recall, the impact fees are about eight, so the Page 84 September 21, 2009 rest of it is COA? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, impact fees and COAs are a common term. It's both. Impact fees that people will payor COAs to promise to pay the back half of their impact fees. We call them impact fees as a generic term for both of those. MS. VASEY: Okay. But when I went through the budget, the total for a year on impact fees, I thought adding up the individual districts was only about eight million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Amy's not here. I think we're actually in the 15 to 16 range right now. MS. VASEY: Okay. Then maybe I left out a district. Okay. But that total number for the five years is 95 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: And last year it was 170 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: So in one year you dropped $75 million. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. MS . VASEY: That causes me a lot of concern for what goes into the program in case it drops again next year by -- it can't drop by a like amount. But if it drops, you know, substantially and we're hanging out there with these commitments, how will we fund them? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, that's a good question. We have that same angst as you do. If you notice in fiscal years '11 and '12, there are no capital programs. We've kind of said you're not supposed to take any out of the three years, could you -- you know, one be delayed. We just recognize that in this time not to put anything in those top first three years that we couldn't realistically afford to build today. And if we did have an issue, we could make that reconciliation. So nothing comes back into the capital program until fiscal year 13. Now, we think our front end of 17-five a year is fairly conservative. We also think that our back end will be doing a lot better Page 85 September 21, 2009 in the years four and five, but we still kept it low. So we kind of -- I think we played it right this year, based on our revenue projections. We didn't increase them as we think revenue will respond back in the fourth and fifth year. We want to see it before we move the numbers up. MS. VASEY: Okay. Another thing, on line -- on the general fund under revenues, you're getting a general fund amount every year of 23-two. And as I mentioned earlier, $14 million of that relates to the debt service, which certainly cannot be touched. But there's another eight and a half million, about, that comes from the general fund. And when we're looking into F Y '11 and having another large drop in property values and dropped property value revenues, what areas can we look at to take some money if necessary to -- in case you can't get that 8.5 million? Because that was -- as I recall, a few years ago the commissioners had extra money. That was when the property values were going up like crazy and there was extra money and they started putting in an additional $10 million every year. That may not be affordable as -- you know, in this time frame. So how -- if the commissioners have to look to this area to reduce, where might that happen? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can feel Norman cringing, as I am too, as you ask that question. As you look under -- not in the box, but you look at things like bridge repairs and maintenance, major/minor intersection improvements, things that we still want to continue to do, we're going to look at that. We'll also look at our capital program. Do we remove a million dollars from right-of-way acquisition because we have more time? I mean, anywhere you see on here we could probably make adjustments if we had to. We don't like to because obviously we've got a program that we want to keep whole. But if you said we have to come up with Page 86 September 21, 2009 $5 million next year, $2 million, we would look at this whole program and say how can adjust this, 250,000 here, 750,000 there. We would look at that on a case-by-case basis. MS. VASEY: Well, I feel like from our point of view in productivity we need to at least have an opportunity for the commissioners to see what would fall out of a program, if it had to. Because, you know, another 30, 20, $30 million drop, we have to look at where we're putting some money in capital projects. And this is one of the few places we are putting money. And it seems like -- I would recommend -- be looking to recommend from the Productivity Committee that you provide a view of what might be dropped from the program if the commissioners are concerned when they get this AUIR with, you know, the amount of capital dollars coming from the general fund. MR. FEDER: I appreciate your concern and I'm sure we'll be addressing that. As we said, there's three items here: The AUIR, the CIE and the budget at various times. I do just want to point out, though, as you mentioned, it was in the years when we were doing better, but even before that time when the halfpenny sales tax was not received well by the community. The commitment was to bond and to use that 14 million of ad valorem as support for lost gas tax revenue that was bonded out to 2023. The need at that time was estimated just under $300 million. The bonding was just over 200 million. The difference was a commitment of ad valorem to get at that capacity constrained. And so therefore the 14 million and the other. And it was structured initially at about 17 for payback and then trying to pull that money in, it went up to 34. And rather than do that, once we got to that point, Jim Mudd did a good job of leveling it off so that -- at one time it was 24, it's gone down a little bit. But generally it would be 24 million a year on out through that 2023, both Page 87 September 21, 2009 in the debt service and in the dollars to get you to the full capacity improvement for catch-up. Just so everybody understands where it came from. Now, having said that, everything's on the table obviously each budgeted cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I've got a couple questions. On Page 26 you have a Golden Gate Boulevard to Wilson east to DeSoto, 60040. In your last year's AUIR in FY 12 you had the construction of that at 38,100,000. You've dropped it and reduced it to right-of-way of 4,000 and you have construction not even in the five-year plan. What's going on with that particular road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. I think we had the balance of that project with Collier Boulevard. Collier Boulevard received some trip grants. Also note, Golden Gate Boulevard east is a two-lane facility. It's down to 100 trips in vehicles traveling that road in a peak direction this year. It's only failing by about 40 or 50 cars, so it's one of those borderline roads as a two-lane how it will handle traffic right now. So while it's listed as a deficiency, it's not deficient by much and it's not deficient by much on a two-lane road. We did come in and get trip grant money on Collier Boulevard. That's a larger road that carries more cars in 2013, so we allocated funds to that and said Golden Gate Boulevard right now is not deficient by much, it's actually trending down in traffic, going down, while the other roads are still eking up a little bit. And the fact that, you know, we had to do Collier Boulevard in 2013, we pushed that out one more year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So a road interior to Golden Gate Estates is showing a reduction in traffic to a point where you put off the construction almost indefinitely. It's not even on the five-year plan. But a road exterior to the Estates is showing greater traffic, and that's where you're moving the funds to. Page 88 September 21, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And it also received a trip grant as well, too. So we were able to leverage some dollars there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Interesting application. I wonder if Vanderbilt Beach Road extension shouldn't apply the same way. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you need to go there right now, because otherwise that doesn't make any sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What doesn't make -- it doesn't-- Vanderbilt Beach Road never made any sense. COMMISSIONER CARON: They don't make any sense -- well, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's never made any sense on Vanderbilt Beach Road, so there's no sense of beating that dead horse. And there's another one coming up that's just an nonsensical. 6116, the last one, US 41/SR 951 intersection resurfacing. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's that consortium. And I notice you've got 23 million in it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where does that show up in your revenue stream? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's eight to $9 million of impact fee dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's also going to be -- I'm sorry, not impact fee dollars, prepaid impact fees. The consortium actually fronting their impact fee dollars. Roughly $8 million ofFDOT money, and that's shown in your fiscal year 14 as revenue. It's part of that 17 million. And also about $5 million of general fund, or impact fees outside of the consortium, one of the two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how much of that DCA portion is in grants, reimbursements and DCAs? Page 89 September 21, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximately 16 to $17 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how much of the DCA involving Oil Well Road is in the grants, reimbursements and DCAs? MR. CASALANGUIDA: $6 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're up to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: And revenues from Ave Maria, and I can't -- roughly $30 million in Ave Maria revenues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're -- really your grant reimbursements and DCAs on the first page of 50 million, 120 is not due to an increase in grants, it's -- because your grants last -- that was 23857 last year. It's really mostly due to an increase in DCAs; is that a fair statement? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, no. There was trip grants of roughly $7 million that came in. And there were -- we were notified this year we were recipients of that. And also, we start getting the payback from State Road 84, the advancement reimbursement with DOT comes in into our outer years. It wasn't in before, it was the beginning of it. So more of that came in as well too. COMMISSIONER CARON: I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I only see five -- a little over $5 million in DCAs. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The one that's listed for the consortium. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right down at the bottom in the last box. DCA consortium, US 41, five million, 253. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then your grants and reimbursements are 44876. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And there's a combination there of -- in those grants and reimbursements, like for instance, fiscal year' 13, and Page 90 September 21, 2009 I know Theres has the line item, but there are trip grants roughly six to $7 million of trip money. And in that year we're getting advancement reimbursements from DOT for State Road 84. In that year it starts the payout as well too. So -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why it jumped up so much in '13? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, right. Yes, ma'am. And then in '14 the big jump was because of the DOT promising the $8 million for the resurfacing. So it's hard to call them all different things, grants, reimbursements. There are advancements contracts, joint participation agreements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are you finished? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down below where you've got 69081, pathways, sidewalks and bike lanes, you've got a new pathway, I think that's what you call it, all the way from 41 up to the Wal-Mart near Glen Eagle, I think it's called or something, Forest Glen, that's what it . IS. Part of that pathway was actually built by filling in the lakes and canals that were along the roadway and moving everything over, stabilizing it. And I watched it happen day after day, with very expensive stabilization and riprap. And then to the south you actually built a retaining wall section in which the pathway runs through the center. What did that pathway cost this county? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That section was about $3 million. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that wouldn't show up on this pathways, sidewalks and bike lanes section, or is that where it would have shown up? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it was actually part of a capital project. It was a 951 project, sir. Page 91 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We spent over $3 million on that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's -- wow, that's a lot of money to spend on something that's only going to be used by 10 people, but __ MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you -- I invite you to come to a pathway coalition meeting sometimes. I get both sides of it, so __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On your 35013 and 60110 you have transit facilities and transfer site. I know that you got involved on a very disputable issue over on Radio Road with a facility I thought you purchased for a transfer site or a transit facility. Isn't that -- is that finished, is that coming through? I thought it was -- there were zoning issues with it and a few other comments. And if it isn't -- if it's been purchased and it's going to have to have work done on it, why wouldn't you have something in that line item? MR. FEDER: First of all, the facility that you mentioned was the old Morandi. It is already the CAT or the Collier Area Transit facilities out of that. What we're looking forward is a conditional use to allow transfer activities there. We've worked with the community, we committed to them that until we four-laned Radio Road we wouldn't bring that issue forward for conditional use. We also have committed to try and bring the issue forward, only during the season, because there's a lot of seasonal residents in that corridor. So that's delayed but it is still coming forward for conditional use. If that gets approved, then we would have -- that line item would have some budget, if there's budget available. We are moving, though, under an intermodal grant from the state this year that's in their work program for transfer activities on the government center itself where we have the temporary looking to put Page 92 September 21, 2009 full facilities there. That would not preclude some limited transfer activities of the CAT, if the conditional use is approved. But it does address the primary transfer activity, which is at the government center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're -- what is the transient enhancements? Would that be just the improvements to the routing, to the -- MR. FEDER: That's just a category we've had in there that in the past we've done out of that area some of the bus stops and other issues. Most of those have been funded and they're out on the street right now. We're moving with others that have encumbered and being built. But that's just a category for those types of activities: The shelters and for the facilities themselves for the transit system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you just don't have any need for funding then for the improvements to the facility if you get the zoning conditional use for it; is that -- MR. FEDER: When we get the conditional use, if we do, then there may be some minor improvements necessary there and we'd have to come in, if we have available funding as a budget item. It will probably be under that item number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any remaining -- Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Since you mentioned strategic intermodal SIS systems, is 41 our only SIS strategic intermodal? MR. FEDER: One would wish. 41 is not even on there. The only thing we have on the strategic intermodal system is 1-75 __ MS. DOWNS: 75, that's what I meant to say. MR. FEDER: -- and on the emerging is 2982. MS. DOWNS: That's -- I knew it was 75. Emerging. How far along are you with that? Because you'll qualify for a lot of federal funds if you can get it designated SIS. MR. FEDER: The emerging actually on 2982 exists today, which Page 93 September 21, 2009 does make it eligible for funding, just like a real strategic intermodal system facility . We're trying to get that enhanced, emphasis on it. The state is advancing the design -- or the PD&E, excuse me, on that section, both here and in Lee County. It is on the system already. We're trying to get the Immokalee Airport and some other issues on the strategic intermodal system. But that is on there as an emerging facility today. MS. DOWNS: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on from Page 26 to-- Nick, I guess 27 and forward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. The tables you see next are basically the line item details of each individual roadway segment, with the 2009 highlighted. The corresponding red in the black for remaining capacity corresponds your deficiency sheet. And really that sheet tells the whole story of these two pages. If you look on that attachment G, it really talks about these two pages. When you see the first segment there, it's Immokalee Road, Livingston Road to 1-75. The only reason that's on there, it was a board decision to maintain that as a four-land capacity while it was under construction. That is going to a modified six-lane quote, unquote eight-lane, a really expanded project that right now is under the control of DOT. So that will come off the deficiency segment. But as a board decision we agreed and we recommend to the board it stay as a four-lane, because new construction would take some time and we didn't want to put that capacity on line quite yet. Golden Gate Boulevard we touched on briefly, the next two segments right there. East of Wilson, all the way out to DeSoto. One thing to note about the Boulevard that I didn't bring up prior. It's a heavy what I call peak direction, A.M. peak direction P.M. road. It's a commuter road. So when this road fails, it's only for Page 94 September 21, 2009 approximately an hour period of time in the morning and at nighttime, as opposed to you get into more of your urban area, the period that a road may fail tends to be a little bit longer. That was another reason our decision that Golden Gate Boulevard could wait a little bit longer. It's really a commuter facility. Davis Boulevard, those ones that show in the next section in orange, both of them are scheduled to go under contract hopefully fiscal year '10. We'd like to do it in '09, but it's going to be '10, per our CIE. The other section of Davis from Radio Road to Santa Barbara is in DOT's work program. Collier Boulevard, 1-75 to Davis, is currently in our work program scheduled again to go real soon fiscal year' 1 O. And then Immokalee Road. The only reason that section of Immokalee, it's vested trips that are causing it to fail. Again, that's an IROX project, expected to be completed by Christmas, according to the paper this weekend. Goodlette- Frank Road -- actually Vanderbilt Beach Road from Goodlette to Airport is an internal county project for a six-land widening west of Airport for a small portion of it. And that will take care of the capacity issue that's there. But the rest are in 2011. Collier Boulevard; a section from Golden Gate Boulevard to Green; the section south of U.S. 41 from Wal-Mart to the Manatee Driveway, that's going to be part of our project for the intersection improvement. Old U.S. 41, intersection enhancement's being done by a developer. Tamiami Trail East is under design by the state and no funding for construction yet. And Oil Well Road, again, scheduled to be let any time, as soon as we get permits in hands. Your attachment H basically is a visual representation of what Page 95 September 21, 2009 you've just seen, an attachment G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The existing deficiencies for vested trips on Vanderbilt Beach between Goodlette and Airport, when did you say that was going to be resolved? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's under design right now. In fiscal year' 1 0 we're hoping to let that project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't you show that on your prior page? MR. FEDER: Major intersection. MR. CASALANGUIDA: My prior page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 29. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's item number 110.2. MR. CASALANGUIDA: 1102, Vanderbilt Beach Road. It is shown there as remaining capacity of minus 52. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but wouldn't you show the improvements that you're intending to make? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Labeled under the notes, yeah, typically we do. And that's just a catch. Construction in 2010. COMMISSIONER CARON: Should be all of those, if they're __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the same would apply to 124, I think, Golden Gate Boulevard, east of Everglades to DeSoto? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And I think the attachment I was just -- the next attachment breaks on the notes. But you'd like to see it on this here as well, too? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, wouldn't you want to show them in both locations so they coordinate? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can. We should. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just makes it easier to read, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. No improvement's a good point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Looking for consistency. Page 96 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this point before he goes on? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay? You're other two sections are the TCMAs, which on attachment H you can get a graphical representation of both, the northwest TCMA and the east central TCMA. Transportation concurrency management areas are measured in a group of roads. Those tables define which roads they are. And as long as they're operating above 85 percent of level of service, they're considered functioning properly. As you can see by that report they both are, so there are no issues with the TCMAs. And that pretty much concludes the presentation with the graphics. And we can answer some general questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody else? Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: You have under consideration the adding and exchange on 1-75 for Everglades Boulevard, which obviously is going to increase traffic on Everglades Boulevard. But there's nothing in the TCMA for any projected advance in traffic there. But then wouldn't it also -- and are you able to measure a decrease in traffic from your attachment H between Everglades and Wilson Boulevard? If you bring Everglades interchange on, it's going to decrease the traffic between Everglades and Wilson. Just stands to reason. So have you factored both of those changes in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have factored those changes in the submittal to the IJR, the Interchange Justification Report. Because the capital project is not within the five-year element, it's not shown on this report. MS. DOWNS: Okay. Page 97 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have just one other thing from a planning perspective. On Page 24 there's a note and it says, there is concern that the artificially low background traffic volume will allow additional development approval which does not consider the current vacancy rate factor and the addition of trips on the network. When things come before the Planning Commission with transportation staff approval, how are you factoring this in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I legally can't. I can make a note if a project is in a facility that we expect to fail in the next three or four years. We can caution the Planning Commission. We don't have a mechanism within our GMP or our Land Development Code to consider vacancy rates. I can -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So that's really left up to planning commissioners to make stipulations and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a recommendation you can, and we as staff will too. That's a legitimate concern. I'm glad you brought it up. Probably my only bullet point I did not touch on. Your vacancy rates are going to be a critical issue. Randy and Mike brought it up. There is no development regulation that will control when those people move in. And right now the issue that you have is you say -- you look at the roadway system, counts are down, fantastic. Vested development, you've taken care of them. When a building COs, it only has one person in that building of 50 units, you've considered that building on the ground and providing -- putting rubber on the road. They're not there. I made that comment to Commissioner Coy Ie and he said, well, Nick, it will be your job when they all show up to fix it. And I said I Page 98 September 21, 2009 can't promise you that we get -- respond that quickly, we're just trying to keep an eye on it as much as we can. COMMISSIONER CARON: I just -- again, I've never heard anyone from transportation staff bring up this issue at a Planning Commission meeting. And it's a little surprising to me that it hasn't been made as a note. And it should have been. And we've certainly had things come before us very recently in the past couple of months that affect areas where this will be a real -- this could be a real factor. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Knowing the lay of the land, most of the projects that you have in your five-year work program will cover those issues. The only facility that I can think of where vacancy rates really stand out to me is Pine Ridge Road. Pine Ridge Road right now is on the cusp. It floats back and forth between on-line -- but there's a lot of vested development that has been banked and then removed from the bank. That when those units fill back up again, you're going to see a lot of traffic on Pine Ridge Road. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not to quibble, but I need qualification. Because you started out saying we can't legally state that. So before the Planning Commission starts making stipulations that aren't defensible, I -- prudence dictates that we know that and we consider it. But when you say it's not legally -- that you can't legally say it, it's because it's not within the realm of planning that you do; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not within our Growth Management Plan or Land Development Code. I can bring it up. And it's one of those things we've talking about if a development -- a zoning application was to come on for Pine Ridge Road, one of the pre-application notes would be to have the applicant provide some sort of analysis of what they thought a vacancy rate was in the area for Page 99 September 21, 2009 consideration by the Planning Commission and the board. You know, he may say, like Randy had mentioned, you know, checking electric meters doesn't work. It's not a very easy thing to figure out how many people are actually living in the building as full-time residents. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think prudence dictates that we take every piece of information and work with it. I just -- I'm sure we'll get whatever. If we have a stipulation question, we'll get good legal advice. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, what I said was a recommendation, not a stipulation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commercial, it can be something you can really look at a little closer, how many units are open in a commercial building, if you're applying for an application across the street. If you notice that the vacancy across the street is 80 percent, you can assume that 80 percent more traffic will be coming on line. So it's a little easier to tell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only problem is, Nick, when we rely on the applicant to provide information about how badly their project is needed when we talk around this community and see thousands and thousands of square feet empty, yet every report, and we just got one in last week that said we needed another quarter of a million square feet of commercial. Well, that is absurd, but it doesn't help if staffs not producing the report and it's being produced by the applicants. Because they're only going to produce reports to their favor. And that's what they do repeatedly. So with that said, I think we're wrapping up transportation. Does anybody have any other questions or comments involving the transportation section? (N 0 response.) Page 100 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifnot, I'll at least suggest two things that we came across with -- that I heard, at least out of this discussion. Number one is that on Page 26, it would be completed for the encumbered projects, and that some value for encumbered projects as a snapshot in time be added to Page 21 with the appropriate footnote describing how it is entered in there. And number two, that the Exhibit G deficiencies be mirrored into Exhibit H and show up there as well. Those are two of the things I made notes of. Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On Page 21, our Page 21 anyway, it needs to read grants, reimbursements and DCAs in order to come up with that 50,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you're right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Otherwise it doesn't balance with Page 26. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any changes they want to suggest to transportation, or recommendations to go forward? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, on the snapshot date, I mean, is that something -- could that be the fiscal year that we're dealing with with predictions? I know that your budget's right before that but-- , MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're asking on Page 26 if we can make that snapshot but before the submittal to the board? I think we can put something together. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember you were saying you wanted the date? MR. FEDER: Yeah, that date -- as an example, we move the AUIR. If you look on that table where we're going to now fill in some dollar figures on that estimate date, was 8/12 is when we get gave that update of that five-year work program. Page 101 September 21, 2009 So what I'm saying is the date on the table where we've done the estimate update of all the projects, we'll use that same date, which may be 7/12 or 9/12 next year, I don't know. But we'll use that same date. And we'll make it clear that that's an estimate of what has been expended to date on that project versus previously encumbered, so therefore what would roll. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you could make that the fiscal year we're dealing with, or is that hard to -- MR. FEDER: Well, that's the difficulty. Because our fiscal year -- and that's why we left it blank, because we -- a few years back we tried doing it and then it got confused because then all of a sudden two or three weeks later you get a certified roll forward and it's not the same. So knowing that going in, we're going to give you our best estimate. In this case we're sitting here talking at the end of September. It was mid-August is when we did up that table for estimate of cost and therefore where I would put in what estimate of what will roll. So it's about a month and a half -- actually it's two months before we'll really get a good idea of what the certified roll forward will be, which is about mid-October; is that correct? About mid-October. So we'll give you a date and we'll give you our best shot at it, which is I think what you're asking for. COMMISSIONER MORRAY: So when we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- compare AUIR data to AUIR data, that will be consistent? That is to say, we won't see a modification in the following AUIR which was the budgetary qualification, we will see -- MR. FEDER: Yeah, I would like to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- a projection and projection. MR. FEDER: -- say they'd be consistent, but they are sufficiently Page 102 September 21, 2009 dynamic. You have the AUIR driving the budget which drives the Capital Improvement Element. And unfortunately during that time -- as an example, last cycle we reevaluated our impact fees from 72 million, 50, then all of a sudden down, to last year's collection just over 20 to 17 and a half now. So each one of those documents are a little bit different, because when I change my revenues I've got to balance the budget, I have to move projects and modify. So I'd like to tell you it's going to be that solid, but I won't be telling you anything that's not true. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not asking for it to be a solid. I'm suggesting that -- MR. FEDER: The frame of reference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I recognize that you're going to have a question. Maybe the box ought to be a double thick lined box to show -- call our attention to the fact that this is -- we put the turban and the crystal ball and we start working. MR. FEDER: We'll make that clear. We tried to do it with an asterisk, we'll make it a lot clearer and we'll get you numbers; that's what I heard you wanted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that discussion, is there a motion from the Planning Commission to move the category A transportation department's forward -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with the three stipulations that we discussed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray, second by COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Schiffer. Page 103 September 21, 2009 Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Does the Productivity Committee wish to make any kind of motion? MS. VASEY: Yes. I'm still concerned that the general fund revenue over and above the 14 million for debt service will not be available in future years, at least while we're having an economic downturn, so I'm going to make a motion that we -- to ask you to provide what programs would be impacted if $8.5 million of general fund revenue was reduced each year from FY '11 to FY '14. And then bring that, if you could, to the productivity meeting and we'd have the whole committee go over that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, by -- how much? You mean the whole thing? MS. VASEY: 8.5 million in each of the years. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So taking out the 8.5 every year? MS. VASEY: Right, right. And I'm not sure that that's what would be the outcome from the Productivity Committee. But if you gave us that full amount, then we can look at it and chew it over and perhaps make a recommendation out of that committee. So that would be my motion, to request you to provide the -- that program decrement. Page 104 September 21, 2009 MS. DOWNS: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: All in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Thank you, it passed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys didn't have any discussion. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to thank the Planning Commissioners -- MS. VASEY: Good point. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- the productivity members, and especially our court reporter who, God bless her, how she doesn't curse my name a million times. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, she does-- COMMISSIONER CARON: You owe her big time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- plenty of times. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Have a nice day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, we have a choice, we can try to get through the drainage and canals and structures before lunch or we can take lunch now and come back here in about an hour and five minutes. What do you all wish? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Since Phil is on a couple of them, we may as well come back and do all of his. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but drainage is road-- transportation, so it's a separate department. Ifwe start it, I'd like to finish it. But it may push our lunch back further. So let's -- is that a consensus to go forward then? MS. VASEY: I do have quite a few questions, but fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guys, we'll be here for a while. MS. VASEY: It's fine with me.t Page 105 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, I've done this before, I made a decision to wait out the lunch and we've gone till 2:00. So look it, let's just take lunch and come back here at 12:45 and resume with the drainage structures. (Luncheon recess.) (Commissioner Murray is absent for the remainder of the meeting. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we're back in session. Welcome back from lunch. And when we retired for lunch, we left offwith still Category 8 facilities. The first one that we wanted to go back into was the drainage facilities. And looks like we're ready to go. Jerry? MR. KURTZ: Good afternoon. I'm Jerry Kurtz with -- Principal Project Manager with the road maintenance department's stormwater effort. I'll just give a brief little introduction and then I'll be ready to answer any questions you have. Start with summarizing the two pages of text really in the AUIR. We -- in March of 2008, not January of 2008, we clarified the stormwater funding policy due to the fact that the cost-sharing efforts that we were trying to get underway with most all our projects were not working out very well with the MSTUs not being imposed on neighborhoods, and securing other sources of funding. So we clarified the policy in March 25th of 2008. We got away from the one-third, one-third, one-third cost splitting requirement that we had. We are pursuing grants aggressively . We have another staff person now involved in stormwater who's more of a stormwater planner and checking for grants on a daily basis. We have applied for three grants. One we did find out that we're not receiving, but the other two are looking pretty good to receive the funding on that. And it could total up to close to a million dollars in Page 106 September 21, 2009 grants if we're successful there. And we should know within a few months. We focused in on our main capital improvement projects with some secondary replacement and repair projects with the stormwater program that was reflected in this year's program, as well as how we're reflecting it in the next year's program. We wanted to add efforts in for Immokalee. Immokalee's stormwater master plan did get adopted this year, and that is in our Capital Improvement Element I think of the Growth Management Plan. So we're easing into work in Immokalee. There's a number of stormwater projects that are master planned up there. So we've got money budgeted for that, and we're getting into Immokalee the beginning of this fiscal year coming up. So we're pleased about that. That's a brief summary of the first two text pages. I can stop there, if you have questions about those pages, or move on to the tables. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got some questions. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, under task number two on the watershed management plans, are we still on track for that? MR. KURTZ: Well, the watershed management plans are still moving forward. However, the -- we need more -- as I understand it, we need more consultant tasks to be completed, so we need an amendment to the current contract with the consultant. And it was quite a hefty amendment, so the board did not approve it initially, and staff is coming back to more clarify what is necessary to move forward with the watershed plans. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So right now we're not really on track with these right now. MR. KURTZ: Well, I'd say we're still on track. There's still work being done. But we do need a pretty significant amendment to go to the next level. It was always created in phases or pieces to get from Page 107 September 21, 2009 the beginning to the end. So as far as I believe, staffs opinion is we're marching through the process. It is a big process, but I wouldn't say that it's off track. It's more in community development's shop, but stormwater's working closely with them and maybe you could clarify, get more with the community development on the watershed plans. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, thank you. When you said you got away from the one-third, one-third, one-third, that was the old policy where the people who were benefiting from the project paid one-third, the people -- I guess grants was one-third and then general fund revenue was one-third? MR. KURTZ: Yes, grants was one -- well, it varied on the type of project. We categorized our projects into three different basic type of projects, but yeah, a lot of them fell into that funding split. MS. VASEY: Well, when you get away from that, does that mean like everything is going to be general funded then except for the million or two dollars that you get from some of these grants? MR. KURTZ: No, it's still a variety, really. Of course it's worth mentioning again, the money we get from Big Cypress Basin is significant. They've been coming through and it is on a $2 million level every year. But we are pursuing other grants. We have a variety of ways -- some of our projects we actually get some sharing by donations of easements. So there's other ways where we can get cost share. One of the big controversial things though is the MSTUs. A lot of the neighborhoods are not willing to self-impose MSTUs, so the commissioners would have to impose MSTUs. So it's just right now it's not a real valid funding option for us. MS. VASEY: It just seems like that was a really nice policy in that it recognized that some of the stormwater projects had general total county benefit. Some benefited the people that lived in a certain Page 108 September 21, 2009 area. And then the fact that the grants and things were helping. But now this looks like about 20 percent grants and 80 percent general funds, which is -- you know, that's kind of now the whole county has to bear a much larger percentage than we were doing years ago. MR. KURTZ: Well, we thought it was a good cost -- equitable cost split for projects. And it's still occurring in various locations. It's not predominant. Forest Lakes for instance has a drainage MS TU, and they're getting a majority of their work done under that drainage MSTU. So we agree with you. And that's why when it was hard to establish new drainage MSTUs, we really turned our focus around to the primary system. In stormwater there's a large variety of needs out there on a grand scale and a neighborhood scale on the other end of the spectrum, so we focused in -- back in on our main trunk lines, which makes a lot of sense too. Of course the big trunk lines are Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management's systems, but ours are right connected to those and there's plenty of those which we call secondary . And most all of our work now -- in fact, it's almost exclusive that our work is on those major trunk lines that the county has owned and operated for years. There's plenty of deficiencies right there and to work on for several years to come. And what we're finding too, which is kind of nice, is if we improve the deficiencies on that intermediate piece of the system, often the result in the neighborhoods is their flooding and nuisance with storm water goes away. So it makes sense to go back to the downstream and fix what's down there, and that would be the secondary, and then possibly in the future have to move upstream into the more specific areas. So we have made that adjustment and we feel it's for the better and it's a better use of the funds. Page 109 September 21, 2009 MS. VASEY: It just seems to me I guess that a fairness issue would be those that benefit should contribute. And that's totally been lost now. How much money are we spending on L.A.S.I.P. total? MR. KURTZ: On L.A.S.I.P. we spend seven million typically in a year; five to seven million. As much as with the right-of-way acquisition and some tricky parts of design and modeling, it could go up as high as nine million. But actually the numbers for L.A.S.I.P. are fairly high and significant right now. What we're actually trying to do is accelerate that project right now while we can. It's going very well. It's set up in a sequence now from the downstream to the upstream. We've had some developer cooperation on some big parts of the system. So it's a little -- weighted a little high for L.A.S.I.P. right now, but we're hoping we can accelerate, maybe finish possibly a little bit in advance. We're not sure, but that's a goal right now. MS. VASEY: And when you say in advance, of the permit expiring? MR. KURTZ: Yes. MS. VASEY: And what year is that? MR. KURTZ: The permit expires in 2015. And the plan that we have, the master plan, is to have construction completed by 2015. The last project to start construction is in 2014. MS. VASEY: And I was actually looking for the total figure, multiple years on L.A.S.I.P., the whole project. MR. KURTZ: The whole project, it started back in -- I want to say construction started in around 2003. The figure from there forward is around 60 million, including monies we've spent in those beginning years up to what we think we'll spend through '14 and '15. It's varying a little bit with the cost of construction going down. First way up, then way down. We keep adjusting our numbers when we have to. But generally the figure is around 60 million. Page 110 September 21, 2009 MS. VASEY: And how much of that -- I'm sorry, my last one. How much of that is from the general fund as opposed to grants? MR. KURTZ: Oh, boy, I would say probably -- and I'm going to include in developer contributions in there. I would say as high as maybe 20 percent is from grants and developer commitments. Maybe a little bit more. I don't have that calculation, but I'm sure I'm in the neighborhood there, 20 to 30 percent assistance on -- MS. VASEY: And 20 percent would be about 50 million would be general fund then, 48? MR. KURTZ: Yes. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Ms. Downs. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, I'm going to wait until we get to the next page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I was led to believe that the L.A.S.I.P. permit would be expiring soon. Has it already been extended? MR. KURTZ: It's two permits basically. The water management permit, originally similar to all others, is a five-year cycle on it. But our permit is dual purpose: It's construction permit with a five-year time frame and then a conceptual permit. And the way you keep extending that permit is every two years you have to submit to convert part of your conceptually approved project to construction. So we do that on a regular basis. Typically in a year we modify the permit to add two or three more sections from -- which are conceptually approved to construction approval. So it's easy for us to keep the Water Management District permit valid from year to year. The Corps permit is a one-time 10-year permit, and that's the permit that's going to expire in 2015. MS. DOWNS: And is there a way to expand that permit? MR. KURTZ: There is a way to expand. They tell you that you Page 111 September 21, 2009 can expand the permit. However, with the Corps you're going to open the project back up to possibly new criteria, current ways they look at things. So you could -- the whole permit as a whole project could be opened back up and put through the pretty rigorous scrutiny that they're doing today. It's similar to what they were doing before. But I think if we did want to look at extending the Corps permit, we're setting ourselves up for possibly years and years of delay and a lot of dollars in consulting fees to try to work through that modification process. So it's really prudent to hold to that 2015 and that way all our impacts as far as the Corps is concerned are identified and accounted for in our current mitigation plan. MS. DOWNS: That all sounds very ominous. Can you give some examples? MR. KURTZ: Well, the project -- the Corps permitted the project as a construction authorization. So to get a construction authorization from the Corps we had to put in all our mitigation up front. We have three mitigation areas, they are all constructed, and those mitigation areas account for all current work that's completed and all proposed work that will be completed. All the wetlands, all the other surface waters, all the impacts for all the improvements are currently mitigated for. So if we started getting into the area where we needed to extend the permit, they'd start looking at well, maybe we're not meeting what's currently being done as far as mitigation. So an example is we could have to buy more mitigation credits or do more mitigation work on the three areas that we have. We really don't know. What we do know, as long as we stay in our current method and work through it, we'll be okay. MS. DOWNS: Do you have a list of the stricter standards that are being applied today or that you anticipate coming on-line? Page 112 September 21, 2009 MR. KURTZ: Our consultants do. Our consultants, and we have a number of them, different firms in town. But this is what we're getting from them and this is what we're pulling out of the meetings that we're having on our other projects, that even though the rules maybe had minor changes, that the time frame is a lot more. There's more scrutiny with wetlands and what they call secondary impacts and impacts to endangered species, so that's why we're preferring to hold to that higher deadline. MS. DOWNS: Could you make that list available? MR. FEDER: Yes, we'll get you information and make that available to you. I think that the basic answer though is your endangered species issues and other items are really where we'd have much more expansive look than we had maybe in the past, and in your cumulative impacts, which is becoming a bigger issue than it was when we went in permitting. You need to understand, though, as a frame of reference, L.A.S.I.P. permit was 15 years to gain approval. Fifteen years. So it is something that we want to follow through on. And we have nice pictures, if you want those as well, of flooding in the area, which fortunately we reduced. A lot of it is downstream work. We worked with two major developments which helps reduce some of the costs on the project. But it's draining a very significant area, a lot of downstream items. And when you said, Jan, if I could, about areas benefiting, it's not always as direct. We just finished a project as an example, a small one, but it shows it up in Palm River. The folks right there next to that canal who didn't want us to remove the vegetation that had grown over a drainage easement and didn't want any work made it clear that they never flooded. Well, that's true. People upstream of them were flooding, though. But they wanted to keep it as was. Page 113 September 21, 2009 So there's a tradeoff of impacts as well when you look at it. And we're concentrating on the secondary system, not on the tertiary. So I think maybe we've addressed some of your issue on that. And it was this body that helped us come to a clear indication that we weren't realizing those MSTU dollars the way the prior policy was structured, especially when we're dealing with secondary improvements. We get in the tertiary, they're almost predominantly being required to be MSTU driven as from now. MS. DOWNS: So did I misunderstand when I was told that South Florida Water Management was being lenient about extending the expiration date of the Corps permits? MR. FEDER: If they are, that's news. They got a push from the government right now to try and work with issues on permits for people to get through. Mostly for development. Government usually doesn't get that benefit. Government, they usually decide that we have to show cost feasibility and move forward. Yeah, it's more for the private sector in a lot of ways in a lot of those issues, I think, from what you're hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and it's on the watershed master plan. What is -- the first step you describe in task two, what is going to be the final step of that? How soon is that going to happen? And __ MR. KURTZ: The final step of task one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, I think it might be task three. Is that defining the final step? Because we really do want that plan. MR. KURTZ: Well, this is our -- task three is final step as we Page 114 September 21, 2009 integrate with the watershed management plans. A lot of it is inventorying the system so we can run a good model. But yeah, the most significant thing of the watershed management plans will be modeling to determine all these outcomes and deficiencies and needs and how to protect the watershed plan. But this more zeros in on stormwater's part to integrate with the watershed plan. MR. FEDER: But in answer to your question, we have the next five years structured on what's in our Growth Management Plan, particularly L.A.S.I.P., Gateway Triangle, as well as Gordon River. During that time we're following through on these steps. We're doing inventory work right now. We've worked with a separate area plan in Immokalee, which the board has approved, you see starting to move into our five years. But we're continuing to work with the effort at watershed master planning. We need that modeling and that information to be able to set the priorities. So we've got some time. In answer to your question, I don't see it tomorrow, but it should be soon, and we're trying to pursue that so that we can move through these steps. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the outcome will be full plan, an engineering plan? I mean, some of -_ MR. FEDER: The ideal outcome is going to be somewhat like the analogy here, that I'll be able to identify where my deficiencies in the system are, what order of magnitude and then prioritize funding against it county-wide, as opposed to doing basin studies and improvements within specific basins. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it will be engineering data, not based as you described in an earlier paragraph on observations and stuff. I mean, you'll -- MR. FEDER: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- know what's going on in Page 115 September 21, 2009 reality. It's not there's a puddle here -- MR. FEDER: I will tell you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and a puddle there? MR. FEDER: -- the professional judgment. I will tell you that you've got probably two or three people I've met in this county, Jerry being one of them, that can tell you if I drop a bucket of water where it's likely to end up in the county. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's good. MR. FEDER: So we do have some of that. But what we don't have is the pure modeling and the background and documentation and data to set those priorities. And that's what you're saying, and yes, that's why we're trying to go through this process. But we will still take advantage of the observation. If I have a heavy rain, where am I flooding, and make sure it goes back to those . Issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in your funding, you only show money in 2010. You describe five years. Where is the funding in the other years? MR. FEDER: We're doing most of our inventorying -- most of that funding for the watershed master planning is through CDES as part of the floodplain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. FEDER: And so we're working directly with them. Jerry's on their staff. John Vliet in our maintenance is working with them. MR. SCHMITT: Let me clear the record on that, Norman. Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. Two different issues. The watershed management plans are different than the floodplain management program. Two separate and complete initiatives. The watershed management plan was looking at water quality. It was directed by the board back in the late Eighties. It's been delayed several times over a period of 10 years. Two years ago the board put Page 116 September 21, 2009 $4 million into the budget. We're going to the board in October for Phase II of the contract under PBS&J to do the second phase. The first phase was the scoping portion to define what it is that needed to be researched. And then we go into Phase II. Part of that watershed management budget also paid for some new LIDAR data that we're using; up to two-foot intervals for LIDAR data to support all the initiatives in Collier County. So I just want to correct the record that it is two complete __ though related, they're two different initiatives. The floodplain management program is a separate initiative, just as the flood insurance rate map initiative that's been going on for a number of years and that's a separate initiative as well. Any questions on the watershed management plans? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You mean you're sharing data, so no one -- you're not doing -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, we're sharing data. They're all interrelated. They have to do with floodplain management and water data. But the watershed management plan was more a directive from the compo plan. It was a GMP initiative, but it was primarily dealing with water quality. And the net result will be areas to determine __ measure water quality at various locations throughout the county, those kind of things that are -- more have to do with water quality and not flood control. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, they're kind of the same. It's the same thing -- MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so, you know, it's the same molecule of water. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're actually more the same than you may realize. I spent part of the lunchtime meeting with Robert Wiley over the Page 11 7 September 21, 2009 floodplain issues that we discussed in our meeting a while back. And one of the things I couldn't understand is how we're going to proceed with FEMA in February with plans that are going to have a huge negative impact on at least 50 percent or more residents in the county. Financially it's going to be hard. It's mandatory so it's not a tax that can go away. It's not an MSTU they vote on, it's going to be something they're stuck with. Well, in that discussion I found out that the floodplain management plan hasn't taken into effect all of the other factors that currently or that will exist in Collier County that may help it. And one of those being the watershed management plan. And Robert believes that plan will be done, since he's also doing that, at the end of 20 10. When that plan gets done, it will most likely show a change, probably beneficial to the floodplain management effort. But because FEMA's coming in in February, they're going to lock in a floodplain management plan that doesn't have the benefits of what's going to be shown on the watershed management plan. MR. SCHMITT: I want to correct the record, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not done yet. MR. SCHMITT: FEMA is not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, I'm not done yet. Can I -- MR. SCHMITT: Well, FEMA's not going to get a floodplain management plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: That's not what they're going to issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can I finish talking? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: FEMA's coming in on Friday -- or in February. And what they're going to do is produce a document that's going to cause insurance rates to be impacted by new flood areas. Those areas will be modified once the watershed management plan comes out, but we have to resubmit to have that modification go Page 118 September 21, 2009 into effect. And that will take another 13, 15 months after the watershed management plan comes out. So we're potentially going to have two floodplain decisions, if you want to call it a plan, you want to call it a flood zone. One will come out in February and another one can be amended later on. And that's the information I just found out from Robert Wiley. And Joe, now if you want to go ahead. MR. SCHMITT: Well, your issue, the flood insurance rate maps. With new data we can go in and do what is called a letter of map amendment or letter of map revision. And then every five years they update the flood insurance rate map, if there's new data available. But you can submit any time with new data and do a letter of map amendment or a letter of map revision. Again, those are your flood insurance rate maps; Brad, you're very familiar with those, doing design work and understanding the flood zones. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But -- go ahead, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifwe've got stormwater management and we have watershed management and we have floodplain management, they all deal with the same thing, water. Why aren't we having one department manage all this cohesively, working together to get us the best rate possible as early as possible from our -- from FEMA? Because in the end that's how it's going to really hurt the public is the FEMA rates that are going to be coming into effect in February that will be impacted by these other elements, including the quantity, the velocity, the rate in which water is absorbed into the soils, the weirs that were put in different parts of the county that are holding back the water heights artificially. All that stuff is going to have an impact with FEMA. And I'm just wondering why we haven't got a program that brings all that together instead of piecemealing it out over the years separately. In the Page 119 September 21, 2009 meantime we're going to be paying more. You may not have an answer, Joe-- MR. SCHMITT: I don't have an answer on the organization. But the flood insurance rate maps -- and I gave you all the backup on it, it's been going on since '98 or '99 when we were going to sue FEMA because we disputed the maps in 2000 that they wanted to issue. We stated they were based on faulty science and technical data. We then entered a partnership between South Florida Water Management District, Collier County and FEMA, working with their provider, at that time -- well, now it's Baker and Associates, who __ under the national flood insurance program. And working to revise the flood insurance rate maps, based on the most current and available data. And that has been an ongoing effort for almost four years. Naturally developments take place and things evolve. The watershed management plan as a separate initiative from the standpoint that was budgeted and the board said we would have that. We said we would finish by 2012, the GMP said it would be finished by 2010. The -- I guess the question you're asking, can we delay the flood insurance rate maps until the other studies are done? That's a decision that would be made at the federal level. We've been providing all the data through my consultant, Tomasello Engineering, been providing the data and working in cooperation and partnership with FEMA's provider, Baker and Associates, to produce what is now going to be called the digital flood insurance rate map, or DFIRMS. Yes, they -- more data is available. Every year you get changes in -- either in structures, if Jerry's out doing work, ifhe's doing work in the Lely -- or the L.A.S.I.P. project, wherever, that does impact future studies. We provide that data and then they will issue maps. They allege now that with the digital maps it will be far easier to amend than the old paper copies. But we're going to be -- in fact, we're Page 120 September 21, 2009 going to be one of the first counties, actually, to go into what is called the digital flood insurance rate maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Brad's original question is the linking of all these. There is a definite link. And we will be benefiting, or maybe it could hurt us, who knows, when the watershed management plan comes out. And I wish it was all happening now. Because as you know from our last meeting, it sure would be beneficial to have all this on the table for one conclusion in front of FEMA, instead of having to change it right after we get it initiated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one main concern is how -- what form the data's going to be in. Because in the thing we discussed before, as we build in some of these areas out west, we're affecting other people within the block, outside of block, and we have no way of knowing what that's doing other than observations you're going to come up with. MR. FEDER: We know a little more, but we're working with the watershed management plans and question how they pull together the FEMA flood maps. It's a related but a separate issues as far as stormwater is concerned. We're working directly, though, on the watershed management plans. We're performing our end of the role. It's been a study for a number of years. Projects being implemented, improvements being made to address problems are coming through stormwater. So when you ask on the organizational structure and how it's being done, we're addressing not only just flooding but also water quality, both of which should be addressed. But also your watershed master plan is in CDES because it goes beyond just the stormwater issues to land use, zoning, all the other issues that need to be addressed if you're going to manage a watershed area. So we're providing our support and our issues on it. And as I said, we've got a full plate on projects we're moving on now. But our future Page 121 September 21, 2009 projects, our years six through 10, should come out of and we have a lot more modeling and priorities set through the watershed master planning to allow us to direct those upcoming years. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think the point, that it should be one process when you think of it. I mean, once a -- it's all caused by a storm. A smaller -- MR. FEDER: Well, it is and it isn't. Without the storm you're still managing. I don't have to have a storm to say that I don't want to do what they did in the Everglades, which is drain the swamps so effectively during the wet season and the dry season nobody has any water. So there's a lot of things you're trying to balance there. We're starting to get a better data, we have the LIDAR through the CDES efforts, related again to the floodplain mapping. So they're all related. They're being coordinated through. I also have pollution where something hits on the side of a road and toxins coming into the stream. That's over in utilities. Are they coordinated with us? Yes. Is there a separate issue and a separate focus program ? Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the only reason I asked the question, is $100,000 enough in one year to do all that? MR. FEDER: And understand, that isn't the funding for watershed master planning. That is the funding to take our inventory data and to go into priority setting, working with the data and the modeling that's coming out of the watershed master plans. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where does the watershed master plan -- that's in Joe's -- MR. FEDER: That's in Joe's shop in CDES. But again, Jerry, John, others on my staff are very directly involved with staffing and coordinating on that watershed master planning. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jerry, are you -- the L.A.S.I.P. project, Page 122 September 21, 2009 do you fall under the House Senate Bill 360 for South Florida permit extensions under that? You know they sent a notice out to everybody holding a South Florida permit that you can get extended. All you've got to do is apply for it by the end of the year. So I don't know if the South Florida permit side of it you could benefit from that. As far as the Corps side of it goes, if you don't modify or expand the Corps permit and you just want to extend the expiration date, that's a rather simple task. And the Corps generally goes along with it, especially if you show reasons why it can be done. I've done that on projects, big projects, and it's not a problem. MR. FEDER: We may be there before it's over with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, you can't extend the Corps permit till 12 months before it expires. But if you apply at that time frame, you might get the extension rather easily. It's basically a letter delineating why. So anyway. We can move on then to page -- Jerry, I guess we left off on two pages; we're on 38, 39 and from there. MR. KURTZ: The -- is your 38 table one? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. MR. KURTZ: Okay. Table one was developed to show the progress we're making on the big four, our big four projects. It's more of a technical water management table, but fairly easy to understand. Basically your projects involve improving water quality, which is how much acre feet of storage you're going to provide in each project. And flood attenuation, which is controlling the discharge rate. So for each of the projects, Gordon River, Freedom Park, Lely, Gateway and Belle Meade, we're got a row going across for each one of those. We identified the level of service need. Our deficient -- or our need and where we're at today, how much we've gotten constructed of that need. Like in the Freedom Park you can see, which is done, we've provided all the water quality treatment in that project. So there's nothing to finish in the subsequent five years and no Page 123 September 21, 2009 shortfall on water quality. Compare that to Lely, the next one down. There's the need and there's what we've built to date. In the next five years we're going to do 75 more acre feet, and also have no shortfall when we're done. And on down, Gateway's a little bit more of a challenge. We know the deficiency out there. What we did is we -- with Gateway we -- very challenging project. We need more land if we want to provide water quality for the whole triangle area. We're working with the CRA to see if that's feasible. But we bought up all the land that was vacant, and that's where these numbers are coming from. We've built part of the pond. Within the next five years -- actually with the next year we're going to build -- enlarge the pond a little bit more. But we still have a pretty good shortfall there. But we're working with the CRA to see if we can buy more land in the triangle as part of the redevelopment of the area. And it's looking like there's a good possibility that we can. So the Gateway project, even though we're showing it finishing up next year, it's possible we could work in subsequent years and even get more water quality on that project. Belle Meade is in kind of a holding pattern, dependent on the watershed study being complete for that basin. Just makes sense to __ since we're busy with what we have currently on our task, if we could wait till the watershed plans are done, we thought that would be prudent, so that's why it has the footnote all the way across. And basically moving over from water quality to flood attenuation, it's the same, our rationale, to work through the chart just showing the level of service need, where we're at currently, what we're going to complete in the next five years, and any shortfall that would exist when we get done. So I'm sure there's questions about that chart. If you want, I can take those now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? Page 124 September 21, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, we guessed that one wrong. That means there's something wrong with the chart. We're supposed to have asked the questions. MS. VASEY: Next page. MS. DOWNS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Must have a real problem with Gateway. MR. KURTZ: Table two is really the gist of our program. It's broken down into some sections. We've got capital improvement projects. These are basically the big four. And we've added a fifth one, the Immokalee that I talked about. These are the ones that are listed in the Growth Management Plan drainage sub-element showing our funding for the next year and the out-years. Below that are some non-CIE projects. Actually the remainder of our program. We've got a couple of projects in there, including our NPDES program. And then below that is the revenue side. So this is just an expense in revenue of our program. Things to point out is in the revenue side, the money that we're receiving from South Florida and Big Cypress Basin, it's been coming in consistently. And even though they would only really guarantee or commit to one or two years out, '10 and '11, they do have a 10-year plan that shows that they're going to commit on through. But they're, like us all, there's no guarantees, but it's been very consistent. And part of that money is coming from the -- it pays our debt service for the Freedom Park project. So if there's any questions on any of this information, I'd be glad to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you make a comment earlier that you had some DCA dollars in place, some developer Page 125 September 21, 2009 contributions? And where -- MR. KURTZ: No, not dollars from developers. They've been-- we've been successful getting easements from developers at no cost. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Downs, then Ms. Vasey. MS. DOWNS: Just so I don't have to go back and look this up. The newspaper would love all these letters. What is NPDES- TMDL? Refresh me. MR. KURTZ: That's the federal program that's administered by the State National Pollutant Elimination and Discharge program. It's administered by the FDEP. And the county has a permit, an NPDES permit. And any municipality that operates a stormwater, stormwater management system has to have an NPDES permit. And we've had one for about three, four years now. And we've been in compliant (sic) every year. We have one person on our staff who's the -- majority of his job is to stay -- to keep us assured that we're in compliance with the program, the permit. The permit is really a program that has some educational commitments that we make about water quality, and he works county-wide with pollution control, utilities, all the divisions really. And this permit affects everybody in the county as far as operating the surface water management system responsibly. MS. DOWNS: Do you get any grant money toward that specifically? MR. KURTZ: Do we get -- I don't believe we get any grant money from that, no, but it's not an expensive program. MR. FEDER: Jerry, explain what TMDL is and explain what happens if we're not served by them. MR. KURTZ: TMDL is the next step. TMDL is a way the federal government is going to try to -- similar to air pollution credits, they're going to try to determine how -- total maximum daily load is Page 126 September 21, 2009 the -- what the acronym means. And they are going to quantify how much pollution people are putting into the water bodies. And they're going to assign a number basically to every basin or every permit holder. So that's really the head of the program is the TMDLs. But it's being implemented slowly. They go through by basins, by watersheds. So that again ties into us having -- studying our watershed, having appropriate zoning and land use planning measures in place. Proper -- another acronym you hear is BMP's, Best Management Practices. These are all the current state-of-the-art terms for water management and where we're going with the state and federal requirements to basically totally know your whole system. If there's a spill somewhere, we're required to know exactly where that contaminate is going to go so we can quickly take action and capture it before it goes into a water body. So it's all a good thing. It's kind of -- it's forming, it's slowly forming, and we're working on it and we're in line with all the latest. We're right where we need to be on it. MR. FEDER: And we are. Just very quickly, I want you to be aware that those two acronyms, if we keep certified under NPDES, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination, if we keep consistent and certified there, then we don't have the state come in and control our activities through total daily maximum load requirements that they place on the area. So we've kept ourselves so to speak, back to the analogy, as near quality area we don't have a problem, so we're not hit with those extra burdens and requirements on every development by public and by private here in Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Vasey? MS . VASEY: Before I go with a question on this page, I've got to back up for a second. Mr. Chairman, did you say that in applying for the extension to Page 127 September 21, 2009 Corps permits it's not a problem, it's a very simple thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's an -- when the question was asked, I thought the question was phrased can we get -- when are we going to apply for the expansion of the Corps permit. And at one point I heard a response talking about a modification. Those two would cause quite concern and quite a lot of time and problem. But to extend an existing Corps permit it's routinely you start the process, they don't even allow you to apply for 12 months prior to the current expiration. And it's just a matter of showing justification that you proceeded due diligently as far as you could, you've run into some time problems or in the case that I was using it was economics, and the Corps provided more time. It wasn't a much -- it wasn't a difficult process just to extend an existing permit that remains basically unchanged. MS. VASEY: Now my question was not expansion, it was extension. How does that jive with your answer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just telling you from my experience I just -- not too long ago, so -- MS. VASEY: I appreciate that. I'd like to hear now why that's not a problem, why this is such a big problem to go for an extension. MR. KURTZ: Well, sure. I've never -- I haven't extended the Corps permit, the time frame of the Corps permit, and I really don't want to. The fact that it took us 15 years to get the Corps permit and it was just such a long process in having to go up through EP A and everything. Our -- maybe there's a difference. Our L.A.S.I.P. project is more of a flood mitigation project. It has water quality components, but it was very tricky. There were guiding principles with the L.A.S.I.P. project. Some of them were to stay in current corridors where there was existing canals. But to put in various water control structures, it's just a -- it's a very tricky project and permit. And we're in a rhythm right now. And if -- I don't know, it might be viewed differently. In Page 128 September 21, 2009 fact, the few meetings that we have had with the Corps, every time the possibility came up we were briefly scolded a little bit and just told to just build it, get it done on time and you'll be fine. But that's kind of the feedback I got. Maybe it's a difference in the nature of the two. It's not a classic land development straightforward water management project. It's one that we did the best we could. And there was many reasons why we got more scrutiny. Because again, the basis is to move a lot of water from point A to point B to remediate flooding, and we had to do a lot of different things with -- to get our water quality. For instance, we have a pumping station that when one canal is flowing at an extreme peak, we can turn on this pumping station that will actually lift the water up out of the canal and pump it into a wetland over by Treviso Bay. And that was a measure viewed as just a way to -- we're doing both things: We're moving a lot of water to prevent flooding, but then we're nourishing a wetland with part of the water. So the L.A.S.I.P. project is very unique. And I've got to say that, you know, in my opinion we might have a harder time trying to justify an extension of the completion date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could be. I mean, from my experience, it was different than his, and he may have a bigger problem if he's got a controversial issue. The ones I had to do did not have. MS. VASEY: Okay, because we really beat this horse over the budget process. I kept hearing no, you can't extend, no, you can't extend, we've got to finish it on time. And, you know, if that's not quite accurate, I'd really like to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've extended it at least twice, two different projects for the Corps -- or with the Corps. So that's my experience. But neither one of them were the kind -- MR. FEDER: As you get closer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that he's talking about. MR. FEDER: As you get closer to the date, the end of your Page 129 September 21, 2009 permit, if we have to extend we go forward, we find out whether there's an opportunity to extend. What I will tell you, because Jerry works too intimately with it and worked with -- I guess 15 years to get a permit. What we first were dealing with there was a major flooding problem. Our issue in stormwater has been both attenuation but also water quality. But in that project, the reason it took 14 years is nobody could come up with a way to truly meet the desired and growing demands on water quality and still keep water out of people's homes that was going into homes. And so there was a number acquiescence and handwringing on the fact that you were doing a little bit more in attenuation, flood control than in water quality throughout the L.A.S.I.P. permit area. We did do some things, a modification. Over that 14 years we got some more water quality issues incorporated. But when you come back in, and as I put it, some of the roads too in some areas of this county, when you basically build the house, CO it, move the people in and then decide to put the plumbing in, it gets rather difficult. And so that's what you're trying to do is replumb a stormwater system for a vast area where it's already developed, and so there's a lot of compromises there in handling them on both sides. And they finally issued the permits after all those years with those frustrations. So our concern is, and yes, there are opportunities to ask for an extension, if we get to that point. We may have to ask for one anyway. But with all those issues and with more and more people coming in and more and more focus on water quality, we're concerned about having to reopen that issue, if that's what it comes to. But we'll do what we have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Janet, the safest thing to do with the Corps is never have to go back to them. I didn't know that you had previously tried to do that. But if we can avoid it, that's the smartest Page 130 September 21, 2009 thing to do. Because the Corps is very dif -- with the exception of Mr. Schmitt, the Corps is very difficult to deal with. MS . VASEY : Well, frankly, I worked for the Department of the Army for a number of years, including the Corps of Engineers, and it's probably not even part of the Army. It doesn't seem like it. MR. SCHMITT: Hey, hey. (Laughter. ) MS. VASEY: We used to have a lot of fun. We never wanted to do projects with the Corps because their cost was always 20 percent more than you could get it on the local economy, right, Joe? MR. SCHMITT: It was called OPM, other people's money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The truth comes out now. MS. VASEY: Okay, I did have a question on Page 39. Under your non-CIE improvements, you've got Golden Gate City, outfall main and repair. Last AUIR, that was about a 1.2 million program over the AUIR period and now it's about 5.5 million. Why is it going up? MR. KURTZ: Well, we've seen our cost drop significantly, I would say that as far as that. But as well we're spending a lot of time right now getting our arms around this one. This one's another unique one. It's basically going in between the streets and the canal and figuring out how to replace these rotten old 40-year-old metal pipes. We're looking at full-blown designs versus slip-lining the pipes versus replacing just sections going in and videotaping or camera-ing (sic) the pipes. So what we've been doing this year and we'll spend a little more time the beginning of our new year is really trying to formulate our approach to this project. So the numbers are not solid numbers yet, but as we go through the out years -- I always approach these kind of projects in a -- I break it down into reasonable size pieces. A lot of people want to attack the whole thing and identify all the needs at once. We'll do that in a sense, but the way we'll get the work done is in Page 131 September 21, 2009 smaller pieces, until we really know what we've got. And then when we hit that rhythm, we could boost it up. So the end result was a change in a number or decrease in the number, but it possibly could come back up as we really figure out what the best way is to do this. We're really not sure right now. MS. VASEY: Jerry, it increased from 1.2 to 5.5. So you're putting another $4 million into the program in the AUIR period. MR. KURTZ: Well, we're just -- we have to decide whether we're going to do full-blown designs on this versus more go in and dig up what we have and see. Well, one of the big things with this project is we don't know __ we don't think we're going to need complicated permits, we think we can just get a maintenance permit. But again, some of these working in between houses, we really don't know what we're getting into. So we're trying to project it out and get our arms around it. One of the things we did is we did do a complete inventory of everything. So we know exactly how many pipes there are and the locations. Now we're going to go through and basically grade them and look for collapses and we're going to prioritize how we get them done and try to group them into areas where it makes sense to go in and disturb one area and stay out of another area and move through that. So that's what we're really spending our time on right now with that project. I don't know if I'm answering your question, but it's another unique project that we have that we're just trying to develop an approach to it right now. MS. VASEY: Okay. And your Immokalee project now has about 7, $8 million in it. And it did not exist in last year's AUIR. So what I'm feeling here is that there's a lot of new programs that are coming in this year's AUIR or big expansions this year compared to last year. And I recognize that this program is funded by .15 mills that are Page 132 September 21, 2009 dedicated and everything. Could you give us, again maybe for the productivity -- full productivity committee if that dedicated funding source was dropped from 1.5 million to .10 million, that would be __ I'm sorry, .15 to .10. That would be about a $3 million cut in your FY 11 to FY 14. And see, you know, what might drop out of the program with that, and also a recognition that if you are successful you don't have that extra million dollars of grant money that you're working on now in the program, but some of these things could be bought back if you had a successful grant program. MR. FEDER: First of all, we'll do that if that's your request. What I will tell you, though, make sure everybody realizes, that .15 mill is of assessed value. The only part of the budget that was millage neutral was stormwater. It already has had more than a $3 million cut that we see here. That's why we extended some of the L.A.S.I.P. out and other issues. Obviously we can look at further cuts and what would happen, but you end up with product out. What you're doing too is you had the master plan for Immokalee was approved. That's why you're starting into some items in the new fifth year. It's the outer years five years out, it's not next year. You're asking us to look at next year. If you take it out, that has reverberations, just as the transportation, just to make sure you're aware, through all of the five years. And so you're not asking for .5 mills for one year, you're asking for five years worth. And so we'll have to show that in that nature. The other is that you've already done the cut. In the Golden Gate you do have a lot of class pipe, you've got some roadways that are getting undermined by some of those pipes. You did your first design planning, you did the inventory and design planning. This is a projection of what would be some of the costs coming up into the future. That's why it's more, because you didn't have the inventory in some of the first designs previously, just to answer that other question. Page 133 September 21,2009 But yeah, if that's your request, obviously we'll look at it and give you what the implications would be. MS. VASEY: That really does go back to the same issue of how much money will be available for capital projects from the general fund if we do have a major reduction. MR. FEDER: And your impact fees and other issues and everything we're dealing with, yes. MS. VASEY: Right. And this program did come in -- you know, it's another one that kind of came in when we had a lot of money. And maybe it's an opportunity to just take another look at it now that we don't have that kind of extra money. MR. FEDER: And again, this program only relies upon what the assessed values are. And that's why it was the one that went down significantly with the '10 budget request. MS. VASEY: Yeah, it seemed like it went from maybe 12 to 10 or something. MR. FEDER: It actually went down __ MR. KURTZ: To nine. MR. FEDER: -- to nine from 12 . It went down about three million just in '09 -- in '10 budget. MS. VASEY: '10 is showing 9.959. MR. FEDER: Yes, in total. MS. VASEY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, and Janet asked the question, and Jerry, I heard your answer, that you're still trying to get your arms around some of these things, like the Golden Gate City one. MR. KURTZ: Well the approach, not the need. I mean, the need's really obvious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't have design yet, you don't have all the details yet, then why do you know you need to spend that Page 134 September 21, 2009 kind of money? Wouldn't we be better served if you didn't show what you didn't know you need to spend and then later on as you amended and got more information as the years went on in future AUIR's, then show what you really needed. And that would not only have an impact on the Golden Gate one but possibly the Immokalee one. And Norm, I thought I heard you say that you guys had a new Immokalee master plan. Is it the stormwater master plan or are you talking about -- MR. FEDER: Stormwater master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that coincide to Immokalee's new master plan that hasn't been even adopted yet; do we know? MR. FEDER: It's coming out of the CRA and it's being coordinated with them. The master plan -- stormwater master plan was done and approved by the board conceptually. As they work through their master plan we expect there'll be some modifications to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEDER: But it is coming out of the CRA and the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when you set up the budget for your drainage, do you set it up to meet the money you have coming in, or do you develop the amount of money you need based on what you have to do? MR. FEDER: I have needs that far exceed the monies. So in effect, just like in the other areas, you take the dollars, your revenue stream, identify your projects, your project cost and then try to meet as many of the needs as you can. There are needs not met here. And so I could put a box of those dollars, if it stays at .15 mills, even at assessed value. That's what you've got here is a budget that assumes that. And the grant monies we know, although we're seeking other monies, but the needs aren't fully met here out in Immokalee, out in Golden Gate City. We've addressed some of the needs in -- Gateway Triangle is not met. We'll have L.A.S.I.P. completed at the end of this project. Page 135 September 21, 2009 What we're going to be doing in Gordon River we'll probably have accomplished. But we're moving on to others. Now what we looking forward and working hard in coordination with the other entities is the watershed management plans and the ability for that to give us new and clearer and more specific documentation in needs that drive the program further into the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason I am a bit puzzled by some of it is that you've jumped from FY 2010 for Golden Gate City from a quarter million to four times that amount just two years later __ MR. FEDER: That's when we look -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and many times even that two years after that. MR. FEDER: And that's because that's when we're starting to wind down on the commitments in L.A.S.I.P. and the ability to move that in. Those needs out in Golden Gate City are closer than that, but the funding is not available sooner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I have two other questions. And your number one, Freedom Park maintenance and monitoring, you have a half million dollars at $100,000 a year. You transferred that to the parks department, the -- MR. FEDER: The maintenance and ongoing operations of the facility as a park, yes. However, we're still responsible for the cleanup, the monitoring and the maintenance of the water quality, the lakes and the water quality features of the park itself for five years as part of the Florida community trust funds that we got to help purchase the land and build it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And where is the sale of the -- you know, your drainage department received revenue from the parks department, I would assume. MR. FEDER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, how do you show the transfer of one asset to the other? Page 136 September 21, 2009 MR. FEDER: There is a process in the budget where they're moving it over. Essentially, though, we're not charged them for that asset. We developed as a water quality park and they're getting the added features of maintaining it as a park in the park system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then on the revenue fund number one, Freedom Park and land cost reimbursement, $S million. What is that? Now what kind -- where's that money coming from? MR. FEDER: Which one? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's number one under your revenue fund on Page 39. MR. FEDER: Number one, okay. Freedom Park land cost reimbursement. That is a million a year that is coming to us from the Water Management District as part of the southern blocks. When the southern blocks were handed over, there was a commitment of a million a year, and that's what helped the other portion of buying the land for the water quality park, now the Freedom Park. That's the monies we're getting a million a year from. Big Cypress Basin for 20 years for the 20 million commitment for the southern blocks in the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why is it under the Freedom Park plan then? MR. FEDER: Because that's what we used that money for was to buy that property as a water quality park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you go to the regional park land inventory -- MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they have an acquisition of the Freedom Park of25.16 acres for a value ofS.786800. So they're not spending any money or transferring anything to acquire this park, they're getting this park basically as a gift free and clear. You're spending money, but you're spending it from another income source that has nothing to do with the Freedom Park, but you're just using Page 137 September 21, 2009 that money for it? I don't understand how that's all-- MR. FEDER: To develop the water quality park we had to develop the park in much the manner that we've done. That was a condition of the Florida Communities Trust to get that grant. That's also what I'm having to monitor. I also had to provide public access and make it open to the public with the trails and walkways. We could keep it as a water quality park, Freedom Park now, but it made more sense to allow the unit that works with these issues, parks and rec., to maintain the parks and rec.'s feature and the access features of it. And that's how we've got a structure be done. I'll refer over to Barry. MR. WILLIAMS: Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director. I don't know if I have an answer for you, but I can explain a couple of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WILLIAMS : We've listed it in our regional park land as an increase of25. I think it's 25.16 acres. MR. KURTZ: That's correct. MR. WILLIAMS: And we've identified it not as a purchase but as a transfer, an intergovernmental transfer from transportation. The park itself though is actually managed by three entities. Norm mentioned the stormwater aspects of it, which is why the park was developed in the beginning. There is the 25 acres that we managed the boardwalks, there are picnic pavilions, there's an interpretive center that we will solicit volunteers and run, and so that's the component that Parks and Rec. would have. There's another portion of it, though, closer to the Gordon River greenway -- or Gordon River, actually, that Conservation Collier actually has acquired, and so they will be managing that section. But it is split up amongst three. It is primarily a water quality3 Page 138 September 21, 2009 park, and that's our role that we'll play in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, you said that a million a year is coming from South Florida Water Management District for something to do with the south blocks? MR. FEDER: The south blocks, when we gave up the south blocks for rehydrating the Everglades, that was the payment for all the road rights-of-way and the like that were owed. The 20 million was spent on purchasing this property, the old Fleischmann -- the other Fleischmann property for the water quality park. That million a year is being paid to us as being used as the debt service to payoff the 20 million purchase price. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the money that you received for the south blocks, there was no tie to any specific project for that, it could be spent anywhere in the county? MR. FEDER: No, it has no tie to it. It was used. Naturally half of it will be used here, because we did get 10 million from Florida Communities Trust. The other 10 million eventually in later years will come into the transportation fund. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? MR. WILLIAMS: If I could just add one thing. Just one other thing about the south blocks transfer, and what Norm describes. There is another component of that that's found in our regional parkland with A TV. Part of that agreement with the south blocks was to find an ATV, a place for ATV riders. And so we've identified 625 acres that we're still working with South Florida Water Management to receive. We anticipate -- and not to get into parks AUIR, I know you're going to spend some time with this, but just to mention that was part of that deal too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 139 September 21, 2009 I guess Jerry, the last page is number 40, huh? It's just a map, so MR. KURTZ: Yeah, that's a map showing what the South Florida Water Management maintains in blue and what we maintain. And that's what I call ours is a secondary system, and South Florida maintains the primary system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there an action on this one? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, actually, I have a quick question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jerry, when you look at a -- we'll call it a ditch to be rude, but an isolated ditch, that's essentially like a retention area? Is that all that is? Is do these all have outflows even __ MR. KURTZ: Oh, they all have outfalls. There are some segments that might be maintained by a developer, but everything is connected up. It's hard to show the detail on this level, so we hesitated. But it gives you the big picture. But there are some things, some little intricacies that you can't tell by this map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the next question, the answer may be the same, is that there are some isolated control structures; that's the same answer, correct? MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think that's the end of stormwater. Maybe Jerry, or Norm, would there be an advantage to the county -- we keep harping about the fire departments to consolidate and they will not do that because it's -- who knows why. But you have three departments in this county now that deal with water: Storm water management, floodplain management and watershed management. Page 140 September 21, 2009 Would there be any benefit to the taxpayers to combine those into one group under one department? MR. FEDER: Again, when you get to watershed management plans, you cannot do that solely from stormwater only. That is also land use decisions and zoning requirements and the like. And I would tell you that I don't know that there's a value in moving the production away from where it has been, because while it took us a while to get started, I think the production of projects and the improvements being made are being handled very well by stormwater. We just need to make sure that our planning and coordination and how we define and develop projects is consistent with the broader issues of the land use and the like. So I don't necessarily see it as a value. It's something that can be looked at. I'm sure the Productivity has looked at before as well. But I will tell you that you don't have all of the pieces in stormwater to do watershed management planning. You don't have all of the pieces in watershed management planning to produce product. We tried that for quite a few years. Even when I first came onboard we kept planning it and we never did it. Now that planning is moved over into CDES, they did it, it is where it is and we're getting something done and I'd like to keep it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My concern rose mostly because had I'm sure the floodplain management committee that's studying this FEMA stuff realized, or the board of county commissioner realized __ the commission realized that the watershed management plan would have a bearing on the floodplain and FEMA outcome, there may have been more of an incentive to get the watershed management done in coordination with the FEMA outcome so that they could have benefited if there is a benefit to be perceived. MR. FEDER: And I'm not sure they understood that as fully as I think you reviewed it today, I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? Page 141 September 21, 2009 MR. SCHMITT: Again, I think the confusion is the watershed management plan is a what if. And you're correct, if the plans would have been done probably five years ago and said these are the things you ought to do to improve the system, then of course it would have had an impact on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. But the maps are produced based on what's on the ground today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: It's based on what exists, how the weirs operate, how the district operates outflow. Had the -- like I said, had the plans been done and the plans identified shortcomings in the water management system and that those shortcomings could, and the operative word could, have had an impact on water management systems in Collier County, which then could have -- would have -- if they were funded and constructed, then the Flood Insurance Rate Maps would have reflected that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's exactly what I have perceived from this discussion today. It's unfortunate we didn't see that years ago and moved those watershed management plans forward faster. But we didn't, and it's over with, so with that in mind, is there a position the Planning Commission wishes to take on the county drainage canals and structures. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to forward with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a second? Seconded by Ms. Caron. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 142 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries -- we're now 5-0. Let the record show by the way Mr. Murray left at lunchtime. And Janet, you're a majority of one. Do you want to discuss it amongst yourselves? MS. VASEY: I don't think I can second by motion. Could we wait until Gina comes back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. You knew that was going to happen sooner or later today, huh? MS. VASEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is the -- oh, unless you want all want to wait to see what Janet's got to say, or she can communicate with you afterwards based on whatever recommendation they have. Next item up is the utility department. First item under theirs is the county potable water facilities. And Phil, we see you once a year -- well, more often, a couple times a year. It's good to see you again. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Phil Gramatges, Public Utilities, and I am here to answer your question about potable water, wastewater and solid waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, that's the trade of yours, you don't waste any time on the small stuff, you're right down to the point. MR. GRAMA TGES: I do not want to waste your time, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excellent. Page 143 September 21, 2009 Okay, with that presentation, are there questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Phil, this is the yearly question. But in the discussion of level of service, part of our county is, or Collier County is, served by the City of Naples. Is there any analysis of how these people are meeting a level of service? MR. GRAMATGES: No, sir, there is no analysis on our part on the City of Naples or any of the other utilities that surround us. The only exception would be Orangetree, because as you probably know, we are in a contract to take over their utility in 2012. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But, you know, we've had discussions especially in the fire task force about how deficient those areas are. So is it fair to just orphan them and not deal with -- I mean, in an A UIR I know we don't provide them, but they are still part of our county . MR. GRAMATGES: Sir, we don't have any authority; that is, the public utilities has no authority and no way to really address that. It would have to come from the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GRAMA TGES: If they direct us to do that, of course we will. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I was wondering, could we at least maybe next year at least you could tell us what level of service they have and how they're -- I mean, because we -- you know, again, we just orphan them and move on as if they didn't exist. MR. GRAMA TGES : Well, I think that if you look at the 10-year water supply plan that we provided to -- no, I'm sorry, I take that back, they were not included there. But they have to submit a 10-year water supply plan to DCA, and I would suspect that that's a public document. So that's probably listed there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The City of Naples? Page 144 September 21, 2009 MR. GRAMATGES: The City of Naples, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Could you maybe drag a copy into our report too? MR. COHEN: And I can tell you that is correct. They have submitted water facility supply plans. I can tell you what Marco Island's is in terms of their LOS, and it's actually 225 gallons per day per capita. It's that high. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But the concern, you know -- and again, it's more for fire flow that I'm bringing it up, that it is deficient in other parts of our county, which we ignore in this thing. The other question, Phil, is everything here in our county connected? Essentially all -- if one ran dry, there's lines connecting the whole system together? MR. GRAMA TGES: As far as the water system is concerned, the water district, yes, it is fully interconnected. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Maybe -- I was wondering, is the ability to provide a summary of everything together, or you're still keeping it broken down into different districts, correct? MR. GRAMATGES: For the potable water, no, it's only one district. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. GRAMATGES: Years ago we used to have two districts, but that was really not consistent because of the interconnectivity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then I must have missed the combined -- okay, thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on the potable water side of it? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, I do. There is a two million gallon daily increase capacity planned for 2012. It's the high pressure reverse osmosis expansion in north county. Page 145 September 21, 2009 Looking at the chart on Page W-4, it doesn't really appear that you need that additional capacity in 2012, it looks like you need it quite a bit further down the road. Is there some reason that you're planning to do it in 2012? MR. GRAMA TGES: Yes, ma'am. The reason for that expansion has nothing to do with capacity. The well-field that feeds the north water plant was completed in 1999, and that was part of an eight mgd, eight million gallons per day, reverse osmosis expansion. Shortly after we began to use the well-field that feeds that reverse osmosis plant, we lost the use of the first four wells, one through four. They're on the westernmost end of the well-field. The reason is that the water that was coming out of those wells was very saline; it became very saline. Our medium pressure, our 0 system, cannot treat water of that salinity. So we had to shut down those four wells. The concern we have is that there is an upflow, up-counting the hydrogeologists call it, that is bringing saline water from some aquifer that's below the lower Hawthorne. And that has a possibility in the longer term to contaminate all of the other wells in the well-field. It was a recommendation of our consultants that we should extract and process that water in order to keep it from expanding into the rest of the well-field. So this expansion, this two mgd, is for high pressure RO in order to enable us to treat that highly saline water. MS. VASEY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year that 2.0 was actually a 3.9 plant in the same year, in 2012. I'm just wondering what the difference MR. GRAMATGES: That was a different project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be. MR. GRAMATGES: Yeah, that was the addition of the Page 146 September 21, 2009 Orangetree facility in 2012. But we are not interconnecting them that early anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's been modified. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when does that -- is that the one that shows up in 2023? MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your retained reliable capacity target values, what signifies what those will be? How do you determine what those are? Because they're a range from one minimum to six maximum. MR. GRAMA TGES : Yeah, typically it takes eight years for us for to be able to bring a brand new plant on line. And what we are trying to determine is what is the window that we have to react. Whenever the capacity for us to provide service goes below a number which is the lower number, we know that we have to at that time have the capacity to increase it. And when we increase it, we increase it by enough capacity to cover us for eight years. So that's how we determine the mix (sic) and man -- max. We need to have some sort of criteria to determine in an objective manner when do we need capacity and when that capacity needs to be put in line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that number's half of what it was last year. Last year you had a higher retained maximum. MR. GRAMA TGES: That is correct. And the reason for that is simply that the population growth has diminished considerably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what that's from. Also, I know it's not -- and I want you to confirm with me that it's not -- in this plan. And the immediate plan is that south proposed SERWTP? MR. GRAMATGES: SERWTP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Southeast regional water treatment plant. MR. GRAMA TGES: Southeast regional water treatment plant. Page 147 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that that one on Manatee? MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct. Yeah, that's the one on Manatee. That particular plant is now falling outside of the 20-year planning horizon. The reason why it's there is because it was in that plan at that time. And we know that whenever we need expansion in that area, that's where we would like to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And at the time I know Mike forwarded a question from me to you -- MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and you responded that that plant will be kind of connected, interconnected with the other plant in __ MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that area, and so it will not have a precise service area? MR. GRAMATGES: No, as I mentioned to Ms. Vasey, we have only one district for water, because they're fully interconnected. So it will be indeed interconnected with all the others. Now, since the growth that we saw is coming in the northeast and the southeast, that's where the capacity expansions are planned. And they will -- that water will eventually end up mostly in the southeast area. But it's not in any particular district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think for Randy Cohen and Mike Bosi's department, in the CIE under the Objective 1.3, and there's numerous objectives within the FLUE and the CCME as well that talk about public expenditures in coastal high hazard areas. The way it reads, it would lead you to believe that the only thing that plant could service is needs within the coastal high hazard area. And I'll read it to you. Policy 132: The calculated needs for public facilities will be based in the adopted level of service standards and future growth Page 148 September 21, 2009 projections within the coastal high hazard area. I know you don't need this plant now, but if you look at the various elements concerning the coastal high hazard area in both the CCME and the FLUE and the CIE, you may want to suggest some GMP changes to tweak it so that this plant can go there without any conflict in the GMP, if your review warrants it. So I just thought I'd point it out. And it's not a matter that apparently is going to be needed right away. But I'd hate to see that conflict come up in the future, if it is an issue. Is there anybody else that has any questions concerning the potable water? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Maybe just one more. On Page W -- well, I guess it's Page 50, you show expansion related projects of $18 million, and impact fees of about 10 million, 9.6. About half of what your projects are. Is there any possibility that you might delay some of those because the impact fees are not coming in? MR. GRAMATGES: The impact fee numbers that you hear are principally related to projects that are ongoing from previous years. We are completing some very large projects at this time. And the 2 mgd RO expansion that we spoke about earlier, since it brings expansion at this point in time, we have it under impact fees. That's all there is there. The possibility of bringing that number below that is very remote, simply because there's not really a lot of impact fee related work that's going on. In fact, I would say there's none with the exception of2 mgd. MS. VASEY: Okay, well, this is a situation then where you'll be borrowing from your capital -- your regular account to pay for the impact fee shortages? MR. GRAMATGES: You're absolutely right. Our impact fee Page 149 September 21, 2009 debt service is about $10 million a year, in fact, 10.5, as you can see __ 10.6, you can see there. There's not enough impact fees coming in to pay for this, so we are borrowing from the ratepayers fees, from the rate fees. MS. VASEY: And when does that -- does that start in FY II? MR. GRAMATGES: That starts -- that has started already. It will continue. At this point in time it will continue until 2012 we foresee. MS. VASEY: Okay. So it started in FY 10 then? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on potable water? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, we'll entertain a motion from the Planning Commission. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward the county potable water with a recommendation of approval as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. I'd like to ask one caveat, and it doesn't need to -- just so the record's clear, I would like the comprehensive planning department to make sure they resolve this potential conflict with the CHHA. And it can be done at any time, but I think it would be better, because I -- if this plan is built 20 years from now, I'll still be sitting here asking this question. And I'd hate to have you stumble around at that point and not know an answer. Be forwarned is what I'm warning you. MR. BOSI: As Randy pointed out to me during the EAR-based process, which is just beginning in earnest, this is the opportunity to Page 150 September 21, 2009 make the modifications as you suggested, and we appreciate it, and I'll point it out to the appropriate reviewer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that said, motion's been made and seconded to accept it. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. And you've got two motion to make, right? MS. VASEY: Yes. I'd like to make the same motion on the water. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Okay, that passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the one prior to this you wanted to make a motion on? MS. VASEY: Yes, I'd like to go back to the stormwater now. I think I'd like to make a motion to request stormwater staff to provide what programs would be impacted if $3 million of general fund revenue was reduced each year for FY 11 through FY 14. And that would be kind of assuming a dedicated millage rate was reduced from .15 to .10. Motion made. MS. DOWNS: Second. I had it worded a little differently. MS. VASEY: Oh, would you like to make __ MS. DOWNS: No, no. Page 151 September 21, 2009 MS. VASEY: -- a change? MS. DOWNS: Just I said reallocate based on the millage of .10. MS. VASEY: Okay, that's good. MS. DOWNS: So do you want to second my motion? MS. VASEY: How about I would accept that change. Okay, all in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're wrapped up everything through potable water. Let's take -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right before we go here, I mean, let me ask Mike. Mike, do we have any obligation to look at the -- I know it's public facilities we're looking at, but part of our community is on private facilities, part of our community is on their own facility. But is it our responsibility to look at that, or consider again the City of Naples? What if -- well, for example, Ava Maria. What if something inferior was happening? Should we know about that? I mean, Orangetree kind of slipped in with problems and we weren't watching, so what should we be aware of or not aware of? MR. BOSI: Well, once again, this goes back to the question of what the AUIR is intended for. And this is for capacity improvements related to concurrency management, and that's the primary purpose of it. As a Board of County Commissioners, I am sure that the commissioners are very concerned with the access to water and wastewater availability for every geographic area within the county. Public utilities are constrained to individual boundaries of their individual district. For the AUIR purpose, there's -- to me it would __ Page 152 September 21, 2009 I'm not sure if the process would be improved by trying to acquire the information related to the other various utility districts that are within this county. But there can be a value to the Planning Commission and the other -- and to the Board of County Commissioners, I'm just not sure how it fits. It really doesn't fit with what we're trying to do in terms of the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike? Remember, and I think it was about a year or two ago, I thought it was the EAR process where we actually asked utilities because of the language that was in that document to get reports from each one of those other entities, and we actually got a report from Ava Maria that says don't ask for it again because next time you're paying for it kind of thing. Do you recall that effort? I forgot what that was. MR. COHEN: That was part of the 10-year water facilities supply work plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- MR. COHEN: And we are required to update that every five years. MR. GRAMATGES: Correct. MR. COHEN: But at the same time they're under no statutory obligation to provide us that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But another five years -- I think every five years then Brad's going to get the information he's looking for, and we had just gotten it at that last review. It's outside of this review, but it is reviewed, just like you've commented on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The EAR will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not the EAR. This was the utility-- what kind of plan was that? MR. COHEN: It's the 10-year water facilities supply work plan. And that's the plan he was just asking about, the different levels of services for different municipalities. And they were required to do Page 153 September 21, 2009 theirs one year after ours as well, too. So we'll try to get that information to you. But it's very difficult to get the information from the private utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we found that out last time. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, I knew there was a plan out there. We see so many plans, I wasn't sure what it was called. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just don't know if it's comfortable abandoning some of the citizens who don't have as good a situation as if Phil was providing them water. MR. COHEN: I think it may be appropriate, you know, if you'd like to make a recommendation for us to periodically try to get data from the Water Management District with respect to their consumptive use permits as well as their level of service, what they've actually provided. You know, we can look into doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you get it right now every five years, right? MR. COHEN: We ask for it. What we ended up doing as part of the water facilities supply work plan is finally working with the Water Management District because of the lack of response from some of those special districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you want-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then that's it. Let's take a break until 2:30, and we'll come back at that time. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our break. We can move on with the next item. And this will be a rather lengthy presentation on the county's sewer treatment and collection system. MS. DOWNS: Second. Page 154 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Phil, I know you're probably just going to tell us that you're available for questions, so we'll move right into that, is that -- MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, I am available to answer your questions, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I like it short and sweet and to the point. Does anybody have any questions on the sewer element of the AUIR that's in front of us here today? COMMISSIONER CARON: You just make sure that nothing happens to our sewer system and we'll be very happy. MR. GRAMATGES: We're working every day to-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. GRAMATGES: -- make sure that this stays monotonous and boring. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do have a question -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, is there any -- reclaimed water, is there any sort of a -- I know we don't have a level of service, I know it's not part of this, but do you have any data showing how that's going to grow over the next -- this period, or should we keep reclaimed water out of this process I guess is the question. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, as -- Collier County does, and if I may say so myself, an excellent job as far as reclaimed water. We call it irrigation quality water. Because every drop of irrigation quality water that we produce we send out. The only times that we do deep inject it is when it does not meet specifications, which is, I must say, extremely rare, or when there's not demand for it. Unfortunately during the rainy season there's not a lot of demand for IQ water, you get it free from the sky, so there's not a lot of usage, and we have only limited capacity for storage, so we have to deep inject it. But whenever we can, whenever there is demand, we supply everything we have. Page 155 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you have a map similar, you know, the one on Page 65, the existing and future areas, do you have a map like that showing the coverage of reclaimed, or is reclaimed pretty site specific, meaning you're pumping at the golf courses or something, or -- MR. GRAMATGES: Most of the reclaimed water, or IQ water, goes to bulk users. Typically to -- which are, by the way, the largest users of potable water that we have. What we're trying to do is we're trying to displace potable water and replace it with IQ water. And the biggest users of course are golf courses. We also irrigate the medians in all the roads. That benefits the entire community. And schools __ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you have a map like this showing reclaimed areas, or not? MR. GRAMATGES: The reclaimed area is the same area as you see in that map. In other words, the water sewer district is the district for I Q water as well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not available in every location. MR. GRAMA TGES: No, it's not, because it's limited capacity. There is a lot more demand than there is supply of IQ water. So unfortunately we have to limit it. We wish we had more. But no __ well, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Go ahead, Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Just out of curiosity, I've heard the rates of loss to potable water, it's a very small rate to leaks and things like that. What is the rate for reclaimed; do you have such a number? MR. GRAMATGES: I don't have that number, no. No. MS. DOWNS: I would have expected it to be lower than the potable water because it's a relatively new system and new lines. Page 156 September 21,2009 MR. GRAMA TGES: Plus there is a lot less of them. Most of the loss is for potable water, and you're right, they're very small. They're certainly a lot less than 10 percent. And we continue to bring the number further down. MS. DOWNS: And you're lower than the national average, right? MR. GRAMATGES: That's very true, yes. Very, very much lower than the national average. This is a fairly new system and we have very strict controls over water usage. So you're right, I would say that's logical, but I would be speculating. MS. DOWNS: Just curious. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the loss for the potable water? MR. GRAMA TGES: At this point in time it's less than nine percent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. MR. GRAMA TGES: In fact, I believe this -- because we have recently looked at that very carefully and we continue to look for ways to eliminate those losses. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot less than that right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. GRAMA TGES: I'm afraid I don't have the exact number to give you, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Phil, on your map on Page 65, I'd like to ask you about -- just to update on three areas. Your southeast area, it's an area in pink, north of US 41 off the East Trail by about a mile. What is that? Is there a plant there or is that a future area? What is that? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, eventually we are going to put a Page 157 September 21, 2009 waste treatment plant in that general area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. GRAMATGES: We are looking at this map right now, and we're looking to make some modifications to it that you'll probably see next year. There are some exclusionaries in there as well that we're looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you currently charging impact fees to the people who are within that pink area __ MR. GRAMATGES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of the southeast area? MR. GRAMATGES: Generally speaking, no. There are some small areas in there that we are charging. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They're -- most of it's excluded, though. MR. GRAMATGES: The majority of it is excluded from ordinance. The only areas where we're charging impact fees is that band just north of 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the green band that's part of it. MR. GRAMATGES: The green band, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. How about your east central area, are you charging impact fees for the potential that's going to be there some day? MR. GRAMATGES: No, we're not. We're not charging impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You probably recall why I'm asking this. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, I do recall why you're asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the northeast area, number one and number two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, northeast area number two, as you see the yellow area there, is Orangetree. MR. GRAMATGES: There are some services there, yes indeed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's -- yeah, I know, that's the Page 158 September 21, 2009 Orangetree. But the blue is not. MR. GRAMATGES: No, the blue, there are some areas in there that we service, and therefore we charge impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the only areas you're charging impact fees to are ones you have service availability to now? MR. GRAMATGES: We charge impact fees to all of the areas that fall within the water/sewer district, with the exception of the exclusion areas. So there may be some areas in there where we don't provide service right now, and we charge impact fees because we project that we will be providing services within 10 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you're -- then let's go back then under that answer, under the east central area. Are you then providing -- are you charging any impact fees in the east central area? MR. GRAMATGES: No, we're not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that means you're not planning to do that within the next 10 years. MR. GRAMA TGES: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the same would be the southeast area. MR. GRAMA TGES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's where I was getting at. Thank you. Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, I happened to be looking at my water utility, water/sewer utility bill the other day, and it mentioned on it that there's an extra fee if you have excessive usage. It just kind of crossed my mind, why would you charge an excessive -- an additional fee for excessive use for an individual home? Because your costs don't go up if I use more water. I would pay for the more water. But you're charging me a penalty fee if I use too much water. Why is that? MR. GRAMATGES: We are trying to encourage you to use less Page 159 September 21, 2009 water. We have an inverted rate fee. The more water you use, depending of course on the category of user that you are, the more you pay per gallon. MS. VASEY: I understand the theory of that, but then you get a whole lot of extra money over and above what your actual costs are because you're having this penalty fee. Because your -- that additional amount is not based on the cost of the additional water, it's to attempt to change my water usage and reduce it. So why -- I don't understand. I'm watching my water because South Florida Water Management makes me. I think we have the certain days you can water and that kind of thing. MR. GRAMATGES: That's correct, yes. MS. VASEY: But I guess Ijust don't understand why a penalty fee should go to you and what you would do with that money. MR. GRAMATGES: I am not sure that I -- I'm not a customer unfortunately of the Collier County Water/Sewer District, so I have not received that notice. I don't believe there's a penalty, it's just a surcharge. MS. VASEY: A surcharge that __ MR. GRAMATGES: Is it called -- I'm sorry? MS. VASEY: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. GRAM A TGES: Is it called a penalty in your __ MS. VASEY: No, it's called a surcharge, but it's an additional fee that's not related to the capacity of water that I use, it's a penalty fee that tries to make me use less water. And then so you're collecting extra money that is not related to your expenses. MR. GRAMATGES: Well, all that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs I think has something. MS. DOWNS: I would say I see that nationwide. It's very normal to charge that additional fee to force people to use water (sic), especially in the southwest. It's common nationwide, but especially so in areas of water concern. Page 160 September 21, 2009 MR. GRAMATGES: Well, obviously there are a lot of water concerns here. I mean, we just went through a drought last year that was very significant. And the South Florida Water Management District was controlling irrigation in order to control usage to control the demand. So the inverted rate fee is a very important part of our control on demand. And that's one of the main reasons why it exists. As to what we do with the money? Yeah, indeed, we use all of it. And we use all of it in order to be able to pay for the operation of our plants. As you know, we're an enterprise system within public utilities, and we do not make profits on the water that we sell. So consequently that water goes to pay for chemicals, electricity, salaries. In these days mostly for chemicals and electricity. But yes, indeed. MS. VASEY: And reserves. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, but the reserves, as you well know, are not cash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other questions on the potable water? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Brad, do you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wastewater, actually. MR. GRAMATGES: Wastewater. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wastewater, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move to forward a recommendation of approval, the wastewater system as presented. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 161 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. On to solid waste. MS. DOWNS: We make the same motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. MS. VASEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I keep forgetting you guys got to do it separately. MS. DOWNS: All in favor? MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Solid waste, is that yours too, Phil? MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir. I'm ready to answer your questions on solid waste. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what, you're the easiest guy I've ever seen for the A UIR. It works out. MR. GRAMATGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Phil, your population on table one doesn't match the BEBR populations. It's much more. Is that because you're taking material from outside of Collier County or __ MR. GRAMA TGES: No, we're not. The district for solid waste is the entire county. While water and wastewater is restricted to the boundaries of the district, this population numbers are different. Page 162 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so you're including only municipalities within Collier County. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you're including all of them. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the only other question is, we get down to government buildings, you're loaning them money? How does that show up in your fiscal analysis here? Where __ MR. GRAMATGES: It does not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But you are, right? MR. GRAMATGES: I understand-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a four million dollar __ MR. GRAMATGES: -- that we have recently loaned some money, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where does that come from, just excess revenue or -- MR. GRAMATGES: We don't have excess revenue. As I said a while ago, we do not have excess revenue. We use it all. We have been -- we have that money allocated for projects in the future, and what we have to do is simply reallocate it; we have to reprioritize the projects that we have. We expect to be paid soon, I hope, because those projects need to be funded. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the intent is it will go in and out in this five-year period? MR. GRAMA TGES: I can't answer that directly, because obviously I'm not in the finance department. But I will tell you that yeah, I do need the money to spend in projects in the future, so I would expect that yes, the money would come back quickly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. VASEY: I have something on that. I'm not sure, I think that what we're talking about is there's a fund Page 163 September 21, 2009 to start up a new landfill, should we need one. Or actually, it's to close down the old one. And I think that's where the money was borrowed from. There's no need for that money until it's time to close it, but they have to maintain that account in the event of closure and, you know, cleaning up all the stuff. I think that's where that money is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So they're using that reserve funds -- MS. VASEY: Yeah. There's no requirement for using that money in the immediate future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: On the chart on Page 68, column number three, tons per capita, disposal rate. I'm just wondering why after 2010 it goes -- it's averaged out to .59. You know, you went from -- obviously it's an estimated number, but how did you arrive at that? MR. GRAMATGES: Well, anything before 2008 is a calculated number. We get the exact number of tons that is disposed of: we divide by the population, voila, you come up with a number. 2009 is sort of a combination, because 2009 of course is still not finished. We're almost there. The rest of them's calculated. MS. DOWNS: Well, you don't have actual tons disposed yet. MR. GRAMATGES: No, we don't. MS. DOWNS: So I'm just wondering why you would assume that disposal per person is going to go up with -- I mean, you __ if it's true that efforts to educate people really helped reduce the need, you got more recycling going, why wouldn't you assume that stepped up efforts there would serve to only decrease in the future the amount? MR. GRAMATGES: Because we have no basis to make any such assumptions. What we do is we take the average of the previous three years, and that's the number you see here. And that's the reason Page 164 September 21, 2009 why if you take the .59 it's higher than the .52. Why? Because the previous year was .61 and then .62. MS. DOWNS: So you averaged three years to get to-- MR. GRAMATGES: We averaged three years in the past, yes. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on solid waste? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. The BEBR numbers, how far out in the future do they go? MR. BOSI: 2029, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what, 20 years? MR. GRAMATGES: Twenty years. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Phil's department, and he doesn't use BEBR, but he uses another number that somehow probably is based on BEBR to project out what he needs for his districts. He uses a 30-year number. And the reason that becomes important is under testimony during the RLSA review, I remember specifically asking one of the consultants how many credits do you think you'd use in 20 years. And I thought the comment was, oh, I don't think we'd use 100,000, because they were looking for 435,000 -- 404 credits versus 318. So I'm wondering, if you're not using BEBR and you're just using some kind of progression that David would have used in your department, where is the RLSA factored in to these numbers? Since they do go out 30 years and there was testimony that something would be used in the RLSA of significance in the 30-year period, because they're talking 20 years. So how is the RLSA figured in for these? And the reason that's important is if we -- a landfill takes what, 10 years to permit practically? MR. GRAMATGES: Um-huh. Page 165 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if the RLSA kicks into high gear say 10 years from now, and not five for sure, but we get into some of those projections where it's starting to be popular, how fast is that going to factor into this? Has anybody looked at that as a potential? And you've got that new electronic growth model that you've been harping on. Have you looked and seen when that's going to kick in for population out there? MR. BOSI: The growth model doesn't have that 20-year limitation. The growth model tries to look out towards build-out. And it projects when the villages and the towns in the RLSA are going to incorporate within. I can only assume, and I know the danger of utilizing it, that the BEBR population numbers recognizes the growth patterns that are contained within the county and encapsulates within their projections the regulatory environment of the RLSA lands. And a portion of that projections are recognizing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is beyond BEBR. IfBEBR's only going out 20 years, this is out 30. So where have we got the recognition in the last 10 years of this document that they've taken into account what may happen in the RLSA? And if you've got this interactive growth model, did you compare the last 10 years of solid waste to what that growth model is predicting for population in the RLSA, since this is probably one of the few applications that we may even be able to see that on? MR. BOSI: Well, one, the numbers that were utilized by solid waste hasn't been compared with the growth model. The growth model is -- this is the first year that the growth model has been running the population projections. And we're only utilizing it right now for our GMP amendments are our projections in a limited basis for where we're utilizing that as a planning tool. Now, the numbers that are produced by the growth model for our 30-year projections, we may want to start talking with solid waste, Page 166 September 21, 2009 with public utilities in saying hey, we've got a localized version of population projections that has incorporated our development regulations as the component or the basis for what these numbers should be, let's start utilizing the CIGM population numbers for your population projections for the landfill. But we haven't arrived upon that point yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think it would be important that if you've got the ability to do it, we just run the scenario and see it. It sounds like you have the ability. That's what this model's supposed to have done. Is that something that you can provide for us? Not now, today, but if we ask it, can we get that? Can someone run that in your department, plug the numbers in, or is it a cost prohibitive thing to do? MR. BOSI: Well, there's a cost associated with everything. I mean, we can -- we have an internal -- we can run the numbers for the Eastern Lands. The only problem is we don't have the CI GM for the entire county. And these numbers incorporates the entire county . We can only do it on a limited portion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But you know the last 10 years of this document does not include anything -- does not include BEBR. But BEBR only ran for the existing portion of the county. And as you said earlier, if it had included anything in for the RLSA it would have been static in the sense that they've already got it there and you wouldn't have known whether it was in or out. So why don't you take these numbers here and add to them whatever you come up with on the interactive growth model and see how far that backs it up to where we may have a problem? MR. BOSI: But once again, the interactive growth model, the problem with these numbers are these numbers are for the whole county and the growth model has only just a population projection segmented east of 951. So I guess I would have to try to figure out, segment out which part of these numbers are the urbanized area, Page 167 September 21,2009 which part of these numbers are the east of 951 area to try to find -- to find out where the inconsistencies may be. We can run it -- we can run it and see if we can do that exercise. It's just not as clean, because we don't have the entire county under the CIGM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to waste your time, Mike. I'm more concerned if -- if David put this together, and I think he does the population statistics, doesn't he? So he would have probably had to come up with the ones past the BEBR number date. So why don't you just ask him what he factored in? I mean, he-- David would have done it, right? Am I wrong or right? I can't hear you guys. Did David do the population numbers that are in the back of the book for Collier County that they would have used for this? MR. GRAMATGES: Mr. Chairman, if you look at Page 69 under peak population, in the last two lines you see that fiscal year 2030 to '39 is projected based on average percentage increase from fiscal year 2026 to 2029 of 1.53 percent. MS. DOWNS: Page what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on? MR. GRAMATGES: Page SW-3. MS. VASEY: Number two -- I'm sorry, number -- yeah, number two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's how it was done. You just took -- you took the -- where you left off, where BEBR left off and added 1.53 percent from there on forward. MR. GRAMA TGES: In other words, the assumption is that it will continue to increase in a monotonic straight line. MR. BOSI: Yeah, David's numbers only go to 2029. If you look back at the population numbers in the back of this book, they only go to 2029. And then I think their consultants just ran the average out for the last 10 years. Page 168 September 21, 2009 MR. GRAMA TGES: And the reason for that is that we have to show the life of the landfill and it goes out to 30 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your department's analyses of this, did you take into consideration any changes that the RLSA is going to have on that 1.53 percent straight number that they use to see if it was still going to hold in those future years? MR. BOSI: No, because the numbers that were provided from DCA -- we don't have an option with the numbers that were provided for 2029 . We can't even agree or disagree that the number that they've incorporated, the aspects of the RLSA, in an appropriate factor. We just have to utilize the numbers that BEBR gives us for BEBR medium, and we have to allocate those numbers spatially. But we're not allowed to -- we can't change that number. We're stuck with the number that BEBR gives us. So in that respect there hasn't been an analysis done over the last 10 years, because there hasn't been a true analysis to whether we believe or have a high degree of confidence within the 2029 numbers as to comparing it with what the growth model has projected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I understand that. Every one of these things we've done today is projections, okay, so they're going to have a little give and take here and there. When -- the build-out plan for the RLSA is a 50-year plan, is that correct? Workout plan I think it's called? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You got 30 years, you've got three-fifths of that plan taken up in the dates in front of us. And my concern is if we don't start thinking of the RLSA as realistic in regards to how fast it could develop out there, based on the testimony we heard during this last review and the fact they're increasing the densities out there substantially, or the potential densities, I just wanted to make sure somewhere in comprehensive planning, because that seems to be what your department should be Page 169 September 21, 2009 doing, is checking this stuff out in the long-range plan. That's all. That's what I'm -- and I'm not sure it got checked. MR. COHEN: What -- and let me go ahead and re-correct something, or restate something that Mike said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Re-correct it? MR. COHEN: Re-correct, yeah. Long day. BEBR does provide us with annual numbers and estimates. On one occasion in the last five years we actually did challenge those numbers based on CO data that we had, and they did revise our numbers. So what we do do is we do we analyze where the development's occurring with respect to COSo We do spatially allocate those within the specific T AZs, and we do monitor them on an annual basis. We are fully cognizant of what's happening with the RLSA. And when we've talked about the credits that the recommendation came out of thjs body, and also what came out of the BCC, we realize when we go through the RLSA amendment process that we're going to have to take a look at those to see if they will generate additional numbers as well too. So that coupled with the fact that we probably will end up with an interactive growth model county-wide by the end of the next -- FY 10, that will provide us with a lot more planning tools to spatially allocate stuff. And also in terms of time, DCA is requiring us to -- with all of our plans, whether it's water, sewer, we're going to have to go on a -- I believe we decided to go 2025? I believe. So we're going to have to have all of our plans actually systemically be aligned with one another, and that will allow us to go on out. But we will take out the solid waste further when we get the interactive growth model more, you know, county-wide. And I think it's really incumbent on our department to really monitor the development trends as they move forward. Page 1 70 September 21, 2009 And not only that, when we brought up BEBR earlier is to look at their numbers, and if they are off-base, to question them as well too, which we have done. So we've been on top of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And where I'm worried, Randy, ifit takes 10 years to permit a landfill, the political process just to locate it in this county is going to take 10 years. And, you know, somehow we need to start looking at this long range. This is one of the more particular long-range issues. You can always build your own water plant and you can always build your own sewer plants, but it sure is real hard to stick a landfill anywhere in Collier County. MR. COHEN: And I know we've talked about that between our department and also with public utilities, and the recycling efforts of a lot of them to push that window out a little bit, but it's something that I -- I believe the County Manager asked your division to stay on top of and to continue to keep a look at. MR. GRAMATGES: The board has asked us to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll be here for the next 20 years arguing with you, so just remember that. Okay, are there any other questions on the solid waste portion of the capital A facilities? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, Brad, you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. I recommend we move solid waste with a recommendation of approval as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- second? Seconded by Donna. Is there any -- I'm going to get to you guys. Is there any comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 171 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Passes 5-0. MS. DOWNS: Same motion. MS. VASEY: Second. MS. DOWNS: All in favor? MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. All opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, if you guys disagreed after one of you made it and seconded, then we'd really have a problem. Now, the last -- not the last element, the next element would be the school facilities, which is a new one to this AUIR. And if I'm not mistaken, our goal with that one was to make sure by its portrayal we saw where it did or did not coincide with the other infrastructure elements of the other portions of the AUIR. And with that in mind, I'll turn it over to you, sir. MR. HARDY: Good afternoon. I'm Alvah Hardy. I'm with the school district. Mike Bosi suggested that as this was the first time after the implementation of public school concurrency that the county would be reviewing and adopting by reference to the school district's capital plan that I give you a breach overview of the process that we use to generate our capital plan. I will point out that this plan was approved April 16th by the school board. As was mentioned earlier in the meeting, our fiscal year Page 1 72 September 21, 2009 starts July 1st and the first year of our capital plan is our budget for that ensuing year. So we're into our year. And in fact the board adopted their entire budget last Thursday, which is another vagary of state law that you adopted after you start your fiscal year. Basically we start with your data. Chapter one looks at information we get from the gentleman sitting in front of you related to growth and demographics, housing conditions, certificates of occupancy, all that kind of stuff. We also look at birth rate and survivorship using a cohort model, a survivorship model related to births and the number of children attending kindergarten six years later. We create enrollment projections by grade level using these types of projection models, and also look at our own enrollment trends. During the period of growth that we recently endured, the county growth numbers and the school district enrollment numbers coincided. Several years ago you kept issuing certificates of occupancy and we stopped growing, so we had to change our statistical analysis a little bit because the correlation between the two ceased to exist at that point in time. We also have to look at legislative changes. Most importantly recently was the Senate Bill 360 that has me standing here today so that we can talk to you about how we do our planning. And then we go over a summary of our funding sources. The district is funded through many different avenues, all of which have to be spread into appropriate projects, based on state law. In chapter two it pretty much becomes a simple analysis of how many students do we have and how many seats do we have. We also acknowledge that we have a different planning process than you do, as required by statute. We have an educational plant survey. We can only construct projects that are approved through this survey methodology. It is a district-wide assessment of seats and Page 1 73 September 21, 2009 students. It does not account for any regionality. We do get some exception for Everglades City, as they're aware of the distance issues that exist there, and also Immokalee, given its location from the urban center. We also have the five-year work plan. Like the BEBR numbers, we are given state enrollment number projections for use in our capital planning process. And as long as the trends are consistent, they match our projections very well. When our trends change, it takes them a little while to catch up. For instance, they've projected a sharper decline than we've experienced, once we started to decline. But they always catch back up. We then use this cohort survivorship model plus the growth data. And then we disaggregate this through our school system on a school level over a five-year period and compare that to the number of seats available. Anywhere in that five-year window that we were to do a capacity enhancement, whether it were a new school or an addition to a school, that's taken into account and the number of seats available for that-- starting at that period in time, if it's year three, for instance, in the planning process. We also have other programs that affect our distribution of students. We have alternative education programs, we have career academies, we have a vibrant school choice policy, and we have to keep track of those. And also whether educational delivery models that may affect the way that our schools are attended. Chapter three is basically recommendations on what to do to deal with whatever enrollment changes we have. The rest of that chapter deals with maintenance in our instructional technology plan, our equipment replacement that are outside of the concurrency thing, but obviously we do more with our capital money than just build seats. In chapter four is where we have the disaggregated data for schools. We group them by high schools. Our feeder patterns aren't Page 174 September 21, 2009 that strict, but it gives us a good look at how things are going regionally. And then chapter five is just more description as far as describing what each individual project is. Chapter six is our 20-year maintenance plan, it's quite elaborate, and five-year increments, five, 10 and 20. And then chapter seven is our 10 and 20-year plan. Our 10-year plan is based on numbers that we get from the county. And we look at a global need of how many seats are where, but we use the county planning areas to disaggregate that data so that we can point that we might need a school in the urban Estates or wherever the numbers show that that's needed. The 20-year plan -- and this is interesting that you have 20-year numbers. We I believe historically have taken the 10-year data from the county and straight-lined it out for the 20 years, recognizing that the further out you get the less exact you can be. Chapter eight is our new chapter on concurrency where we use our levels of service to determine whether we're meeting our requirements, and that we will use the concurrency as we implement concurrency with the local development community as they come forward with new projects. That's about it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions from anybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to point out, we didn't get all the chapters you referenced. I mean, it's noted that we shouldn't have gotten it, but is there any -- the concurrency would be an interesting chapter. Is there a reason why we didn't get that? MR. BOSI: No, not intentionally. That's an oversight on my part for not including it within the workbook. I can get you that chapter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, that would be the most curious -- MR. HARDY: It's broken out by concurrency service area. Uses Page 175 September 21, 2009 the same format of looking at each school in that area with the number of seats they have available, dependent on the level of service established, and then the projected student enrollment at those schools throughout that five-year time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one, two, three and seven, from what I can tell. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So somewhere in between somebody's got a pile of those around. MR. EASTMAN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: Our capital plan's also available on our website. MR. HARDY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have this little policy, ifit's more than 10 pages, we don't print. So if you could -- if the comprehensive planning can get us the missing chapters, we'd appreciate it. MR. BOSI: Do you want all the chapters, three, four, five six __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this is supposed to have contained eight chapters, we'd like whatever chapters are missing. We'd like the full package. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, if you look at Page 80 you could see that -- because I noticed that reviewing it, that they did intentionally leave those out. My only question is, the only thing we're going to do with this report -- you think the concurrency, because that would give us what they're doing and where, would be the only chapter that would really be of use. MR. BOSI: Well, pertinent to the Capital Improvement Element is the proposed improvements. Those are there is that I thought I __ and I should have included concurrency service areas, because it's Page 176 September 21, 2009 implementing concurrency management system. But the purpose of the AUIR is to review the capital improvements that are being proposed. The capital improvements that are being proposed by the school district in their five-year window is a 220-seat expansion to Laurel Oaks Elementary School. That's the sole improvement that's being reviewed and will be included within the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much of this documentation is going to be in the CIE, just that one number? Out of all of this documentation -- MR. BOSI: It would only be a reference to the adopted schools capital improvement program within our CIE, per the public school facility element. The school's CIP is not included within our capital improvements element, it's only a reference within our Capital Improvements Element to the school's capital improvement program. MR. COHEN: And let me go ahead and qualify that. We do have a public schools facility element. And then on an annual basis we will incorporate the entirety of their CIP by reference. That's the way it's done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the reference, and see what happens down the road, on the Planning Commission when we review something and we want to go to the CIE to see if it's consistent, and then the CIE references a document we don't have, that becomes a problem. So if you can send it electronically, I'll keep it on my computer electrically. That's fine too. I don't care, just as long as I have it somewhere where if it's ever needed I can pull it up. MR. HARDY: It's PDF'd on the website, you can download it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would work. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions involving the Page 1 77 September 21, 2009 school? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes, please, thank you. I'd like to go over a couple of your things on your summary of capital improvement program. It's our Page 82. I'm not sure, do you have the same book we do? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MR. HARDY: Yes, I do. MS. VASEY: Okay. I notice that all of your additional construc -- the additional remodeling renovations, and I assume any new schools that you would build would be in that category. And you only have the FY 09-10 filled in. Is that sort of -- are you under the same rules that we are where you don't want to promise to do something you can't afford later? Because there's nothing in '11, '12, '13, '14. MR. HARDY: That's because there's no growth projected. And we have a chapter of new construction, there just aren't any, so we eliminated the chapter heading. So when we're doing new schools, there is a whole nother section that says new schools. But as we're not doing that, we just took it out of the summary. The summary is a roll-up of a large data base that feeds up through all of the back pages of the project manuals and all that that describe the project. So no, the fact is, without any growth there will be no __ MS. VASEY: No remodelings -- MR. HARDY: -- projects out. MS. VASEY: -- no nothing. MR. HARDY: Hu-huh. MS. VASEY: On the next -- on Page 85, the revenue part. On your five-year total -- well, you've got -- you show the impacts for revenue, impact fees and the interest in Osceola transfer. Now the capital improvement tax, this is the one that's on our tax Page 1 78 September 21, 2009 bill. Is that the 1. 5 or 1. 75, or -- MR. HARDY: No, ma'am. In Thursday's board meeting where they just approved the budget, in 2008 the legislature reduced our available capital millage from 2.0 to 1.75. By referendum the school district and the citizens of the community authorized a transfer or a reduction in the capital tax and an enhancement of the operational tax by a quarter mill, so that took us down to one and a half mills. Subsequent to that referendum, the legislature also offered up a quarter mill discretionary transfer, which we opted not to take all of. So there is a .1780 transfer out of capital into operating that left the capital millage at 1.3 to 2.0 for this year. MS. VASEY: Okay, and is that the same number used for all years? Because it looks fairly consistent. Or did you take that __ MR. HARDY: No, actually what I'm telling you is what the board did Thursday. The book looked at 1.5. MS. VASEY: Okay, because that-- MR. HARDY: Because we did the book in April and the legislature just wraps up in April. We're chasing the legislature a lot closer than you guys have to with your October, October budgets. So MS. VASEY: Okay, so your number will come down some amount? MR. HARDY: Our book -- this is a budget book. This is a planning document. It is not -- they adopted the budget on Thursday. All those numbers are set. But as you know, in government you have projected revenues and projected expenditures and you chase those all year till the last day of your budget year and then you reconcile everything. So we will be working with whatever adjustments happen. But that is the plan at that point in time. MS. VASEY: Okay, there's a line called beginning balance that Page 1 79 September 21, 2009 for the five-year total shows $310 million. I'm just -- I couldn't figure out what that was. I understand -- MR. HARDY: It's a carryforward. MS. VASEY: -- the words but -- huh? MR. HARDY: It's a carryforward. MS. VASEY: Okay. So this is money you already had that you're now using off -- MR. HARDY: Yes. MS. VASEY: -- the five years? MR. HARDY: Yes. Actually helps get us to the end of the five years. MS. VASEY: Okay. About a year or so ago I asked Dr. Thompson what your debt was, your outstanding debt. And he said it was around $500 million. At the end of this five-year period, what will the total debt be? MR. HARDY: I have no idea. I'm the facilities person. I would suggest you talk to Mr. Spencer in finance and he would have those numbers. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. Okay. I assumed you were doing the whole thing. MR. HARDY: No, the finance people have it a lot harder than the facilities people. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the school? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just a couple on Page 109. Can you -- I looked at your countywide totals in the bottom of that chart, and I couldn't match them up to a chart. Where did you get your population statistics? MR. BOSI: Last year's AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last year's? MR. BOSI: Remember, this was done in April. Page 180 September 21, 2009 This was done in April, so they can only use the numbers from last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the one that is here, I had no idea how they got there. Okay. How do you -- how have you planned or did you -- did it come into play in any preparation of this, the RLSA? Because I know you've got one school out there now. MR. HARDY: We have a site for two schools with Ave Maria and a commitment for a high school site. As these are DRI's typically, we get our due through the DRI process. With the implementation of school concurrency, we'll have even greater access to mitigation for impacts from development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The timing for the high school, then, if you already got -- you're not planning that any time soon, are you? MR. HARDY: We're not planning any high schools any time soon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the last question I had. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a motion, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move we forward the school capital improvement plan with favorable reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for discussion, Tom, do you think this is a good idea? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. MR. EASTMAN: Also state mandated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was waiting for you to say no. Somebody else would be in your seat next week. Page 181 September 21, 2009 Okay, any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. You guys? MS. VASEY: We'd like to make the same motion. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All those in -- oh, any discussion? MS. DOWNS: No. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unanimous. Thank you. MR. HARDY: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, next item up will be county parks and recreation facilities. And this first one is the community parks. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Barry Williams, Parks and Rec. Director. I ran into Phil Gramatges at lunch and asked him his what his methodology was in presenting, and so he gave me some tips and so I'm here to ask if you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, it ain't going to Page 182 September 21, 2009 work. MR. WILLIAMS: Understand. I thought I'd try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not everybody jumps inside a water plant and gets familiar with it, but plenty of us have been inside the parks. It's a little different application. With that, then that's fine. Questions are usually a lot more directly to the point than presentations. So community park lands starts on Page 114 and it goes to Page 11 7. So let's take that one first. Are there any questions from the panels on those few pages? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A slight one. Your population doesn't match what we have on Page 9. Is there a reason, or are you covering -- community parks, does it take in the municipalities? MS. RAMSEY: No. MR. BOSI: No. It's Unincorporated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it should be close to our -- MR. WILLIAMS: Population numbers should reflect BEBR, is what we use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are they, or -- I mean, it looks like, for example, you're at 350 thou for this year. When -- I mean, it's slightly off, I guess. But Mike, is that appropriate that -- MR. BOSI: The 350 number, that's the -- I'm looking for the peak season population. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the numbers you gave us on Page 9, it has a seasonal factor built into them at 20 percent, right? COMMISSIONER CARON: 332. MR. BaSI: The population numbers from the staff report on Page 9 I believe are the county permanent population, which includes the municipalities. Page 183 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, then you've got -- I don't think so. Otherwise Phil's overrated his. MR. BOSI: Maybe not the -- the numbers from the staffreport are the county's permanent population and BEBR projections. Community park utilizes unincorporated county populations, so it would exclude the city's population so they would be different than this number's. So maybe I'm not understanding the question. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On Page 9, I understood that to be the unincorporated population. MR. BOSI: No, Page 9 is the county's population, including the city's. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What is that number? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then where did Phil get his number? Because Phil's numbers were -- MR. BOSI: Phil-- the water and sewer-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- so much higher. MR. BOSI: -- district? The water and sewer district have their own individual populations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but some of Phil's numbers county-wide like solid waste was much higher than this. And the answer when I asked him that was that he's adding to this number the municipality, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, solid waste he did have to include the municipalities. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, I really assumed this number was the unincorporated, including a point of 20 percent factor -- MR. BOSI: No, this is not -- this is permanent population. This is permanent population including the municipalities on Page 9. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What number on Page 9 are you talking about? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me read this sentence. Page 184 September 21, 2009 Let me read this: The population method utilizes BEBR medium projections for the entire projection period, with a 20 percent seasonal adjustment factor. Doesn't that mean it's built into that? I hope it is. I'd hate to go back to the beginning of today and go -- MR. BOSI: The chart, the BEBR medium charts that are provided here, that is our permanent population, that's not our seasonal population. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'm just reading what you wrote. Am I reading it wrong, or-- COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I thought you were reading it correctly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, that's not particularly what I wanted to discover with the question, but __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your question --let's go back to your original question, Brad. The community parks utilized the unincorporated area of the peak season population, right? MS. RAMSEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Somebody said yes. MR. BOSI: Well, I don't know what the question is. I was trying to listen what the question was from Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I started out in their chart -- it started out giving the impression that there's 350,000 people today at this point in time, which was higher than the analysis. Which made me wonder whether it was for the whole county. But he said no, it's for the unincorporated, thus it would be higher. But what you're saying __ actually what you're saying makes it much worse. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, if you -_ MR. BOSI: I'm not sure if it does. The -- I guess what that introduction statement with population for peak season purposes we use BEBR medium plus 20 percent. This chart is your BEBR medium, only your permanent population. Page 185 September 21, 2009 Your unincorporated -- or your community parks utilizes only the peak season of unincorporated Collier County. There's segmentation for all of -- for each one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 232 is where they pulled the numbers from that they used on Page 115, which is what they built the chart off of: I believe. So if you look on the population of unincorporated, in 2008 to '09 it's 350,406. If you go to Page 232 under '09 you see the unincorporated area 350,406, and that's -- then it continues on there from there. So that's the numbers they used. Is that what you're trying to get to? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. I mean, that balances some up. But now I have a question about Page 9. MR. BOSI: Page 9. It's a permanent population for Collier County over the five-year windows for BEBR from -- from BEBR's population projections. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that matches your 230 spreadsheet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Page 230. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So where did Phil get all those extra people? But Phil's gone, we can't go get him. But anyway, go ahead, we're fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we left off on questions. Did you get your question answered, other than Phil's issue? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I did. MR. WILLIAMS: We're not going to have lunch with Phil anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only ifhe buys, huh? MR. WILLIAMS: No, no. No buying. COMMISSIONER CARON: I love it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on the community park land category? Page 186 September 21, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, and it may be more of an impact fee question than it would be yours, Barry. And that is the unit cost at 230,000, how do we retain the unit cost of 230,000? That's the number that we used in 2008 and 2007. So __ MR. WILLIAMS: Could I ask if Amy could come up and talk to that issue? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. The $230,000 is the most current acreage cost validated by the soon to be adopted parks impact fee study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But we know that the acreage costs are not 230,000 an acre anymore. But land costs have gone down across -- ask the county commission if they've had problems with their revenue stream because of reduction in assessed values. How is that 230 justified as being retained from years when we were in -- coming out of our boom? I don't get it. MS. PATTERSON: The consultant that worked on the park study did do a sampling. They went through and reevaluated the land cost because they knew that this was a concern of both the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee, and of the Board of County Commissioners, and they still found the $230,000 to be an accurate number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's odd that the only one we've seen so far that had a comparison I would say is transportation. They had a one -- it went from eight million down to six million in their costs, which include right-of-way acquisition. So they've certainly recognized there's a reduction in cost. I don't know why Parks and Rec. wouldn't have recognized the same thing. And I certainly don't feel leaving the 230,000 per acre is justified in any manner. It just doesn't work. Everybody -- ask the tax assessor. It's just not practical. So I know what you've just said. I don't know who you hired to do this work, but maybe they need to be from the local market more. Page 187 September 21, 2009 MS. PATTERSON: Well, when we did the study in 2006 we hired a local appraiser to come up with land costs at that time, which was widely disputed and the cause of a lot of discussion over the follow-on years. A different consultant did this study and still came up with the same conclusion, unfortunately. I understand the concern and that's why they spent so much time doing what they did, but they still have come up with the same conclusion, that the $230,000 is an appropriate cost per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send me that one-- MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- electronically as well? MS. PATTERSON: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions on -- I mean, I'm certainly going to throw that in as an exception as far as my discussion goes with this onto the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Well, we remember also concerned with the productivity. And correct me if I'm wrong, Amy, I think part of the explanation given at that time is we were buying some shore property, putting in some ramps, some boat ramps, and that skewed the whole thing by having just a few acres of anything along the water. And I must be right, she's not saying anything. But that's the way I recall. MR. WILLIAMS: Just that that was a discussion. And I know that the Productivity Committee in particular in looking at the impact fee study has had some questions about whether the park land that would be purchased in the future, would it be lands that were on the coast, had we bought all the lands potentially on the coast. And that, you know, the per acre cost might be more suitable to going east and what the land costs are there. Page 188 September 21, 2009 I think staffs point of view has been opportunities arise, and Port of the Isles is a good example, where there are properties that come available that have a public benefit that the Board of County Commissioners have purchased. So I understand Mr. Strain's point of view, 230,000 seems excessive in this market, but when you do look at lands that you would purchase on the coast still they're a high dollar amount. I think the other point to make, if I may, is that the dollar amount that is being used is more of a placeholder really for us in our level of . servIce. What's more important is the acreage per thousand people. I mean, that's really what you're looking to determine whether you have adequate acreage. What the market will bear when we go seeking land, if we ever do again if we have money, is, you know, the market would bear and that price would be what we pay, not this placeholder of a dollar amount of 230,000 per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope you wouldn't pay more than you have to. MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't like the perception of showing a unit cost on an acre basis that is just not realistic in today's world. MS. DOWNS: And it's even more troubling on Page 121. Whether it's a swap-out or whatever happens with the ATV park, you have 625 acres valued at 230,000 an acre. And it can't get anymore inland than wherever that will end up being. MR. WILLIAMS: That's true. MS. DOWNS: So that's really skewing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean -- Ms. Vasey did you have something? MS. VASEY: Yeah, I was trying to remember what kind of things went into that discussion. I remember we questioned it. And Page 189 September 21, 2009 part of the issue was you might be able to get individual acres at a lot less, but if you're trying to package together a large acreage for a park, you would probably be running into higher costs. That was one of the things. I can't remember what else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess that's just an issue we'll leave out there. There's not much we can do about it except when we make a motion if we want to address it. Are there any other questions on the community park land? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Explain to me why, Barry, the city parks are not included in here and the parks within gated communities are not included in here, the parks of that nature are not included in here. MR. WILLIAMS: And that is a question that's come up over the years, and I think Mike may have a better handle. I do want to say, though, before Mike may answer that question is that we have included in our inventory what those acreages are, what those city municipality parks are. In addition, what we've done this year, and you've asked from last year, is that we include the state and federal lands that are available, and so there's a graphic in there that demonstrates that. But I think Mike may probably have the better answer in terms of requirements from DCA, why we can't allow those city and private developments involved in this. MR. BOSI: And as we've -- this point has come up before. It's because we don't control those areas we can't count those within our inventory. They have been inventoried for informational purposes that these are available, that there are acreages available from the municipalities, there are acreages available from the state, and there are federally (sic) acres that are available. But the AUIR goes back to concurrency management. Concurrency management from the purview of DCA is they want to Page 190 September 21, 2009 know what's in our CIE. What's in our CIE is what we control and what we own. What we control and what we own are the parklands, the regional and community parklands that are owned by Collier County. The only time that we include parklands that are owned by other entities is when we have an interlocal agreement that gives us specific control and access to those facilities. And as we have stated a number of times, from a staff perspective we want to provide you with the acreages of the municipalities' parks, of the state's parks, of the federal parks. And if you think because of the availability of those parks that the amount of acres per person or per capita that Collier County's providing is too high based upon those availabilities, then a recommendation to lower the level of service for parks would be appropriate. But we cannot-- per process we cannot include those facilities within our inventory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. That's what you said two years ago when I was here. Ms. Vasey, then Ms. Caron. MS. VASEY: This might be a good time to just kind of explain something that we did on the impact fees. I think you noticed at the beginning Mike told you that the impact fees for Parks and Rec. had dropped like 10 percent or 1 7 percent or something like that for the single-family homes. And I know two years ago you had the same feeling we had, that the impact fees were too high in parks. And when we reviewed the impact fees this time, we looked at the whole procedure for how impact fees are calculated. And what you do with an impact fee calculation is you take the number of acres that you have, you cost them out in today's prices, and whatever equipment goes with them, and then you duplicate that on all new development, all new construction and housing. And only housing, no businesses for Parks and Rec. What we found was that you would not ever duplicate what you have now in the future. Because number one, the areas where we have Page 191 September 21, 2009 parks now are in high cost -- high land cost areas, like North Naples and Marco Island and along the coast. Future development will be interior for the most part, except for whatever is bought along the beach front. And that was another thing we looked at. So we said that all the land in future parks had to be looked at as being internal. No more high prices of $400,000 an acre or something for north Naples areas. 230 was what we said had to be used, because that was the price that was accepted for the internal areas. And then we looked at the idea of coastal properties, and we said we would never be able to duplicate the coastal parks that we have now. So we took a factor, I think we took 25 percent out of that and cut that out of the cost, because you couldn't do it. And I don't know, that was our recommendation. I don't know, Amy, has that gone to the commission yet? The commissioners have not voted on that yet. But that was __ what we tried to do was get more realistic with what the parks in the future would look like. And to your point of including some of the other facilities that we don't own, if you take a look at what we own and try to duplicate it, if you put more into what we own and try to duplicate it, the cost is higher. So it's sort of there's many arguments not to include things that we don't control. And one is the duplication effort is so much larger. Is that clear? It's very -- it's kind of a complicated process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but part of my concern was if we don't control it -- I understand why you wouldn't include it. But the mere fact that it exists severely reduces the need for people to go to some of these parks. I mean, I work at a community that everything is internal. I don't think a person in that community rarely goes to their parks. They've got everything for them. They've got pools, they've got tennis courts, they've got a golf course, they've got everything they want. Page 192 September 21, 2009 And if you really take that population out of the statistic, what population do you end up with that is really using the parks, and then how many parks does that population really need? And that's kind of the piece that I keep harping on that I don't see here. MS. VASEY: Okay. You were talking about reducing the population as opposed to increasing the parks that have to be like included in the impact fees? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, by not including the impact fees, I understand why that can't be done. But I think the level of service should be reduced to offset the people that aren't reusing the parks because they have their own private facilities. And I think that's why . my concern IS. And as far as the 230,000 per acre, man, I'd sell you property all day long for that in the interior if you want to buy it. I don't know why anybody would pay that much for property interior. Even the best residential property in the Estates isn't anywhere half that now. And it used to be a lot higher. And that's just the reality of the market. Does leaving this in this number as Barry's used it referenced as a placeholder? In your analysis of the impact fees did that placeholder value have any impact on the impact fee value? MS. VASEY: Well, actually it brought it down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the higher the unit cost value brings the impact fee value down? MS. VASEY: Well, no, because they were trying to use the cost of acreage in North Naples that's much higher than that. And Marco Island, you know, duplicating all the parks and all the locations that we have now. And we said no, that's overstating what it is. You will for the most part be going to the interior part of the county, not totally but to the most part, and then not be able to duplicate all the coastal park acreage either. So we took all of that out and it brought it down quite a bit. Now, there was an update to the acreage cost out in the county, Page 193 September 21, 2009 you know, the Golden Gate areas and, you know, where new parks would be. And I think that was updated as of the time that the impact fee study came forward. But there again, you know, like anything we've talked about today, there's a process time. You know, the person that prepared the impact fee study got this information on land costs back before they prepared the study, before it came to us, was reviewed. That land cost was probably at least a year ago, maybe more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't mean to ask you this question unless you know the answer to it. I guess it could be one that Amy might want to address. But if the unit cost per acre is so important that it has to be analyzed and included in a report for impact fees, how does it not then directly impact the value of the impact fees that we charge? MS. VASEY: Well, now that is included in the impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I was getting-- MS. VASEY: Like I said, it's lower than it would have been from the initial study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if it was -- if the 230 was lowered to what the interior lands really are valued at nowadays, wouldn't then the impact fees be even lower? MS. VASEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's where I was going. Thank you. MS. VASEY: Yeah. But on this part for the AUIR, they're not really purchasing anything. When they talk about a placeholder, you know, the level of service standard is based on the acreage per person, per population. And all of these properties are either donated or -- I don't think we're actually buying them, are we, Barry? MR. WILLIAMS: In this five-year window we have a couple that we're -- if we have the funds to purchase, we would want. But for the most part they are interdepartmental transfers or donations, that's Page 194 September 21, 2009 correct. MS. VASEY: I don't know if that helps. And probably other-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it helps a lot. I'm just trying -- I mean, I've got -- I know if I were to open up this book and see that we're using that cost per unit, that just strikes me as being in error. And I'm trying to figure out how something as blatantly in error as I perceive it to be should be left in here or not. So other than that, anybody else have any other questions on the community parkland category? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is there anything we can do to readjust that level of service? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can recommend to the Board of County Commissioners as part of our review that the level of service needs to be adjusted downward. Yes, we could do that. That's certainly what we -- that's part of our right to do, that kind of recommendation. That's what we're here to do today is actually discuss the cost and the levels of services and items like that. And if we feel there should be some changes in those, we should make those recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners as part of our motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, how does the committee feel about that then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I've been talking about here. And I'm not sure, I may be the only one that has that perception, so -- and it has to be a consensus in some manner. MR. WILLIAMS: Just if I may, just to offer another perspective. And again, I appreciate -- we've heard from the community in particular, private developments in -- with the amenities that they enjoy in a gated community, isn't there enough recreational opportunities for our community? And that is a unique perspective that folks have that live in gated Page 195 September 21, 2009 communities. And I would tell you, you know I have a perspective of working in a park at North Collier Regional Park and see the use of that park and that facility. I as a Park and Rec. director am weekly dealt with phone calls, people looking for space to play. And I think the state and federal lands are a wonderful addition to what we have for recreation in Collier County . We're very blessed in that. But when we're talking about organized sports and we're talking about the variety of sports that youth play, we do have deficits, we do have needs. Perhaps they all are internal, internal Collier County. You know, Orangetree is probably the one spot from my perspective that really cries for a need for a park. And that park has been pushed out quite some time because of a variety of factors. But I would ask -- you know, your perspective is unique in what you see in terms of our development. I wouldn't want you to reduce level of service just solely based on your perspective. I would hope that you would continue to get data that you need to make sure that a level of service for Parks and Rec. in particular is what it should be in this county. So thanks, I just wanted to throw that out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think for the past several years we've been asking these questions when it comes to parks. And while it may be inappropriate to include the state parks and the federal parks that we have, they have to have some bearing on the types of parks that we end up building. And, you know, where that leads, you know, I'm not sure. Whether that leads to a lessening of the LOS, I probably think it does. But again -_ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, unfortunately I think sitting here today, I don't know if we've got enough information __ COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to determine it. Which is where we are every year when -- Page 196 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is why we keep asking, though, every year and we never quite get the information we need to make a real value judgment on things. To that point, do we not have interlocal agreements with the City of Naples for both beaches and parks? MR. WILLIAMS: We do have an interlocal agreement. The board signed an agreement with the City of Naples I believe last year and it's a payment that they make. It's a million dollars a year. And what that agreement stipulates is reciprocal beach parking for their residents to use county beach parking spaces, as well as county beach parking stickers being identified and recognized on city beaches. It also had a provision in the agreement though that allowed for the county's use of the city parks. And the agreement outlines how the city has a great deal of flexibility to use the monies to upgrade their park system as -- park systems as they see fit. So about a half a million dollars was for beach parking, and the remainder half million was that purpose. So we do have an agreement. We don't control, however, the city parks. This is a contribution that the county makes to the city for access that the county has or for recognition that the county uses the city parks. COMMISSIONER CARON: But somehow the city parks for sure have got to be included. Because A, we're paying for them, or at least a portion of them. And B, we have every right to use them. So somehow those parks at the very least have to be included to some degree, even if it's a factor. Ifwe say we'll, you know, account for 40 percent of that park. Some portion of it has got to be reflected in our park inventory. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? COMMISSIONER CARON: It can't just be out there nebulous a la Big Cypress. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. Page 197 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, though, but if you bring in the park, you have to bring in the population of the city. Because, you know, do the -- I guess, Barry, what would be interesting, maybe, maybe, you know, because we do talk about this every year, so it would be nice if we really brought it to a head, is to look at the city's population and their parks. In other words, obviously whether they're community or -- and then see what we look like with everything together. MR. WILLIAMS: We do have that data in your packet, I would mention. In your inventory -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You include the population of the city and their parks? MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know that we include the population. We do include the acreage of the community and regional parks the city has. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's not fair to bring their parks in as if the city -- their population is not there that day. That's not fair. MS. VASEY: Doesn't it have the population of the city? MR. WILLIAMS: It does. It's in -- MS. VASEY: It's county-wide. For the regional parks. Not for the community, for the regionals. MR. BOSI: Regional does. For community parks it doesn't. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mean, we're talking about community. That's -- are we talking about regional or community? MR. BOSI: Both. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Community came first. MR. WILLIAMS: The community park the city has that probably gets the most hits from county residents is Fleischmann Park. And one could question whether that should be considered regional park versus I think they have it listed as a community, yeah. Page 198 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, to probably summarize this, I guess you're not looking at any additional revenues needed to maintain a level of service, so you're neutral in that regard. You have an expenditure mainly because you're giving away -- or an interdepartment transfer of an asset which is the -- I think it's Randall or something like that. MR. WILLIAMS: Randall Curve, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from a capital improvement viewpoint for the A VIR, you're at zero, you're not doing anything. So it doesn't do us any good to take anything away from you because you've got nothing to give in the first place. So you can't go out and demo the park to make it less. So I guess the practical application here is it doesn't matter at this point to change anything, with the caveat I would suggest that we recommend to the BCC to take a closer look at the unit cost and consider a realistic consultant maybe to see what that cost really should be. I'm not too enthused about what Amy has told me regarding this consultant, since they've left the number the same now for the third year in a row and we know that isn't a truthful statement. So -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, what do you think -- curiosity, what would you guess the window for that number, a fair number there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be -- my opinion? About half. 130 to -- somewhere less than 150. Only because I know what the pricing is going for out in the rural area and places where I live. And Golden Gate Estates is a nice place, but it's not -- and it's still more than your raw land. But even like the A TV park, I can't imagine anybody paying 230 an acre for the A TV park. It's mostly wetlands, from what I understand, or portions of wetlands. So I don't know how they'd get to 230. I just can't see that. Even the best land that I live on in high parts of Golden Gate Estates is not worth 230,000 right now. I wish it was Page 199 September 21, 2009 worth half that right now, to be honest with you. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Has the staff looked into any other possible levels of service that are used in other places? MR. BOSI: In 2007 we went through an exhaustive level of service analysis with this very body where we compared the level of service with this county that -- the coastal counties within the State of Florida. We've run through this exercise of comparing this county towards how other counties do it in terms of what our acreage is compared to their acreage. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Utilizing other levels of service other than acreage? MR. BOSI: Well, acreage is the consistent basis that's utilized through the counties throughout the State of Florida. It's acreage-wise, acreage to population based. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Also my pet peeve, with these not counting in state parks and -- as well as within private communities. When you devise a measurement for roads, it's very complicated. Much more complicated than simply saying 1.2 acres per thousand, which is what we're doing with community parks. I would suggest if it's possible to do, Amy, to make -- and Commissioner Caron mentioned the word factoring. To make a much more complicated level of service calculation that factors in -- and this applies to schools too -- factors in the number of communities. You can look up the COs and see what communities have in the way of parks, park facilities, swimming pools, tennis -- MR. WILLIAMS: And I may add, this has come up in the past years and this is something that's been made available to you. I would tell you that the Board of County Commissioners actually adopted a level of service guideline based on facilities per population. And that tended to be the question in the dialogue September 21,2009 discussion as I recall from having the reins handed over to me is that private development, for example, you know, they may have tennis courts, they may have golf courses, they may have swimming pools, why can't you count that and look at that? And so certainly that is true. We've done an analysis of what's out there in the private community. We've applied those level of service guidelines that the board has approved. We've got that in a table I think that's in your packet that shows kind of where we are with our current facilities and what we need. So there has been some of that work, just to mention to you. MS. DOWNS: Well, you're saying it was approved, a simple calculation was approved in the past by the commissioners. I'm suggesting it's time to do a more complicated. You know, with the roads thing, they don't say every two miles per person. It's the IOOth hour, they skew it for seasonality. This is a ridiculously simple calculation in a unique type of population. You have older people, you have communities 55 and older. Why do they need to factor into the number of soccer fields you need? There's a -- there should be a weighting to this calculation. And I don't see that it's impossible to do, unless there's a state statute that says you are not allowed. MR. BOSI : We've had this discussion. It relates back to the impact fees. Level of service standards for park is acreage based. There's no county in the State of Florida that I know of that bases the level of service not upon population. What you're talking about, you're -- the way that you're describing it, and I understand the desire, is transportation's concurrency is based upon utilization of that road. Utilization of that road volume to capacity dictates the level of service standards. And we've had the discussion similar to parks and to libraries, why can't we use door counts for our impact fees and our level of service standards? It's not as measurable and it does not translate as Page 201 September 21, 2009 well for the impact fee calcu -- for utilization and for the establishment beyond population base. And I understand. What you're saying is the community has characteristics that you can't lump 1,000 persons within this community and then say that they're all going to utilize the parks. We've been up and down the issue a number of times. We've been to comparisons of level of service standards. We've looked at other Florida counties to see how they've approached this subject, and we all come back to the population base is the methodology that's established and utilized throughout the State of Florida. I'm not sure if we've ran the exercise out with Steve Tindal and our impact fee consultants, but I don't think that they've ever arrived upon or suggested upon a method, other than population base strategies for how you can measure your level of service standards. MS. DOWNS: Then maybe it's time they do that. And I'm not questioning the 1.2 acres. It's the per thousand people. That's the number that should be weighted. There has to be some sensible measure. It's the same thing with roads. When you calculate the roads fee, it's based on the usage of that road, how frequently it's going to have to be repaved, when it's going to have to be replaced. You're doing the same thing with parks. You are unfairly estimating how many people are using that park, the wear and tear on it and when it will have to be replaced, because you're using a population number that doesn't use that facility. So if the roads can fine tune that better to who does use that facility and wears down that road and has an impact on it, the impact -- I think we have to have a more fair number to how these facilities are truly impacted. MR. BOSI: That was the basis of our level of service standard exploration of two years ago, and the conclusion of that exercise was for parks and for libraries. A population base standard was the Page 202 September 21,2009 appropriate methodology. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Mike, there might be a solution to this. And you yourself said it. Every single year we come here and we have the same issue. We repeat it every year. Now, maybe some of us, including myself, can't catch it, can't get it. But I still haven't got it. I still haven't seen how all the private communities to which this county is glorified for has all those amenities taken into consideration. But I remember being told that they are, that had those not been taken into consideration, the 1.2 might be higher. If that's true, then why don't someone show us at the next AUIR how all that's taken into consideration. Give a listing of what you know to be the communities, the facilities, the populations. You can do that, you've got statistics all over the place in this building. And show how they are accounted for and why this 1.2 is so low compared to what it would be if those weren't taken into consideration. Maybe that's an exercise that just needs to be done to put this thing to bed. So I know that may not all be your department's work is and it may fold over into somebody else's, but I think this is going to happen year after year. Because I'm still frustrated with it. And I think there are others that may be as well. So anyway. MS. DOWNS: If I can share a real commonsense analogy that my good '01 boy neighbor made who knows nothing about government, came here from Pennsylvania, and he says the little town I live in -- and this was true of my hometown, come to think of it. There was a city golf course, there was a county golf course. He said, well, how come we don't have any of those facilities down here? I don't want to pay $100 to play golf. Well, why don't you have any of those facilities? Because there are 90 public/private golf courses. 20,000 acres devoted to golf courses. So you've determined we don't need any of those. Well, there's a lot of tennis courts, there's a lot of swimming pools, and yet you've determined we need more of those. It's Page 203 September 21, 2009 inconsistent. MR. BOSI: And the only thing -- MS. DOWNS: And its perceived as very unfair. MR. BOSI: -- I was going to say is I have made no determinations. These level of service standards were adopted by -- MS. DOWNS: I'm not -- MR. BOSI: -- the community as a whole. MS. DOWNS: -- beating up on you, Michael. I'm not beating up on you. I think it's time to revisit it seriously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's all your fault. MR. BOSI: I'm beginning to think that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay, look at, I think we've beat this horse to death. And let's just take a -- let's summarize everything where we're at. Is there anybody that has any final comments on this one? And if not, is there a motion from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To recommend approval of the community park land segment with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As submitted. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ms. Homiak. Now, I've got to ask the motion maker and the motion second, I feel it's appropriate that we highlight the unit cost to the Board of County Commissioners and ask them to consider that unit cost as if -- whether or not it's realistic in today's marketplace in regards to how it should remain on this page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the second-- Page 204 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: You accept it or not? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do accept it. But I think -- and I think what Gina is saying, the bottom of what Gina is saying is we could make this more complicated than it is and we'd be able to handle it. You know, the cost, that doesn't make sense, a countywide cost to begin with. So whatever the number is doesn't make sense if it's countywide. But I'll go along with Mark on lowering that cost and let the commission decide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak do you second -- do you accept that as a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Is this taking into consideration any property on the water or boat launches or -- because you're talking about people not using soccer fields that live in gated communities, but they're probably launching a boat. There's a lot of people launching boats, so they're using that facility but they may not be playing soccer. You don't want to count them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In this discussion, I'm hearing that you don't want to count them and the property -- I don't know where you're going to buy property on the water for $230,000 in 10 years from now. MR. WILLIAMS: I can tell you, Port of the Isles, I think the county paid 5.55 million for five acres. So it's a little over a million an acre there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So you're not planning -- that's not a plan for the future to be able to accomplish what everybody seems to want. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was going to say, the strength of Mark's point is that we're not going to be buying waterfront property . Page 205 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought I heard-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, as we evolve as a community, the park system goes inward. And inward land costs less than it did in the past. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought I heard the Productivity Committee find in their review of this whole process was that the parks will be inland, not coastal any longer. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So there will be no more coastal anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to the times that those do pop up, the Planning Commission can always make an exception, like they did in Port of the Islands. That certainly wasn't on any schedule you got in front of you today, but they decided it was -- the opportunity was there, they took it. They can always do it. But to gear it for these higher prices is what I'm concerned about. It sends a false impression to everybody that that's the going rate that we should be paying, and I don't think that's realistic from an application of impact fee calculations or any others. So I'm just -- that's my position on it. Motion maker's accepted it. Does the second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: For the commissioners to look at it, you mean? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any further discussion? From the Planning Commission perspective, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 206 September 21, 2009 All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take it up, too, take a vote on something? MS . VASEY: I thought you were going to do it. MS. DOWNS: Same motion. Do I have a second? MS. VASEY: Maybe not. Yes, I'll second it, but I do have a little discussion. Looking over the -- I happen to have the impact fee study with me. I don't have the full one, but I have the one that we actually approved. And the scenario that we approved had 75 percent of the beach and boat access land value based on actual market values, and then the remaining 25 percent is capped at 230. So, you know, there's a recognition that you're not going to find any beach and boat access for 230. So it looks like maybe part of that was, you know, accepting that there was higher cost and lower cost. But for the purposes of discussion, I think it's not a bad thing to take another look at it. So I'm ready to vote. MS. DOWNS: All those in favor? MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. DOWNS: It passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're at a point where I think our court reporter could use a break. And while we're on the break, we need to come back and discuss how -- what we want to do. We only can be in this room till about 4:45 today and we need to break. And it looks like we're going to have to come back for a longer period than anticipated on Wednesday anyway, so we probably need Page 207 September 21, 2009 to figure out a break point and we'll stop right now for 10 minutes, come back at 10 after 4:00 and resume for what little bit of time we have left. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, if you'll please take your seats, we'll try to wrap up the next 35 minutes or 40 minutes or so this afternoon. And what we'll try to do is if we can finish up today with two items; that is, the regional park summary and because the library is under parks and the library staff is here today, we'll go into that one and then that will be it for today. So if you're not here for regional parks and you're not here for libraries, you can count on us Wednesday morning at 8:30 in this room. We'll wrap those two up today. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Are we going to stay or are we going to leave? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind -- did you have something, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just had a couple of things I wanted to mention. One was for Commissioner Schiffer on the solid waste projections. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: They come from Page 232, and they are county-wide peak season projections. And Phil did have the right ones. They are the higher numbers. I did look it up. And secondly, back to the parks issue here for a minute, I think we do want to task staff to come back with some sort of a report to finally put to bed this whole business of the park calculations and to figure out and try to make it clear for all of us. So if we could get you to do that, that would be a good -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but let's make sure we have a Page 208 September 21, 2009 consensus. And I think that's a -- it would be nice if for once we put that to bed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that feel-- everybody in favor of that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's one concern is staffs done that before. And what they'll do is they'll call around the state and show you what everybody else does. And that's not exactly what Gina was saying. What Gina was saying is we can make it a lot more complicated than a simple denominator like that. MR. BOSI: And I guess when you're tasking staff to derive upon a methodology unique to the county that can somehow take into account the usage of the facilities as the barometer of the level of service standard. MS. DOWNS: You have to do something that's legally defensible. So I would think you'd have to work with the legal department to -- MR. BOSI: Well, we would have to hire an outside consultant with our impact fees as to what possible arrangement can be utilized to measure your park level of service standard, based upon something other than population. I had suggested -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're going somewhere where Donna wasn't intending to go. Let's go back to what she asked you first. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to know, you just keep telling us that we have calculated certain information into the figures that we're using. We can't see that, we can't find it. We don't see it. So those are the figures that I'm looking to pull out of this. MR. BOSI: Maybe I don't understand. I guess what you're saying is go back and try to find out how we arrived upon the 1.2 acres per thousand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Because -- and I remember this Page 209 September 21, 2009 from years ago when I first made a lot of noise about all these numbers. I thought I was told at a meeting that the 1.2 or whatever it was at the time is as low as it was because it already takes into consideration all the private facilities. But we've never really seen that. We never really saw a count where all this came out and where it showed that in Grey Oaks there was 1,000 people living there and in those 1,000 people they had this much park acreage and they had these facilities in their private facilities, and therefore we didn't need to count them as much in the overall county. And that brought the 1.2 down to whatever it was at the time. Is that -- and Marla, you may -- MS. RAMSEY: No. Marla Ramsey for the record. No, it's not that specific. We talk -- when we talk about facilities, for example, we haven't bought -- we've built two tennis courts I think in the 12 years that I've been here. And the reason we don't build tennis courts is because the gated communities are building the tennis courts. So we build the tennis courts for those who are outside of those communities, and we do that based upon usage. Same with bocce ball. We've turned our racquetball -- or our shuffleboard courts into bocce ball courts and added a number of bocce ball courts within our system because that's the trend and that's what the community wants. So the park is fluid and they move and they change with trends. I was telling -- we also just recently took a PONY league field in East Naples and we turned it into a cricket field. We did that about three weeks ago because we have a huge number of people that want to play cricket, which is done in a circular fashion. So the things that we are providing to this community are not necessarily the same things that you would see within your gated communities. We have less of those kinds of activities in our parks, based upon the fact the usage of those is not as much of a demand. That's how we take into consideration the stuff within the gated communities versus that which are grouped and large and organized Page 210 September 21, 2009 facilities like lacrosse and cricket and football and soccer and field hockey and all the other stuff that's starting to come about. If you see what we've built recently, it's been mostly water access, beach access and athletic fields. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we may have a hard time tasking staff to do something that we can't clearly figure out at this point. Let us -- we're going to be back here Wednesday. If we come up with anything between now and then, maybe we'll reconsider some direction. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But while Marla's there, there's one thing you do want is acreage. MS. RAMSEY: I need acreage that's not in a preserve, that's in upland that I can actually develop upon. And when you add the state lands and the federal lands and all the preserve lands into my inventory in order to lower the impact fee, that's fine, but it doesn't really meet the needs of what the community is seeking. And if you see the growth in our schools, as you have seen over the years, a lot of young people are coming to this community. But it's not just young that use our facilities, there are a number of walkers and elderly. Our softball leagues of 50 and older are the largest they've ever been. So we have all ages that are within the parks. And if I don't have developable land, then we're going to get into an issue as we go down that the usage on my fields are going to be so intense that just keeping them up and keeping them green is going to be a very difficult task for us. That's how we kind of look at when do we need to add more fields, because my usage is so heavy on my fields that I can't keep it green. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think what we're going to end up doing is just holding off on our direction to staff. Let us reformulate. And if we have any concerns on Wednesday, we can express them at that time, okay? Page 211 September 21, 2009 And with that, we'll go into regional parks. Barry, are you going to still follow Phil's -- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- recommendation? MR. WILLIAMS: -- if I may. I still find that method agreeable. If there are any questions, certainly I'm here to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to make this disagreeable to you somehow. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm here for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's -- there's only a few pages in this. It's the remainder of the category eight facilities. Are there any comments, questions from the committees? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I won't be shy, I'll tell-- oh, go ahead. MS. VASEY: No, you go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm real concerned about -- let's look at the table on Page 119, because it starts there. What is this Bayview Park acreage that you're adding? MR. WILLIAMS: I knew you'd -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because there was a long process about that and I believe the county commission trashed it. So why are we buying more property in Bayview Park? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, I knew that that would come to your attention. I will tell you that we do have it in out years. We are still looking. As you know, we own a number of properties in and around Bayview Park. It was not rezoned in the way that we needed it to, and the board agreed with the Planning Commission on that. And so a design for expanded parking next to Bayview Park was defeated. Weare working to redesign Bayview Park itself and to try to Page 212 September 21, 2009 expand the number of spaces in that park for boaters. That is a very popular spot. However, we still have plans. The neighborhood -- and from time to time properties do become available that are for sale. And our contention had been in the zoning process, as well as with the board, that any efforts on our part would be -- we would look for the long term. We would look for as that community made itself available for potential purchase that we would take advantage of that in an attempt to with our existing properties attempt to do something there at Bayview Park because of the need and the desire for boaters to get to the Gulf. I know that seems inconsistent with us including it, but for right now we have included those opportunities to purchase properties that come available in those out years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, the defense that I kept running into of your department when we brought this whole Bayview thing up was that it was in the AUIR, it's been approved all along, the commission knew, it was on their agendas to -- I guess it was consent or summary where they bought all these properties. And we're looking at the same scenario all over again. So this will go marching on down the road and five or six or seven years from now you'll go and try to develop it again. And we'll say wait a minute, we told you guys back in 2009 it's been out in the AUIR for five years. And I'm sorry, I can't buy into that program. That's the one that got us into trouble the last time and the community was in an uproar over it and the Board of County Commissioners rightfully so backed away from it. MS. RAMSEY: Just so I can help clarify that just a little bit. Marla Ramsey for the record. I believe that the direction from the board was that they couldn't approve it at this time until we had amassed enough land in order to Page 213 September 21, 2009 make it more feasible. And so that's why you find in the out years, five or farther out, maybe another opportunity to purchase if they come about. Because that was the direction. It wasn't really it's dead, go away, but it's that you don't have enough of the lands within that area to be able to do a rezone. So that's where we're taking our cue from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll deal with it when we make a motion then. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, one -- if they buy property, tear down the houses and make it grass, that's good for the neighborhood in the meantime. As long as they keep defeating it at the commission level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You think the political pressure will be to leave it grass? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, remember, I voted for the parking lot, so be careful of me. But -- MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and it is in the 10-year window. You remember, you are trying to affect something that 20 years from now what will that neighborhood look like? It's hard to say. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, if there's one person that lives there and lives there under the intent that he bought there in a nice neighborhood area, his -- he ought to be honored for what he did. And I don't think it's right to come in and buy land around any community and just sell him out by saying we're going to convert this into a parking lot. That isn't fair, it isn't right for the neighborhood, and I just can't buy off on that. And since I've been on this Planning Commission, at least, I've tried to defend the neighborhoods, and I'll continue to do so, so that's my position on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, one comment. We won't rehear that, I promise. But, you know, that big barn behind allm Page 214 September 21, 2009 the county properties is probably what should upsetting them the most. That rises for, you know, 30 feet above, 40 feet above. Anyway, let's move on before we rehear that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other question I have on that page is we bought Pepper Ranch for a huge amount of money and you're only getting 50 acres out of it? MR. WILLIAMS: We have had conversations with Conservation Collier about acquiring 50 of the acres of Pepper Ranch for recreational purpose. We haven't finalized anything. In our discussions, you know, that -- if you've seen the property, it has enormous recreational opportunity. Under Conservation Collier there's some limitations that they have to adhere to. There are -- but we are continuing to talk to them about the management plan and the potential of trying to get 50 acres. In particular there's a -- in front of the property there are a couple of nice buildings on the property that have been used for a variety of things that have great potential. I think Conservation Collier is still working through what they would like to see happen with the property, though. But we had put out there the potential for purchase, not -- we certainly couldn't manage 2,500 acres, but a 50-acre parcel for camping, for horseback riding, for interpretive studies, that kind of thing certainly had an interest for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that was -- when it was bought, it was a heavily discussed issue, because Conservation Collier literally used up all their funds for now and for quite a while. I understood that as a caveat to the purchase there'd be a lot of public use of the property. Fifty acres is not a lot of public use of 2,300 acres of property with the -- that was used with public money. MS. RAMSEY: Again, Marla Ramsey. Just for clarification, what we were looking for more is a trailhead center, the center area where you'd have the heaviest impact. And then the trails and other things, the hunting and all the other stuff Page 215 September 21, 2009 that would go on in the other parts of the land would not be directly underneath parks and recreation, just the active areas where the camping and the interpretive centers, the parking lots, the restroom facilities, et cetera. That's what we were looking at for the trailhead as being underneath the park side of it. But yes, the entire site will have recreational opportunities. But this is just the trailhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So long as we're not using it for --losing the recreational opportunity there. Okay. Janet, I'm sorry, did you -- MS. VASEY: I had a conversation with Amy Patterson at the break, and it was probably a mischaracterization to say that that was $230,000 for property that's out in Golden Gate Estates. I remember saying that. That is not actually what it was. When we came -- when we told the consultants to go back and redo it to recognize that more of the property -- that very little of the new parks would be along the coastal areas, they included some costs for areas that were along the margin. So it's not all Golden Gate Estates, it's other areas where they looked at where parks were planned, and not all of them are out in the Estates. So then they settled on a figure that was 230,000, which represents some of the really inland areas and some of the areas that are not coastal, but, you know, that are closer to the coast. So that was a mischaracterization. And we're going to go back and take another look at the study. And it's still not a bad thing to take a look at the land values. But I did misspeak when I gave the impression that that 230 was in Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, that 230 came into play, and I have a history of all the AUIRs from 2003 to now. That 230 was bumped up from the year 2006 going into '07 and then '08 continued it. So the 230 came about at a time before your direction was relied Page 216 September 21, 2009 upon. It included all the coastal areas, it included the whole county. So if now your committee's direction was to not include the coastal areas but more the inland parts of the county -- and I don't mean just Golden Gate Estates like you just said, but not the coast -- then why would the 230 still be the number if previously it did include the coast? Immediately by taking out the coast we should have dropped that number somewhat. And that's where my concern was. It doesn't appear to have dropped -- well, it didn't drop at all and I think it should. So -- MS. VASEY: Well, the regional parks -- and perhaps Amy can address some of it. The original study showed regional parks at $440,000 an acre. And we whittled that down by what the areas that we chose. So anyway, Amy, go ahead. MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson again for the record. The proposed parks impact fee study has -- basically they looked at four different types of parks land: Community parks, regional parks, and within those categories the beach and boat access. All with their own distinct costs ranging on the high side from the $4.5 million an acre for the beach, 1.4 million for the boat, the $440,000 for the regional parks and $200,000 for community parks. Now, going through all of these discussions with the Productivity Committee was how that $230,000 arose. The consultant prepared a number of scenarios for the Productivity Committee's review, applying different percentages and weights to the coastal properties, from not valuing the coastal property at all and capping the value at $230,000 an acre for everything, or then going up to the ultimate recommendation that the Productivity Committee chose where they valued 75 percent of the very valuable property at its cost and 25 percent they capped at that $230,000 an acre value, which is what we're calling the inland value, not necessarily Golden Gate Estates, but it is the inland value. Page 217 September 21, 2009 So that's kind of the history of how that $230,000 a rose. If we were to take the two acreage costs that we have validated by the study, the 200 and the 440, if you average those two together, you still come up with a land value of $320,000 an acre. So that $230,000 an acre all of a sudden in comparison to everything else is fairly low. If we were to throw back in all of this beach and boat access property, we'll come up with a number that's significantly higher than anything that's reflected on these sheets. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Amy. Does anybody else have any questions on the regional park summary? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Barry, who came up with the number for Pepper Ranch, which is 270 per acre? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The Pepper Ranch is 270 per acre. Who came up with that? MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what you're referencing, 270 per acre. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you're buying 50 acres at 11 and a half million. MR. WILLIAMS: What part are you referencing, though, just so I can make -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 50 acres at Pepper Ranch. I'm looking at Page 121 to get the information. The question really is who came up with the value for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 50 acres should reflect the $230,000 an acre. In your math -- you're telling me your math doesn't work for you there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Donna's got a-- MR. WILLIAMS: We need to look at that number. Page 218 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, never mind. MR. WILLIAMS: It's an excel spreadsheet with a formula. Formula driven, so hopefully it's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, me bad. MS. DOWNS: But -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: You know, so we've established a price of 230 and that's now the driver. When you look at every single item on Page 121, break them down per acre, what you're buying is '08-'09, Port of the Islands 255,000 an acre, Freedom Park, 231 an acre, and everything after that is exactly 230 an acre. Well, if you're a landowner that wants to sell the county five acres, you'd be a fool not to price it at 230 an acre. MR. WILLIAMS: Again, if I could-- MS. DOWNS: You just told them how to price it. MR. WILLIAMS: If I could reiterate, this is a placeholder. And it causes -- I know it's caused a lot of grief over the years. I've witnessed this last year. If you were to purchase a piece of property, there's a process the county goes through. You get appraisals, you get fair market value, you make an offer based on that. This is not -- we don't buy property based on the AUIR, the $230,000 -- MS. DOWNS: What did Mirasol sell per acre? MS. RAMSEY: If I can just clarify one more time is that I've asked the Planning Commission every single year after we get done with this particular item that we take the land value off of our area because it means nothing to us. It really doesn't. But he says to me, I have to have a number to make sure that you're in concurrency. So that's why the number shows up. It really has nothing to do with the price that we actually pay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put 50,000 in there then. Barry had a good idea, it's a placeholder. So just put 50,000 there and let's run with Page 219 September 21, 2009 it. MS. RAMSEY: That's what I'm saying, you could put any number you want to here. It really -- it does not drive our purchasing. Our purchasing is done based on appraisals. It has to have two appraisals over a certain dollar amount. Average of those two appraisals is the price that we would then come in at, minus negotiation, if we can. That's how we would purchase land. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let's talk about -- what is the problem of doing that? Because the value, I mean, it does end up with a bunch of crazy information what the value of all our stuff is. So why don't we just drop the price value, the dollar value and just stick with the acres, which is the unit we go by anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Mike is -- and Marla indicated that it was required to have a unit cost? MR. BOSI: This is -- remember, this is the document that prepares us for our CIE that's going to be reviewed by the state that's going to evaluate what the value of our inventory is and what the value of our planned purchases are. And there -- maybe Randy could speak maybe a little bit more. MR. COHEN: Even taking it further, we have to demonstrate future financial feasibility as well too. That's why the dollar value is there. I understand, you know, that you may want to revisit that number. I think that's an appropriate recommendation to make, and have not only Amy look at it from the impact fee perspective, the Productivity Committee look at it, and we'll go that route and see if the figure is valid. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Randy, why don't we -- they're going to come up and they want to buy future purchases. Let them put a price tag on those future purchases. If it's by the ocean it's going to be high, if it's not it's going to be low. And let them just come up with what money they have to get from this point on. Page 220 September 21, 2009 The inventory value of it I don't think is a necessary number to build on. MR. COHEN: And I think the key here is financial feasibility. And sometimes it probably should be adjusted at various times when you're buying land in the future. MS. RAMSEY: We used to adjust it based upon what we had done over the last couple of years. We would do an average of what that cost was. But we've gone into a -- I'm not sure, I think it came when we first got the numbers from the impact fees, although I don't believe that -- this doesn't drive the impact fees, it's the other way around. We just took that number from the impact fees because it was a number that they use for their best nexus, so that's how the number kind of just got in here is this placeholder number that we talk about. And you know, but if you look at what we're doing, a lot of it's coming to us from someone else. South Florida Water Management owes us 625 acres, which we're not going to buy at all. Even though it has a value to it, there's no out of pocket for it, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why can't we do that? Why can't we just -- you know, forget the inventory value. They're going to price what they want to buy over the next five years and they're going show us where they're going to get the money to buy it. And that's the only thing we have to deal with. MR. WILLIAMS: But to kind of follow along on your initial suggestion, I mean, do we want to tip our hand to people that may potentially have property coming to us if we do put a value on it. If we put like a value based on what we paid, we are tipping the hand, so to speak. We're losing some potential negotiation there. If you -- you know, 230 I know is an offensive number for you, but it is a number that has some use. I would be concerned if we were to exactly put a number of what market value looks like. I mean, just for a thought. Page 221 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, it might be -- that's a good point, though, Brad. I mean, everything is public record, so if they itemize this, even though it's not in the CIE, their backup data to get the CIE number, which is the value of all their properties, could then be determined, and someone could say, well, that's what they put in as an AUIR value, that's what -- that's a base for my property. Maybe if we just focus on adjusting the unit cost to a more realistic value and then -- whether it's the average of all the future expenditures or something like that, that might be the way to do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're going to not buy a piece of property without a series of appraisals. They're not going to horse trade properties. So the fact that they predict something costs something -- MR. WILLIAMS: Just, you know, I do appreciate Gina's point in that. Just you do lose a little negotiation power I think if you layout what you think that you should pay for a particular property that's not come into your inventory yet. So that would be a concern. I think if you were to look at this number, and I know that we've not been very articulate with a placeholder, that's not affected you in any positive way. I mean, the $230,000 amount, I don't know a better way to characterize it, it's almost like it's not viewed as the market value, it's just an amount that is identified as the highest one might pay for a piece of -- an acre of land for a community or regional park. But even that doesn't sound adequate for -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if you need it, then don't complain about screwing around with it every year. This is what will happen to you. So let's move on. Because we've spent so much time on it, we're just trying to shed it. If it's going to mess up your bargaining position, then we'll play the game every year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think it's a recommendation that we could do with the comprehensive planning for next year, but for this year I think the best we can do is suggest like we did in the first Page 222 September 21, 2009 one, that they take a look at that 230 number and review it as far as its realistic value. And knowing the concerns of the Planning Commission, maybe by next year if you guys could vet out whether or not this can be done in a different manner, that might be a solution to look at next year. Anything else on the regional parks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, is there a -- now, there's two issues for me, I don't know about the rest of you. One of them is the same as the first one, it's the 230,000 figure. The second one is, and I'm not asking anybody to jump on my bandwagon on this one, but the Bayview Park thing, I do not buy into that philosophy only because it's that philosophy that got us into trouble in the first place there, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't want me to make the motion this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can make the motion. Just make whatever motion you want. I'm still going to vote according to the way I feel about it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, nobody else wants to make a motion? Then I'll make a motion that we forward with a recommendation of approval of the regional parks with one condition and that is that they reevaluate the $230 (sic) per acre. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: $230,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: $230,000. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish it was 230. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what he said he uses it for, keep it at $230. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Now discussion. Page 223 September 21, 2009 I'll be voting no on the motion because of the inclusion of Bayview Park in the AUIR. With that in mind, is there any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. Motion carries 4-1. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take it up? MS. VASEY: We'll do the same motion, just looking at the 230,000 cost. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody's opposed. MS. DOWNS: Nobody's opposed? MS. VASEY: I would like to say one thing. We were supposed to have three members, but one person was sick, so it would have been three voting for most of this meeting. COMMISSIONER CARON: Before parks leaves, could you just flip to the back of the book here on Page 251 I'm not sure why it's in the back of the book, but -- this is -- first of all, tell me what AC stands for everywhere. MR. WILLIAMS: Anticipated completion. These are projects that are currently funded that we're not representing in the five years Page 224 September 21, 2009 going forward because they're already funded and they're actually rollover. And we anticipate the project to be complete at that timeframe. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is Norm's Oil Well Road chart, okay. Let me just go down here, because there were a couple of other things that I was wondering about. VBA number eight, there's a DCA, but it's in red. Why is that figure just over there in the margin in red? MR. WILLIAMS: It really should be in 2010. I think that may be an error on our part. There is a half million dollar contribution up for that. That's -- that is the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the bathroom, right? MR. WILLIAMS: That's the bathroom. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Okay. Well, that's why, I just wondered why it was over there in red. MR. WILLIAMS: It should actually be in 20 I O. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that was a reminder for us to include that. MS. DOWNS: It didn't work. MR. WILLIAMS: It did not work. COMMISSIONER CARON: And let me ask you about the Barefoot Beach preserve back bay pier of a million dollars. MR. WILLIAMS: That's a developer contribution agreement that we have. It's a commitment from the folks that are putting Aqua, that's the Coconilla Corp. that are developing that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, that are in bankruptcy? MR. WILLIAMS: That are in bankruptcy, that's correct. Well, I don't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're still anticipating that in 2014 that million dollars will come to the county? Page 225 September 21, 2009 MR. WILLIAMS : We are still very hopeful. But we understand that there may be some issues there. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Because again, that's tied to them building a second building, which is not on the horizon in probably your lifetime. Certainly not in mine. MR. WILLIAMS: We totally understand where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item we're going to try to finish up before we leave is the library so that all the parks personnel can be done here today. That starts I believe on Page 153. MS. DOWNS: I have 175, but -- MR. BOSI: You have the County Manager's report. MS. DOWNS: Oh, okay. I have no idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 153 is correct, guys? MR. BOSI: Yes, it is 153. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, last year we had library buildings and library materials. Are they combined into one this year, is that -- MS. MATTHES: No, they're two separate ones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, where is the second -- the library -- MS. MATTHES: Buildings are first and then collections after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 157, Mark. MS. VASEY: 157 for material. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There it is. Okay, good. Okay, with that in mind, did you have lunch with Phil, too? MS. MATTHES: If I did not eat with Phil, so I will say three words instead of two. Marilyn Matthes, Library Director. The library currently exceeds the level of service requirements for square footage, and that level of service is .3 3 square feet per Page 226 September 21, 2009 capita. And as you can see on the table, and I don't have the correct page number, we've exceeded that level of service for at least the entire period covered by this AUIR. Should populations change, obviously we'd have to make some changes to our construction plans. We do have a current construction project, but it's funded all by donations. The Rose Hall addition to Marco Island branch library is expected to be completed in winter 2010. Library materials collection level of service remains at 1.87 items per capita. And we're not recommending any changes to that level of service either. If you have questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We might as well tack them both. Does anybody have any questions on either segment of the library presentation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my questions are all on 157. Just -- one's just maybe a scrivener thing. Under revenues, I think impact fee allocated to new, don't you think that should be items instead of books? That was something we spent a lot of time talking about. MS. MATTHES: On impact fees? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. See where it says shall be allocated to new books. Do you think that should be items instead of books? MS. MATTHES: Yeah, items, you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then the other question I have is that in here you make a note of approximately four percent of the libraries collections is replaced annually. MS. MATTHES: Correct. Page 227 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is about $800,000. Why don't you include that? MS . MATTHES: Because they're not funded with impact fees, they're funded with general fund dollars. It's not growth related. They're lost books or books that are no longer useful, they've warn out, they have incorrect information. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So because they're essentially replacing something previously bought -- MS. MATTHES: Then it does not qualify for growth or impact fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a growth oriented. It is a lot. I mean, it would be your major -- MS. MATTHES: Actually, the standard for the country is five percent, and we've reduced that to four percent to make the budget number more manageable. And we found that four percent is more realistic for us. But there is a national standard of five percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit doesn't -- if you don't put it in here because it doesn't account for growth, why does transportation have all of its operations for bridges, repairs and all the other stuff? Those aren't counting for growth, that's -- a good potion of their budget is just for those kind of items. So if they have to do it, why wouldn't libraries have to do it? MR. BOSI: I think Norm clarified that what their AUIR components was containing was for the bars that are going to replace the wire crossings. And I think he said -- he mentioned that there was some improvements that weren't straight system capacity, but they were on the verge of that or somewhere in between. But their maintenance and their -- their maintenance and their replacement is contained but it's not contained in the CIE. They have a segment they label as non eIE components. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not what I -- I mean, he's included resurfacing and he says bridge repairs, and he says things Page 228 September 21, 2009 like that. Those are non-growth related. They're maintenance of existing facilities. And he had $89 million in for it. I'm not going to go back and revisit transportation, but I'm just wondering how that -- why that differs from libraries where libraries don't have to put non-growth related items in there. And that's -- I mean, I don't know what to do about your explanation, but I'm just -- if you don't know, then I guess I won't know. MR. BOSI: Well, if we have a government building that needs replaced, that -- we can't use impact fees. That wouldn't be included within our A UIR as part of the capital improvement program that would be -- that goes towards for impact fee related expenses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But impact fees is only one source of revenue on these sheets. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a lot more sources of revenue besides impact fees. So why -- if the AUIR was only for impact fees, why do we have all the other sources of revenue listed here? MR. BOSI: The AUIR isn't for impact fees. For category B facilities it is for impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all it is? MR. BOSI: The purpose of the category B facilities is to maintain to make sure that we were in line with the current impact fees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's all you needed to say then. That's the difference between transportation and library. Okay, got it. MR. COHEN: That's twice that we can say that it's been Mike's fault. eOMMISSIONER SeHIFFER: Then the question, Mike, is why did you put that in the report to begin with? Why is it in there? MR. BOSI: Why is -- Page 229 September 21, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The statement telling us that you, you know, replace books? MR. BOSI: It wasn't my decision to place it in, it was my decision not to make libraries not segment out that four percent of their books are replaced on an annual basis, provided for by general revenue funds. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why don't we just -- is there a good reason to leave it in? MS. RAMSEY: No, I don't think you have to. Marla Ramsey for the record. I think in past years we've had that number in there. And then as we were going through and we're saying hey, this is just impact fee related, why are we providing all extra information? And I think that this is probably just kind of a holdover from that. Took the numbers out but kind of left that info. in, and we can take that info. out, if you wish. It's not really pertinent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there anything else on the library section? Ms. Downs, Ms. Vasey? Either one. MS. VASEY: Well, I just went back to Page 1 of your guidance. In the very first paragraph it says, this A VIR, like past A VIRs, identifies capital needs for both new facilities to serve projected population growth, as well as for replacements of public facilities that will no longer be adequate in the five-year AVIR time period. Is that paragraph just relating to the category A facilities? Because it kind of led me to think that you were talking about all of them. But I hadn't noticed that the libraries didn't include it. MR. BOSI: Well, I mean, that statement is in a broad general sense that there are capital improvements that can be contained -- or there are improvements that can be contained within the transportation plans that are not related to the concurrency management system. And the resurfacing of roads, I'm going to have to consult with Page 230 September 21, 2009 transportation as to the appropriate response to that. But from my understanding, the resurfacing of roads would not be something that you can utilize your impact fees for. MS. VASEY: No, but I just -- you know, it seemed that the sentence calls for the replacement of -- you know, to include the replacement, and maybe it shouldn't. I don't know, I just kind of expected to see that one in -- MR. COHEN: You know, and to be very honest with you, that statement has been in A VIR since I've worked for the county. I think part of the intent behind that is, is some capital improvements only have a certain usefulness. And even though they may not be impact fee related, it's always been used as a guide with respect to identifying future items that may need revenue sources but may not be eligible for impact fees as well too. That would be my guess. Especially in some of the major priced areas. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: Marilyn, thank you for being here all day. MS. MATTHES: You're welcome. MS. DOWNS: On Page 166, just for a point of clarification, you have the chart about the public Internet usage. If you have it. MS. MATTHES: Yes. MS. DOWNS: We're on the page? On -- just looking at the last year, fiscal year '08. Total 304,000, approximately, users of Internet. And yet somewhere earlier in the report you mention the number of library cardholders is 189,000 for that same year. So I automatically assumed the additional 115,000 hits were people sitting outside the library or someplace else, but your footnote says no. o where are those other users, people who don't have library cards can access computers in the library? MS. MATTHES: Currently, yes. The library advisory board has recently voted to impose a fee for non library cardholders for using the Page 231 September 21, 2009 Internet. And I've not taken that to the board yet for approval. And once we do that, we will start charging those people who don't have library cards to use the Internet. And everybody who actually is a resident of Collier County is eligible for a free library card so they would not have to pay for Internet usage. MS. DOWNS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of either library buildings or library materials? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, Marilyn. Your library buildings. Amy's going to hate me after today . Your unit cost it is up to $433 a square foot. In 2007 you raised it from -- well, actually 2006 it was $343.50. You raised it to 421 in 2007. You maintained 421 in 2008. And in 2009, with the recession and bad economy and a reduction in everything that cost anybody (sic) anymore, you raised it again to 433. Can you tell me why we raised it to 433? MS. MATTHES: The 433 is based on the actual construction budget for south regional. We don't have the final figures in for that project. And there's likely to be some be funds that are not used for that project. So I could -- if that's the basis, I could anticipate the basis going down next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the library that you're speaking of was bought out at a time when the market was still strong. Nothing like that is even close in the marketplace today. I bid out stuff constantly, none of the numbers are what they used to be. Land prices are less, everything is less. So we're back to the same argument I started earlier today, that's an impractical assumption to have 433. I know it isn't your fault, but that's an impractical assumption to remain in this AUIR. MS. MATTHES: The 230 whatever was based on the construction cost of the headquarters library at the time. And I'm not Page 232 September 21, 2009 sure about the interim prices, but we usually base the cost on the most recent construction project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's going to be one that I'm going to question again, so that takes care of that. Is there any other questions on library buildings or library materials? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then we can ask for a recommendation from the Planning Commission. We'll take them one at a time but we'll do both and then we'll flip both of them over to the Productivity Committee. Is there a recommendation first on library buildings? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move we forward library buildings with a recommendation of approval as submitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Discussion. I'll be voting no on this item because the unit cost is not justified to have increased in this economic market that we're in. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why don't we ask the county commission to address that as we did with parks? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because he didn't put that in his motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, we can ask him to do that. That how it happened the last time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron would like to ask you to-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- Mr. Strain. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only problem I have with -- and it's difficult to predict prices. This is a five-year period. You know, chasing our tail as prices go up and down, which just look at what's happened in the last five years, let alone what could happen the Page 233 September 21,2009 next five years, it would be difficult to come up with a number. Maybe the number is too high. I think it is too high. That would be a great commission to get a $433 library which is an expanse, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, out of the six-year history of the AVIRs I have in front of me, they changed the number four times. So I'm not sure the five-year evaluation holds. Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I think what we did in productivity that should take care of that is we changed the measure on the impact fees. It used to be a 10-year average for the smoothing effect and we changed the impact fees to two years, I believe. So the dips -- you know, you're not going to get the smoothing effect which people said they wanted. But the highs and lows will be reflected just with theoretically a one-year lag in this case. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what is the current -- MS. DOWNS: So we thought we addressed it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's your current square foot number? MS . PATTERSON: If I may, Amy Patterson, for the record. Actually, this is an update year for the library impact fee, which should have meant that we would have a new cost for square foot number for a new impact fee study. However, all of the 2006 studies to be updated in 2009 were delayed because of the economic downturn, and some other things. The Board of County Commissioners directed that those studies be delayed, and the study schedule is going to be recalibrated in the November/December time period. So what I actually was here to tell you wasn't that, but that that $433 per square number is the full cost per square foot of the library. That includes furniture and equipment. The full cost of opening the library. It is not just the land and the bricks. It is actually the -- everything included besides the -- Page 234 September 21, 2009 MS. DOWNS: It doesn't include the books? MS. PATTERSON: -- library -- not the library books. But other than that, the desks, lights -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. I'm happy with it then. Let's just as -- COMMISSIONER CARON: The other thing is that we have no need for any new libraries till well beyond 2019. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: So I think -- and we revisit this every single year. So I think if we're tracking it, you know, that's what we should -- you know, that's what we should do is track it because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I agree with you, I think it's a ridiculous figure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion is to recommend approval as it is written; is that right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the seconded's been that way. Okay, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. And I'm opposed for the reasons stated previously. So whenever you write this up, that's why. Now, as far as library materials, do we have a motion on library materials? eOMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, move to approve as submitted, with one exception, to remove the paragraph discussing the replacement of the collections. Page 235 September 21, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the change of books to items? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the -- well, that's a scrivener thing. But changing the word books to items in revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Does the Productivity Committee want to take up this issue? MS. VASEY: Yes. On the library buildings, I'd like to make the same motion. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: Discussion? (No response.) MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Unanimous. On library materials, I would make the same motion. MS. DOWNS: Second. No discussion. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Page 236 September 21,2009 Unanimous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we need to end today's meeting. We'll resume 8:30 Wednesday morning with starting out with county jails, then law enforcement, then emergency medical, then government buildings. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission to continue to -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Wednesday morning at 8:30 in this room? Made by Commissioner Kolflat. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. You guys want to do the same thing or not? I don't think you have to vote on being here, but -- MS. VASEY: We'll come back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's up to you all. MS. DOWNS: Second. ***** Page 237 September 21,2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE STEVE HARRISON, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 238