Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/23/2009 S Joint AUIR September 23, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE AUIR MEETING OF THE JOINT SESSION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida September 23, 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 1. W oltley ( absent) Productivity Committee Members: Gina Downs Douglas M. Fee Janet Vasey ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District (absent) 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 21, 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 CCPC/PC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE SPECIAL MEETING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC/PC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC/PC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A 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, CATEGORY A AND CATEGORY B. A. AUlR OVERVIEW - MIKE BOSI B. IMP ACT FEES RELATED TO THE AUlR - 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 DELONY/PHIL 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 RAMSEY/BARRY 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 Chairman will open the agenda for Public Comment after each of the categories noted above. 4. ADJOURN September 2009 AUIRlCCPC/PC Agenda/MB/mk 1 September 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the continuation of the AUIR review of the joint session of the Productivity Committee and the Golden Gate -- I mean -- Collier County Planning Commission. I'm thinking of the reading I was up late doing last night. Item # 1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (AND ROLL CALL) Will you all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Caron, would you mind doing the roll call? COMMISSIONER CARON: No problem. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney and Mr. Vigliotti and Mr. W oltley are not here. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Koltlat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Eastman is also not here today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And from the Productivity Committee we have Mr. Fee, Ms. Downs and Ms. Vasey. Page 2 September 23, 2009 MS. VASEY: Present. MR. FEE: Present. MS. DOWNS: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured that. You guys -- Doug, the voting the other day by those two was great. One had to make the motion, one had to second it, and then they had to vote on it, so -- MR. FEE: I have a feeling everything was unanimous. Item #2 REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY ON PUBLIC FACILITIES. CATEGORY A AND CATEGORY B CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, worked out real well. Okay, we left off -- we finished up all of Category A last time. We got started into Category B, we finished the library so that won't be heard today, but we have four items left: County j ail, law enforcement, emergency medical and government buildings. And we'll start out with the county jail and Chief Craig Smith. Good morning, Chief. CHIEF SMITH: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you talk to Phil Gramatges at all? CHIEF SMITH: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you talk to Phil Gramatges at lunch or anything about this meeting? CHIEF SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good. CHIEF SMITH: Was I supposed to? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, but Phil had a way of setting everybody up for Monday's meeting. So I was wondering if you had already been prewarned. Page 3 September 23, 2009 CHIEF SMITH: So how might I be of service to this group? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you had met with Phil, he would have suggested to you, say I'm here, you have my paperwork, would you like -- do you have any questions you want answered. CHIEF SMITH: Masterfully said. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if that's as fine as any way to proceed, I guess that works for us, too. So we have the jail AUIR in front of us. Are there any specific questions we can start asking the Chief about? Mr. Koltlat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 131, up in the second paragraph, it gives the occupation bed -- bed occupation for three years. In that illustration it said the beds occupied have decreased over those three years. And the next page, rather Page 133 on that graph, it indicates that the population of beds required has increased. Is that a contradiction or am I not understanding that? CHIEF SMITH: No, I think one is based on actual experience and the other is a projection. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Which one is the experienced, the occupied? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I understand there are changes to the ICE program. How are those changes going to affect your need for jail population for beds? CHIEF SMITH: I'm not aware of any changes to the current ICE program. MS. DOWNS: I thought the federal funding was dropping on that drastically. No? CHIEF SMITH: Not to my knowledge. If you can cite a source, Page 4 September 23, 2009 I'll look that up and get back to you. MS. DOWNS: I can't right off the top of my head. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: On Page 132 you show a deficiency in beds in FY '13 and '14 coming to about 39 beds. But you're not programming your increase in capacity for beds until FY '19. Is there a reason that you're waiting so long as the deficiency builds? CHIEF SMITH: I think what we want to do with that is just look at it as we progress, you know, towards that time line and make an adjustment. You know, the good thing about this process, we go through it yearly, we can make those adjustments. But right now it wouldn't be the Sheriffs recommendation to program in additional jail beds, given our surplus currently. And, you know, just all the uncertainties that are out there. I think it's well to document the fact that there may be a deficiency. But j ails are so dependent upon external influences that we really can't program in a hard number. And there's nothing to say you can't, you know, work with a population surplus for a little while as long as you're planning the new facility. And we've got some things laid in with regards to planning, such as the Immokalee jail center, that we could very quickly add another dorm onto if we need to to meet that timeline. So what we would recommend is just, you know, to keep monitoring it closely and adjust it year to year. But I think that's a good number for right now as far as this report. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just need a little more explanation on the unit cost increase here. Seems like in every other Page 5 September 23, 2009 instance costs have been going down and yet you're taking a standardized 4.1 percent increase. I'm sure that's based on an impact fee study. But again, that's historical and not current. And is that really the correct figure that should be there? MR. SMITH: I think the best person to address that is Ms. Patterson. MS. PATTERSON: Good morning, Amy Patterson for the record. Actually, I just talked to Mike. There's a note in there in error about the 4.1 percent. I think we had this note from law enforcement carryover onto jail. Jail, actually we just adopted a brand new jail impact fee study. It was their three-year update. So that reflects -- that update to the unit costs reflects the most current cost as reflected in the most -- the current adopted impact fee study. A lot of that has to do with us being able to realize the actual costs of the jail expansion on the campus. So we have no other numbers to include that would show the cost of construction going down. And like I said, that's the numbers that are actually reflected in the adopted impact fee study. And those fees just went into effect on August 11 tho CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the study is wrong. I was coming in today and on NPR has commentary about different things happening in the country, and one of them was the fact that the stimulus money's gone out to municipalities and they've realized a boom from the money. Instead of being 100 percent useful, it's at a minimum 116 percent useful, because they've got at least an average of 16 percent across the country in reduction in cost. Not a single item -- well, yes, there is one, and I'm going to have to -- I'll need an interesting explanation when we get to that. But other than that one, there's not any item in this AUIR that shows a reduction in unit cost. That is unreal. That is unpractical (sic). And I -- I mean, I got that same issue circled here. Page 6 September 23, 2009 And after Monday, listening to the excuses as to why it shouldn't be reduced, I'm not there. I can't buy that. And I think that whatever we're doing to pump these costs up wrong, I don't care who's doing the studies, I don't care how they're done, it's not producing a good picture for Collier County. And so I know you say your study says that, but that is not the real world. MS. PATTERSON: It's the actual cost at the time of construction. We have no new numbers to use. As soon as we do, those numbers will be put into the study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is a 2009 AUIR. We shouldn't be basing it on cost from 2005 or 6, which is whenever you may have bid out the last job. It doesn't make any sense to do that. What that will cause is in the years coming up, if our prices do go up and we use this year as an actual cost we were to do something, in 2013 we'd be using a number that may be too low for the market at the time and we underbudget things. I don't know how we're to correct this, Amy, and I know it isn't your fault, but I just don't -- I can't -- I'm not going to buy into this. That unit cost should not go up, it cannot go up. And if the BCC of course wants to do it, it's their prerogative, but I'm certainly going to highlight it to them. MR. COHEN: Amy, can you clarify, is that unit cost which comes from obviously the most recent construction used to pay back debt service associated with that construction? MS. PATTERSON: With respect to the jails, all of the impact fees are going to repay the debt -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Amy, I can't hear you too well. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can't hear her either. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. Page 7 September 23, 2009 With respect to the jail facilities, all of the impact fees being collected are being used to repay the debt, that is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? Go ahead, Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: On Page 134 for Greg, the jail population trends. Toward the right-hand side, the last half of that chart, each year when you go from one fiscal year to the next year, and I'm starting with -- get my bifocals out. 05-06. Each year it switches to the next fiscal year is the largest jump in per inmate per day cost. From -- in '06 it goes up $7.00, '07 it's five, '08 it goes up $6.00 an inmate, and '09 another $6.00 an inmate. And throughout the year there's never a jump that high. It might be close. But I just wonder why from one month to the next what's the reset about a fiscal year that would show such an increase in per inmate cost? CHIEF SMITH: The beginning of the fiscal year is when those fixed cost contracts come renewable, like your jail medical costs, your jail food service costs. And so then you have to go back and reprogram that, and that shifts it up or down -- MS. DOWNS: So all your contracts follow the fiscal year? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, ma'am. MS. DOWNS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, the Immokalee jail, that is vacant, it's not being used? CHIEF SMITH: It's not vacant. We're not holding inmates there past first appearance. But it is still opening and operational for booking and for the detainment of those confined under the provisions of the Marchman Act. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 130, the last line says, the Immokalee Jail Center is a 232-bed local adult detention center and booking facility. Currently the housing areas of IJC are vacant due to the reduction in jail occupants. Page 8 September 23, 2009 Does that mean then you're not using it as a jail? CHIEF SMITH: It's being used as a jail, but that is a true statement. The housing units themselves do not have inmates in them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are the housing units what counts as beds? CHIEF SMITH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then the available inventory is 1344. But the required inventory, because you don't need the Immokalee jail facility is only 1112, yet you have 1383. How do you get to a required inventory if we have a 232-bed facility we don't even need to use? Because that would bring in the question that somebody asked earlier about why we have a shortage in the upcoming years. We may not really have a shortage, because we have a whole facility that's empty and we're not using it, and so we are real -- required inventory right now is only 1112. How do you correlate those numbers? MR. BOSI: Well, the required inventory is based upon our adopted level of service standard against our population. That's a static number. Even though there might not be a full utilization of all -- Mike Bosi from Comprehensive Planning, sorry. There might not be a full utilization of all the units that are available, but based upon the adopted level of service standard that we have for -- that we have for jails against a population, that produces the req -- that produces what is required within our inventory to meet the level of service standard. But we're not utilizing that full requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we just proved that our adopted level of service is wrong. MR. COHEN: Let me -- for the record, Randy Cohen. If you go to Page 132 and you go to the line item 2013-2014, you'll see the number 1383. And what's reflected on Page 130 is actually what would be necessary at the end of the five-year planning Page 9 September 23, 2009 period, and that's why the number's there. Because we're trying to reflect what's necessary within the five-year window. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, I realize that, Randy. But if -- we've been seeing a reduction in the increase in population, and by some statistics a reduction in population, and by the fact we're moving all the illegal immigrants arrestees out, apparently, or quite a few of them, our standard level -- our level of service may be too high based on the fact we have an empty facility out there. And it might remain empty for quite some time. We can predict we're going to fill it up, but I'm not sure that the predictions are going to prove out as they -- I mean, last year we predicted, or the years before we predicted we needed it, and obviously we haven't. We're going just the opposite direction, which is a good thing, it shows we probably are being more effective in law enforcement. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, your point is well taken. And that's one of the reasons that in the construction of the jail, with respect to any additional beds, has been actually pushed on out as we have the opportunity in conjunction not only with reviewing population, but the Chief and their staff over there take into account various factors that would effect the use of the beds. I know the immigration portion that -- program that you've been using has been very effective, but there's no guarantee from what I understand that that would be ongoing, so we have to continue to monitor that. And you can correct me if I'm wrong. CHIEF SMITH: Well, yeah. And Ms. Downs, you know, hinted in that direction a while ago. You know, right now there's been no change. But, you know, that's one of the things that we monitor on a daily basis out of Washington is just exactly what's going on with that program. And it's something that should remain on the forefront of our consciousness and the people who examine this as well, that if there is a shift in immigration philosophy in Washington, that's going to have a direct substantial impact on our local jail population, Page 10 September 23, 2009 because in large part over the last 18 months the downturn that you see is directly related and attributed to that enforcement program. So that is something that you have to understand. And I'm sure that you do, because it's an easy concept to understand, that if you add back in the 360 some odd inmates that this program has removed, you're already past capacity. So, you know, that is something that bears watching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the next opportunity you have to build a facility or add beds is apparently, according to this, 2018 to 2019. And it shows 64 beds being added. How long -- how far in advance do you need to plan for both permitting, design and construction of a facility that would give you those 64 beds? CHIEF SMITH: Typically it takes about two to three years to go through the entire process. Fortunately those 64 beds can be brought on line very quickly, because all of that front work has already been done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for you to have in here a level of service of 3.2 beds per 1,000 but an acknowledgment that you need no further revenues to maintain that level of service doesn't have any negative impact. And it wouldn't until we realized a closer period of time when we needed to have those beds. And if we knew it three years in advance -- and right now we're looking at 2018. So by 2015, if you still need those beds, then you'd start to show changes in your revenue needs possibly to put those beds on line. CHIEF SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this year is really not relevant to that time frame. That's kind of what I was getting at. Okay, any other questions? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Well, I guess more of a comment. Chief, when we were doing the budget process, it was my understanding that there was also an issue with the downturn in the Page 11 September 23, 2009 economy and a lot of people leaving the community, and it seems like it was a disproportionate share of criminals have left. Because that was part of the reason for the reduction in beds and the need for beds. CHIEF SMITH: That's true. A lot of those people who unfortunately find their way into the Collier County jail system are predominantly employed in the construction trades. So with the loss of that industry to an extent, that has, you know, also shaped the jail population. MS. VASEY: And that one would be fairly temporary. Because when construction picks up, that population would move back into the area. So maybe that would be a temporary one, a temporary thing that we're experiencing right now. CHIEF SMITH: Correct. Could be. MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHIEF SMITH: We're just too early. I mean, with 18 months experience, we're just too early in to really nail this down and say, you know, that's what we can rely upon. Because, you know, there's just too much fluidity out of Washington and in the local economy to really, you know, nail it down. But, you know, two things we can say today with certainty: Number one, that we're in really good shape as far as, you know, correctional beds go. And number two, that we don't need to program any additional funds today to service that need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, what's the line item from the revenues in -- it says loan from county-wide capital project funds 301. The reason I'm asking is last year was the first year since 2003 that that item showed up. And last year the loan value was half of what it is this year, it was four million, and this year it's eight plus. What is that? What does that mean? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. That's the loan from the general fund to pay -- to help with the debt service where the impact fees have fallen short. Page 12 September 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now how does that money get funded to the general fund, through ad valorem taxes? MS. PATTERSON: Yes, or any other revenue that comes into the general fund. It's -- so the general fund is loaning the impact fee trust fund money to make their debt service payments because of the lack of impact fee revenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me -- I'm trying to digest what you just said here for a minute. So the impact fees can be used for the debt service of the jail, and then when the impact fees increase again, instead of going into new construction, if it's not needed, it can go to pay back the general fund. But in the meantime the taxpayers have to use their taxes to float all this. MS. PATTERSON: It was the intent for impact fees -- actually, do you want to -- I'll turn it over to Susan. MS. USHER: Hi. Susan Usher, with the office of Management and Budget. The general fund gives a third of a mill -- an equivalent of a third of a mill for capital projects. Those capital projects can be IT improvements, maintenance and repair to various county buildings. It also goes -- it sometimes helps for new construction of items that do not have an impact fee. Computer upgrades. But here lately what we've been using that third of a mill is to help pay for debt service. Because impact fees have fallen, the collection of impact fees have fallen. The debt is out there. You cannot go to the bank and say sorry, no money. So what we do is we diverted that third of a mill and we're loaning the impact fee funds, the various impact fee funds money so that they can make their debt service payment. Now, that third ofa mill has been dedicated for many, many, many years. So I don't think it's an extra hit, I think it's just an allocation we've made. Page 13 September 23, 2009 Now, what has happened is we have not been able to do normal routine repairs, maintenance, buying of software, buying IT upgrades. All that stuff has taken a back seat just so we can make these debt service payments. So that's -- and when impact fees start coming in, we do expect that they pay back 301, and that's what it's -- that's the fund number is 301, so that we can finally get to the backlog that is now being created. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we can't change the debt service value, and so we've got to have the loan, and the loan could continue for years to come until the impact fees balance out against the value of the debt service. MS. USHER: Well, I hope there's not that many years, but yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not the optimist Janet is. So let's assume the worst. Because if you look at government as the worst scenario, maybe you'll still get something comfortable out of it. So when the impact fees turn around and we start having them not only cover the debt service but increase in the amount of revenue coming in, we can pay back the loans first and do capital improvements second; is that how it's generally done? MS. USHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we pay back the loans and that fund gets fat, the taxpayers then can see a reduction in taxes. I'm sure the BCC will jump at that chance, don't you think? I'm sorry, that -- MS. USHER: No, it's a third ofa mill. I mean, every year the board dedicates a third of a mill for capital improvements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if the money's paid back, doesn't it -- don't you get -- you'll have a lot of money coming back into the general fund then, right? MS. USHER: But I have a huge deficit that's being created because I have not been able to fund facilities management and IT and various other things for -- now this is the second -- well, '09 it started, Page 14 September 23, 2009 it got hit very hard in '09. And 2010's budget no capital improvement was funded with that 301 money. Because all of that allocation was allocated to the various impact fee funds. So there is a backlog being created. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I needed an explanation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Fee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's assuming that everything that the debt service is applied to would have been covered by impact fees? MS. USHER: Well, yeah. This debt service applies to correctional. So all of this debt service was correctional -- for a correctional facility for the new jail. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words -- MS. USHER: -- over at the Naples -- or at our complex. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here we have impact fees anticipated. In the past we never obtained that number that we anticipated, and you're loaning money from this fund to cover that? MS. USHER: In the past we anticipated a lot higher collection over a five-year period, but under the current scenario that we're in, the current economy we're in, I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, for 2005 through 2007 they anticipated $12 million a year in impact fees and it dropped in 2008 to 4.5 and this year down to two. So they had a lot higher expectation from impact fees in the boom years than they do now. So if you add the eight to the two, we're getting back up to what they normally got funded for impact fees per year to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. FEE: While you're up there on this subject, just a little bit broader than just the discussion of county jail, but could you in ballpark numbers tell us what the general fund loan balance has been Page 15 September 23, 2009 the last couple of years? Are we increasing our loans to these facilities or is it decreasing? MS. USHER: I think we have a -- I'm trying to find -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last year's loan was 4,144,271. This year it's 8,450,424 -- MR. FEE: And I was going a little bit broader than that, Mark. I know that's for the county jail. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, for the whole county? MS. VASEY: On Page 237. MR. FEE: I wanted to know-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there is a-- MS. USHER: On Page 237 that schedule is showing money that's being loaned from 001, which is general fund, money that's being loaned from 301, that's the third of a mill, and then we even have one project where we borrowed money from solid waste. That's 471. And I'm sorry I did not put the title of the funds, but 001 is general fund, 301 is the third of a mill, and 471 is solid waste. MR. FEE: So each year is broken down on this, '05, '06, '07, all the way through '11. MS. USHER: To show the cumulative balances that are owed back to each of the three funds. MR. FEE: The bottom line says $50 million? MS. USHER: I'll trust what you say on that. Yeah, but it goes to three places. I mean, it's going -- I mean, the money that was being borrowed from the third of the mill will go back to the third of the mill. What -- the monies going back to the general fund, it will go back to the general fund. So whoever loaned the money, they will get that money back. MR. FEE: This is a good chart. Thank you. MS. USHER: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on the chart -- go ahead, Ms. Vasey. Page 16 September 23, 2009 MS. VASEY: Okay, just sort of one clarification back on Page 130. When we talk about a loan of $8 million, that's over the five-year period, correct? MS. USHER: Yes, it is. MS. VASEY: So it's not like eight million a year or anything, it's less than two million a year in this account. MS. USHER: And remember, this is based on the anticipated impact fee revenue coming in. I mean, if we start seeing our upswing, that number will grow then. If we can anticipate more money coming in, then we need to borrow less, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, the anticipated impact fee revenues I quoted earlier were over that five-year period as well. So the anticipation has gone way down. So you're anticipating in this five-year period only two million in impact fees, compared to two years ago when you anticipated nearly 12 million, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And since this is a five-year window we're looking at, what would the balance -- are you proj ecting that the balance of that debt will be this $8 million at the end of that five years, or are you saying that within that five years -- MS. USHER: Just the five -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you will borrow it? MS. USHER: There's more debt behind it. But that's -- we're just looking at five years. And that is the debt over the next five years, 2010 to 2014. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's debt that we will add to this particular item in five years. MS. USHER: It's not add. I mean, we have to -- we built the jail with a bond, we have to pay that back. It's like a mortgage. So that is Page 1 7 September 23, 2009 the debt service requirement over the next five years. It's not new debt and it's not -- I mean, it's to pay back for the construction of that jail. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but it is a loan from, you know, your fund to this particular -- MS. USHER: Oh, yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, my curiosity is that -- does that mean that we will have impact fees of, you know, and I'll round it off, eight -- we'll have $10,000 worth of impact fees, eight of which will pay back that debt? Or is that going to be an additional debt to this -- to the jails? MS. USHER: Correctional impact fee will have to pay this debt back to 301. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And will it pay it within this five-year period? I think that -- MS. USHER: Oh, no. This is the loan coming in. This is a revenue item to assist with the debt service payment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. USHER: This does not -- this page does not show this eight because -- this page does not show the repayment of the internal loan that we're loaning them to make their debt service payment. Because I don't know when they'll be ready to pay us back. Over this five-year period it does not appear that they'll have money to pay us back yet, so it's going to be in an outer year. But next year -- I mean, if we start seeing the upswing, things will change. They haven't borrowed eight million just yet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. USHER: So -- but this is what it looks like. Ifwe continue in this economic downturn for five years and we're just going to the same rate we're doing right now with minimum growth, then yeah, there is a potential of them borrowing 8.4 million. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And increasing their balance by 8.4 million. Page 18 September 23, 2009 MS. USHER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: While Susan is up there, this is not jail related; is that okay, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DOWNS: Susan, on Page 237 -- and I think to clarify, Mr. Fee asked the question what was the debt for '05. And we mentioned 50 million. Well, that was a cumulative debt for '05. According to Page 237, the impact fee debt for '05 -- I'm sorry, for 2010 is about 15 million, okay? Are you with me on that? Now that -- do you have that page? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 237. It would be the portrait page. MS. USHER: Portrait page? MS. DOWNS: Because I want to compare that then to Page 245, which is a total impact fee related debt out to the year 2036. MS. USHER: Yes. MS. DOWNS: Okay, when you compare for instance 237, fiscal year 2010, like I'm saying, 15 million, about, but when you look at your chart on Page 245, the 2010 debt is 19 million something. On Page 237 you have not included regional community parks and impact fees. Why are -- they're omitted on every category. Why is that? MS. USHER: On Page 237 I am only discussing internal loans to assist the impact fees to make their debt service payment. 237 does not really address the outside bondholders and banks that we're making the payments to. When you flip to Page 245, these are the true debt service payments that are owed to outside people, to bondholders, to banks. So -- MS. DOWNS: In addition to Page 237? Page 19 September 23, 2009 MS. VASEY: No. MS. USHER: I mean, so far parks -- this will be the last year, though, 2010. They've had -- parks has done -- has been -- Marla has been really good saving up money to build her parks. Because she did that strategy, she had cash when the downturn of the economy happened. 2010 is the last year they'll most likely be able to pay their own debt service without help from anybody. Unless the economy swings up sharply for 2011, I suspect that to assist her in her debt service payment, we're going to have to borrow her money -- she's going to have to borrow money from us in 2011. In 2010 she was able to make her debt service payment without any help from us. But I don't think that's going to happen in 2011. But it all depends on the economy. I mean, if we have a sharp upswing, it's possible that she'll be able to make her own debt service payment. MS. DOWNS: Okay. So that's why it was never included. MS. USHER: That's why it's not on Page 237, because so far she has not needed our assistance. But if you look at 2011 on Page 237, I already have the shell for 20 11. You can see Parks and Recs is listed. With no money there, but I strongly suspect in 2011 we'll have to give her some money so that she can make her debt service payments. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on that -- okay, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine's a quick question, maybe. How big is that 301 fund? Just typical year, or last year. MS. USHER: Third of a mill. I'd have to get back with you. I'd have to look on the computer real quick. Because if I quote a number, I want to make sure it's accurate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm looking for, is this a Page 20 September 23, 2009 little bit of that fund you're using or a lot of that fund you're using? Do you know what percentage of the fund you're loaning out? MS. USHER: The money that I have in 301, one-third has alway -- okay, I get a quarter ofa mill. Out of that pocket of money, one-third has always been paid for non impact fee related debt. You know, I mean, we're paying on the court -- the old courthouse. Not the annex, the old courthouse, the old health building. You know, old structures that were built many, many years ago, well before we had impact fees. That debt can never be paid by impact fees, because those buildings are standing there, they're part of the inventory, I have to pay for them outside of the impact fee. So I do have some debt that will never be paid by impact fee. About a third of that money goes to always pay that debt. And it has for years. So that always left about two-thirds to help pay for capital projects. Now, out of that two-thirds, it's all now being consumed by impact fees, by loaning them money to make their debt service payments. And I can give you that figure, if you give me a minute. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it doesn't -- but you're saying -- what I think you're saying is approximately two-thirds of the money you get is now being used to fund the impact fees that we're not obtaining. MS. USHER: Well, I have to loan them money so that they can make their debt service payment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 245, since I -- you touched on something, I'd just like some clarification. The first column, if I -- I'm assuming they all read the same way, where it says this one happens to be on the community parks impac __ Page 21 September 23, 2009 regional and community parks. Down at the bottom you have 52 million, 702. So that's the total amount of money you expect to loan until the impact fees can pay for themselves? MS. USHER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. USHER: That schedule is the debt service schedule for all the bonds and commercial loan papers that we have out there that we have to pay outside entities. This is their mortgage payments. If you look at this, this is truly their mortgage payment. There's no way of getting around it. Either they have the cash to make the payment or I have to loan them the money so they can make these payments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how do we determine -- do you have a chart similar to this then that breaks down what the anticipated impact fees are per year against the -- I guess the mortgage payments then so we know where you anticipate the deficiencies to run on a global basis? MS. USHER: That would be on each-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On each one. MS. USHER: On each page. Like on -- for the county jails, it's on Page 130. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. But you could take and create this same chart using this as the basis for the total mortgage payments and debt to be paid by the county in another chart that mirrors this one, but instead of the debt to be paid by the county, anticipated impact fees that would offset that debt so that your net outcome on your totals would be the difference we have to carry; is that -- MS. USHER: Yeah, I don't want to -- I mean, I could do that for the first five years, but I most certainly would not want to do that for the next 20 years. Because I don't know what's going to happen 20 years from now in Collier County. I mean, it's -- I mean, I have the Page 22 September 23, 2009 population numbers and the population increases by year, but I think five years is about as far as I really want to guess on that. I would hate to go out beyond that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't ask you, I was just trying to understand the philosophy. First of all, we have 20-year projections that are put out and used throughout this whole book from David Weeks' office. So if you could proj ect for some of our things for 20 years by population statistics, you could use those same statistics to possibly project impact fee revenues over a longer period of time. I'm just curious as to when the bank's going to be busted, when you're going to run out of funds in 301, based on the mortgage payments needed and based on the anticipated impact fee revenues, based on our population growth. And I was wondering if anybody's done that exercise, when we're going to go broke. MS. USHER: Well, I'm hoping the economy swings up and we won't ever see that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. And I don't want to see that happen, but I think we should always be prepared for the worst case scenario. And I'm just wondering if we ever looked at it that way. It doesn't sound like we had. Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Susan's just talking about what's in her fund, her 301 fund. We'll never go broke. We'll just put more of a third of a mill in there, if we have to. So right now historically we've always used a third of a mill, but if we have to go to a half of a mill, we would go to a half a mill. Because we won't be -- you know, we will not fail to meet our debt payment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, going broke I guess is a term that couldn't apply to Collier County, because we'll just keep raising taxes too. So one way or another it's covered. Page 23 September 23, 2009 But it would be interesting to see if we were to try to keep our taxes current where we would have a problem down the road if we are forced to do more to payoff the impact fee money that we used when it was during the boom times. MS. VASEY: Well, I'll tell you what's a really scary thought is if the Florida legislature changes things and we do not collect impact fees in the future. Then this is just debt we swallow, choke on, whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and part of that, what we would have to choke on we would know by where we're at in regards to revenues against the debt service. So that's kind of what I was wondering, if there was another chart. Doesn't mean you have to run out and do one, I was just curious, that's all. Anybody have any other questions on the jail section of the document? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just to close this thing, the bottom line is we're borrowing approximately 80 percent of the needed revenues to payoff other borrowed money. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, borrowing -- we've hocked our future so-- , COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And one thing you said, you know, Collier can't go broke, but the citizens can, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think they already are, but I'm not sure that carries any weight anymore. MS. VASEY: No, my point really was we -- the general fund gets 3.56 mills right now. And a third of a mill is a very small part of that. Ifwe had to reallocate money, you know, that probably conceivably could be done without an increase in millage rate, you know, depending on how big an increase in loans we needed to do for impact fees. Page 24 September 23, 2009 So, you know, one-third is a real small amount of the total millage rate for general fund, which is where we take this money from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so we could shift more into that without raising the millage rate, but then again we chose to raise the millage rate just here recently, so -- MS. VASEY: Well, that's true, but that's a resource alloca-- well, that's a decision on, you know, level of service that the community wants and, you know, you saw the budget hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw them. I had a very bad headache that day. I have one last question of the Chief. Your standards on Page 136, number seven, you need to talk to the fellow that runs this room. Temperatures shall be maintained with a normal comfort range. The prisoners have better rights than we have in this room. CHIEF SMITH: Is that a statement or is that actually -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I just wanted to make sure everybody's aware that guy's subject to arrest when he comes back in here. MR. COHEN: I want to clarify for the record, that was an economy saving measure instituted by the division. So we just want to make sure that you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, keep us ice cold, I understand. Maybe it will numb the brain. Are there any other questions on jails? Anybody else have any? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion from the Planning Commission then on the jail element? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. I move that we forward the county j ail as presented. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. Page 25 September 23,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I won't be supporting the motion because of the unit costs that's shown here. The unit costs are unrealistic in today's economy and we should be smart enough to be able to adjust them. So I'll leave that as it is. Any other comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. Motion carries 5-1. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take up the issue? MS. VASEY: Yes. We'll make a similar motion -- I'll make a similar motion. MS. DOWNS: Second. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Chief, you're still up. We'll move on to the law enforcement category. And I'm assuming you're going to seek questions like you did before. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. Page 26 September 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any questions under law enforcement? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I have a comment, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: On Page 143, it's showing a graph there. And I'd like to compare that one with the graph that's shown on the jails, the same type of graph, which is on 133. These are -- one is for population and one is for beds occupied and required. But in both cases it has an available and a requirement. In the -- 143 curves there, the available is in blue and the required is in red. On the previous graph the colors are reversed. It's not related directly because one is beds and one is population, but it talks about available versus required. And for consistency, you might want to consider reversing those colors so that they follow the same pattern. CHIEF SMITH: I'll let Mr. Bosi speak to that, because this is the county's report. We're just here to lend clarity to some of the issues. But the county puts this report together and owns it. MR. BOSI: And that's an error within our department in terms of not having the consistencies with the colors. We will modify that for the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners, and I apologize for inconsistency. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions on law enforcement? Go ahead, Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: Chief, on Page 145, the chart shows owned and leased law enforcement buildings. And near the bottom I see purchasing is at Mercantile Avenue on a leased building. Has there been any consideration given to moving that to Immokalee with all that empty jail space? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, there has been consideration given to Page 27 September 23, 2009 doing that, but there's several factors that prevent that from really being feasible. One being the remoteness of Immokalee and the necessity to get hands on quickly to this stuff that's maintained in this warehouse. This really isn't purchasing, and I'll take that one on the chin because the county just prints the list that we give them. But purchasing has moved into the new building off of County Barn Road. This is actually our warehouse inventory that's maintained at this site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. MS. DOWNS: Any idea what the leased cost is? Sorry, Bob. Do you know what the least costs are for the two buildings? MR. SMITH: We don't have two buildings, we just have the one. MS. DOWNS: Oh, there -- no, you have Tamiami Trail. District 7 Everglades substation is also leased. CHIEF SMITH: Okay, that's -- MS. DOWNS: I understand you can't move it, I just wonder what the lease costs are. CHIEF SMITH: I don't. Skip, do you remember what the lease is? MR. CAMP: I'll get it for you. CHIEF SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. Hi. The East Naples substation, is that still being occupied, or have all the troops moved away into the new EOC area? CHIEF SMITH: The troops that were occupying that, the District 3 substation, have moved into the new EOC part that was designed and dedicated for that. Right now we are refurbishing that with the anticipation of other utilizations. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it will remain in operation of Page 28 September 23, 2009 the Sheriffs Office? CHIEF SMITH: Oh, absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of law enforcement? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Chief, I've got the same concern with the unit costs. I'm not going to belabor the point, I'll just have to deal with it like I have. Under your revenues you have an impact fee anticipated of 1.4 million. You have a five-year surplus up on top of 203 officers, which is $33 million. First of all, on the surplus officers, last year you had 765 available officers. This year you show 949.9. Why is the difference -- what created that difference? CHIEF SMITH: Well, first it's very important to understand that we don't have anywhere close to 746 officers, much less the 949. This really has no relative bearing whatsoever on what the sheriffs staff is. And I'm just going to take a really uneducated swing at this, okay, so feel free to jump in and clarify this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, somebody better, because it says officers. CHIEF SMITH: -- if I really mess it up. But what that number actually is, is the space that's available could actually support this number of deputies if it had to. But this really doesn't show what we have as far as law enforcement officers pushing green and whites. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why do we have so much space if we don't need the officers or don't have the officers to fill it up? CHIEF SMITH: I think because they've built out for the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wholly cow. So why do we have impact fees if we're already built out for the future? MR. BOSI: And relevant to the discussion points that we had on Page 29 September 23, 2009 a lot of these unit costs, impact fees are paying for past improvements. Past improvements had a price tag for what they were, and that's what those unit costs were available. The way that the officers are allocated within the AUIR, it's based upon one officer has an equivalent of a square footage. The total square footage available within the inventory relates to what is required and what is available within the inventory. But the actual staffing level is at a different rate, based upon the operational demands within the Sheriffs Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Amy, are we allowed to charge impact fees on improvements 25 years or 30 years or God knows how many years down the road? I mean, if we predict that we're going to need something 20 years from now and we're -- can we start charging impact fees for that now? Because I thought in the rational nexus test the impact fees had to be relative to a static point in time from when they were acquired or charged. Is that true or not? MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. I don't -- we're not charging impact fees based on an improvement that's needed that far into the future. At the time that these improvements were constructed, there was a justified need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I know we're not charging for that. What I'm trying to find out is how far in the future can we charge impact fees for? MS. PATTERSON: You have to justify the need at the time that you charge the impact fee. So the change in the economy in population now has changed the outlook of what we need now versus what we have. But it didn't change the fact that when they scheduled these improvements they were needed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the scheduling of the improvements were based on the analysis of space that's never been filled by the officers in the quantity that would have been used to fill that space. So why are we creating that space if it's -- I mean, it was Page 30 September 23, 2009 done before now . We had -- from what I think I'm understanding, last year there was 765 under the available inventory for officers. This year it jumped up 200. But we didn't have apparently now 765 officers last year, we had space for 765 officers. But we didn't need that space. So why are we creating the space with impact fees? Where's the justification? MS. PATTERSON: No? MR. BOSI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Whatever the question was, the answer IS no. MR. BOSI: I'm sorry, I was distracted, I didn't hear the question. MR. COHEN: It was a side conversation. MS. VASEY: Could I suggest something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. VASEY: Didn't we just have a new -- the emergency center come on line? MS. PATTERSON: Right, that was-- MS . VASEY: That was a huge square footage building for -- I forget what you call it, but it's housing all the special forces people and all that kind of thing. And it was a very large space and it came In. And so that's why when you take that space and use it against the 1.96 officers per 100,000 population, that's why we're getting so much -- such a large number. But it's not -- that's not all impact fees either. You know, some of the available inventory was purchased years and years ago and not with impact fees. So that's -- I'm not sure if that helps, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What you've just explained, though, is the reason we went from 746 to 949. MS. VASEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I just heard was we never had 746 officers to begin with. We got something far less than that, but Page 31 September 23, 2009 we've been built to accommodate 746 officers because we're building far into the future. That is not what I understood impact fees to be applicable to. They have to have a rational connection to some point in time. And I'm a little surprised that we're collecting impact fees -- and I'm not saying we shouldn't have impact fees for police officers. I thought this was going towards police officers. Now I'm realizing it's going to some space that could be occupied, which is doing us no good. I'd rather see the feet on the ground than behind a desk sitting in a building. So we need officers. We don't -- I think this shows we have way too much building and not enough officers. I don't how to bring that back to where it should be, but I don't like what I'm hearing. MR. BOSI: That's directly related to the current legal of service standard that we have. If you believe that the square footage that's being provided in relationship to the officers that are utilized within the sheriffs department, it would be a recommendation to examine the 1.96 officers per 1,000 and validate whether that is still an acceptable and needed level of service standard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a concern only because I've been mis -- I mean, all these years I've been reading this, I have not realized today it didn't mean police officers, because it keeps saying police officers, police officers, and it keeps repeating that this is for police officers. But now I'm finding out it's only for space for police officers. We don't really have the body there. Without that body, there's something's radically wrong as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Fee, then Mr. Murray. MR. FEE: Mark, your -- obviously this is showing a surplus, a five-year surplus of 203 in officers. But you have the five asterisks there. And if you go down to the bottom of the page, to me they're explaining, at least one reason, it says the surplus within the -- I mean, everybody can read this. But basically the population projection was Page 32 September 23, 2009 451, 451,000 for '08-'09 as projected back in 2006. Now it's projected to be 350,000, a difference of 101, which would be a reduction of officers required of 198. So I think we got ahead of the plan based on prior numbers and now those numbers have been adjusted downward. And in a lot of the capital areas we've gotten ahead from that adjust. Does that explain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I already understand. But that's why I'm asking my question, based on what you -- I agree with you. I'm asking my question, we have a large surplus now, and the surpluses for space that were never -- we could not use for a long period of time. Do we still need the level of service standard we're using? If it's not putting officers on the ground, which is what I thought it was in the first place, is it that valuable to us? I mean, we've got a nice fancy EOC sitting over there that cost us 60 million bucks, and that's another, as far as I'm concerned, a Collier County boondoggle, but we have a series of those in this county. And I'm just wondering, how do we justify more impact fee charges for items that we are overbuilt for that far in the future? That was the direction of my question. I understand the asterisks. MR. FEE: And the only thing I would want to add is when you do the impact fee studies, you are using population projections. And the consultants, they know those numbers and they come up with the cost. If the numbers change after you've done the study, well, then in the next study three years from now we will in fact adjust downward the dollars. Does that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about the impact fees? MR. FEE: So every three years we are squaring it up, based on the two factors, cost and population numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Doug, we haven't dropped the level of standard for -- since 2005. Mr. Murray? Page 33 September 23, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Greg, a number of years ago I heard it explained that the level of service standard and the unit cost is associated with sheriffs deputies car, radio, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, which is essentially I guess transferable to or relatable to square footage. I'm making that gross assumption and I need that to be qualified. That being the case, if we have vehicles that are, as it were, for the temporary or for the period of assignment owned by a particular deputy, there would be more vehicles than, say, if there were vehicles being used 12-hour shift and then another officer goes in and takes that same vehicle. Is that in any way associated with this? Am I correct in my first statement and am I correct in my assumption that I've just related? CHIEF SMITH: I'd really have to have county staff answer the entirety of your question. I can make a relative comment, though. There are capital items that we do fund out of impact fees. The high dollar items like radio -- do we pay for cars -- radios, cars, you know, those type of things are paid for out of impact fees. The rest of it, you know, I'd look to Amy to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess what we need to find out is what is it when we talk about square footage -- we can talk about building square footage, but is it -- I mean, the suggestion here is that there's a humongous number of square feet that officers are sitting there with their feet up, and that's hardly the truth. So what is the composition of that? MR. BOSI: The way that this is constructed is the impact fees basically have determined that we have a square footage associated with each officer that we have available. And to be able to provide for the level of service of 1.96 officers per 1,000 people, we need "X" number of square foot to support that level of service standard. What we're hearing is that when we constructed the EOC in 2006, when the planning process was under way and we authorized it, Page 34 September 23, 2009 we had a projection of population that was well beyond what we currently experience now. The Sheriffs Department was not -- is not blindly tied to the square foot that's available within the department. They're tied into the individual demands that is placed upon the systems within their staffing level. As people come into this county and pay future impact fees, we're paying for the improvements for that gap for the excess space that we have to be able -- because as the population increases, demands upon that -- their operation are going to continue to increase and they're going to add more officers to be able to fill those spaces. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Not unlike a water/sewer plant that is built and for the first year of commission its capability far exceeds its utilization. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs? MS. DOWNS: I'm not seeing a chart -- I was thinking this was related to the Sheriffs Department, but it's not, it's EMS equipment. On Page 176 they give us a breakdown on the replacement cost for equipment, and the Sheriffs Department did not do that. What struck me on Page 176, they list laptops at a cost of $5,000 apiece. Now, I don't know if that's a fancy laptop, but -- and I'm wondering what the breakdown is. Now that you're saying you have items that are included in the impact fees other than capital items, I wonder what the breakdown is, the cost per item. Are they as high as these costs seem to be? Nobody knows. MR. BOSI: No, we haven't provided that. It hasn't been something that we've in the past have associated -- or that we've included the replacement cost for specific equipment utilized by the officers in the field. But I'm sure the impact fee consultants have accounted for that within the total cost of an impact fee. MS. DOWNS: I'd be curious to see that same kind of breakdown on costs, similar to what we have on Page 176 -- Page 35 September 23, 2009 MR. BOSI: And just to give you -- MS. DOWNS: -- if they're included. MR. BOSI: -- the heads up, for EMS, the type of laptops that they utilize are much different than the laptop you're going to buy at Best Buy. And I'm sure Jeff will be able to speak to that, to the cost and the justification -- MS. DOWNS: Okay. MR. BOSI: -- for the expense associated with those. MS. DOWNS: But I'd be curious, is it the same with their materials. Go ahead. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson again for the record. The impact fee study does go through a full accounting of all the equipment that's included as part of the cost. And just to clarify, the capital cost and how we get to that unit cost is the cost per square foot of building, the land cost and the equipment cost. So we get to a total capital cost, and then that is divided to come up with the total capital cost per police officer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute. I'm sorry, I thought that the sheriffs office was not able to own property. MS. PATTERSON: That's correct. This is-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How do we include land costs in it then? MS. PATTERSON: This is the Collier County impact fee. We build the buildings and own the land. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so you're associating that, but not with this. MS. PATTERSON: The sheriffs office doesn't collect the law enforcement impact fee. Collier County collects it and uses it for the capital construction for the sheriff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it's attributable, right? It's Page 36 September 23, 2009 attributable to the sheriffs office uses? MS. PATTERSON: I don't think I'm understanding your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you're collecting a pot of money. The purpose of it is to support the -- MS. PATTERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- organization. If you're including land costs, which they don't have a burden of, then isn't that adding something in dimension that -- I want you to qualify. I'm sure it's quite legal. I need to understand it. MS. PATTERSON: They don't have the burden of the building either. We own and maintain the buildings for the Sheriff. No different than any of the other constitutional officers that we provide. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But they do. That same impact fee relates to capital costs associated with vehicles and other apparatus that they have, including radio and so forth, and that's in that same impact fee, is it not? MS. PATTERSON: All their capital costs. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mixed bag of impact fees. Fascinating. Okay, I understand we're all one county. But we are trying to do things by organization. MS. DOWNS: Can you provide us a description of those costs? MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: If I could, just one more thing. I think-- several years ago the A UIR and the impact fee studies became very closely related. The AUIRs in the past did not depend as heavily on these impact fee studies as it does now. And so what we're finding, it does create a level of confusion. Because what's appropriate for an impact fee and what's required for an impact fee in this changing economy with changing costs now is causing this relationship with the AUIR. Page 37 September 23, 2009 Our unit costs and things that are required for an impact fee, as has been commented, may not be what is appropriate for the AUIR, but I -- because of the direction that we've been given that these two must maintain this relationship, that's why you're seeing these things, these land costs and unit costs level of service now are all being driven by these documents that are the impact feeds. If that's to change, then that would be a policy change from how we've proceeded over the last several years. And it will -- then there will be differences between the AUIR document and the impact fee studies. MR. COHEN: Randy Cohen for the record. And I wanted to clarify why that's transpired. In the past -- some of you are new and some of you are not -- but in the past the CIE actually included all the Category B facilities. There's no requirement in state statutes that those items be in there. And the Board of County Commissioners made a decision that they did not want the state to regulate all the Category B facilities within this particular county. The impact fee consultant indicated that the only way that we could do that is if when we adopted the AUIR that it supported the impact fee studies and that's why it transpired. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on law enforcement? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, looking at this chart on Page 143, if I'm reading this in a very simplistic way, which is hopefully what I am, is what we're saying in '18-'19 that year, our available inventory will double our required inventory; is that correct? MR. BOSI: That is correct. And I'll let Chief Smith talk about the inclusion. We left the sheriffs operation building. What you're talking about is the addition of the sheriffs operation building. And FY '18-' 19 would look like it's an unnecessary improvement. We left that Page 38 September 23, 2009 in specifically as -- to keep it onto the table that there are long-range plans for a sheriffs operations building in the outer years. But at this time the need is not there to execute the plans for that building. But we wanted to leave those on just to let the reader know that those were long-range plans and the next improvement in the cycle. And with our individual meetings with the Sheriffs Department when we talked about that, Chief Smith said we will evaluate this on an annual basis as to whether that need is going to be materialized in that outer year. MR. FEE: And with that, on Page 141 you have staff recommendations. Staff recommends that CCPC and PC recommend to the BCC approval of the AUIR which contains no new projects over the five and 10-year planning period. Is that correct now with you putting a placeholder in this chart? MR. BOSI: Based upon that, the specifics of that, the wording of that recommendation needs to be modified. MR. FEE: A little bit, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions or comments on law enforcement? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I don't like it, but I don't know what I can do about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't like a lot of it either. You can vote -- you can, during discussion, insert your concern and then vote accordingly, Tor, in that way. It highlights it. I certainly have concerns about the whole AUIR and the structure and way it's done, and I'll try to insert mine as we've gone along. I have a couple other questions on Page 146. And Amy, this is going to reflect on your issues. On Page 146 we have construction costs per square foot, and it's talking about different facility planning periods. The first ones at $259 a square foot and 428 are the same as last year. Now, we've heard comments that the facilities increases have to Page 39 September 23, 2009 increase because of our impact fee studies. Then why haven't these increased from last year, since we have increased the cost, not only in this category but all? Likewise, if you go down below and you look at the second five-year period, 458. Last year was 550. And the 534 -- or 535 was 535 last year. Again, here we've actually shown a decrease from last year in one category, yet in every category of the AUIR we keep seeing unit costs increasing. In here they're either static or decreasing. And I'd just like to know how that's explained, compared to the explanation we heard as to how everything has to go up. MS. VASEY: Could I offer something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. VASEY: The first of the facility, the fleet facility and the emergency services center, are probably based on the costs awarded in the contract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand that because-- MS. VASEY: So those wouldn't change because they're static. You know, it was what it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we were told the AUIR costs, unit costs are going up because of those increases from the past. Because of those numbers. And if you're saying what you're saying is true, then what I've been saying all along should be true is they should have stayed to what they were last year. Because we had the numbers last year and we're using them in this chart. That's not what's been going on throughout this document. Amy? MS. PATTERSON: Are we talking -- we're just speaking strictly about law enforcement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the example I've got. Let's -- why don't we start there. MS. PATTERSON: There's different reasons why -- what happened to different fees. If you want to go back to jail for a minute Page 40 September 23, 2009 instead of law enforcement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, can you explain my question on the chart on Page 146? Let's just start there. MS. PATTERSON: The fleet -- on 146, the first two, the fleet facility and the EOC, are constructed facilities. So the costs are what they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they were constructed -- they're the most recent constructed facility, which you previously had indicated that's what the impact fee studies are based on, right? MS. PATTERSON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So these numbers are the same as they were last year. MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then why are we having increase in unit costs on Page 140? COMMISSIONER CARON: Go back to 140. MS. PATTERSON: Back to 140. If you look at the first asterisk, there was a 4.1 percent -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, Amy, I'm not hearing you. MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. Sorry. If you look at the first star under -- on the comments, the unit cost increased by 4.1 percent per impact fee indexing. That was a directed change of the Board of County Commissioners. Besides the formal three- year studies that each of the impact fees go through, they're also on a schedule of indexing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's back up then. I had previously asked in every category in this A UIR, and each category has a similar asterisk about the percentage, and I was told that that's based on construction costs to the most recent building which just happened to be in the highest year we ever constructed and therefore our unit costs have to go up. Page 41 September 23, 2009 Well, now you're telling me that's not the case, it's because it was arbitrarily decided to go up by the Board of County Commissioners. MS. PATTERSON: No, no, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then let's go back to my-- MS. PATTERSON: We have to -- we can only -- I can talk about each category differently, because something different has happened with each one. So if you want me to start with law enforcement, I can start explain law enforcement and then we can go back to the others and I can tell you what has happened with them, if that makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand. Because 4.1 percent on this one is different than the 4.1 percent on the others? MS. PATTERSON: There wasn't 4.1 percent on -- there's a different percentage of increase on every other one, except for the erroneous com -- there was an incorrect comment on the jail -- an incorrect statement on the jail impact fee page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way that you establish the index -- let's forget the percentage then. Because if I use 4.1 you're going to say that's wrong. Let's just say we'll call it the indexing schedule. The indexing schedule on each one as it comes about is a different reason? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. There's an individual index for every impact fee, based on individual components. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know there's an individual index on each one -- MS. PATTERSON: And it's a different amount. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is -- yeah, I understand that. But the basis for it now is different on each one; is that what you're saying? MS. PATTERSON: The weighting is different on each one. So depending on the components, they're weighted differently, depending on how -- those components are weighted within the fee. So every impact fee generally speaking has a construction cost Page 42 September 23, 2009 element, a land cost element and an equipment cost element. Those are weighted, depending on how they're evaluated in the impact fee study, and then through the indexing they're weighted and that's how you come up with the cost of increase or potentially decrease. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what was the reason then for the increase in unit costs for police officers from 158,000 per officer to roughly 165? If it wasn't -- obviously the numbers for the construction are the same as they were last year, which seems contrary to what I had previously heard on the other categories. But be that as it may, then how does this category get 4.1 percent of an increase? MS. PATTERSON: It's a national index that is localized for the mid years between the full studies. When they come back, this -- it should have been this year, but next year when they come back to do a law enforcement impact fee study, they will look at those old costs, as well as any new costs to establish the new construction costs, the new unit costs. So those things that are done have a cost. Any new thing since the last time the study was done would then be evaluated and included and therefore the construction costs will change, either up or down or stay the same, depending on all those factors. The 4.1 percent is a combination of factors of construction cost, land cost and equipment cost weighted, which used to use a 10-year regression analysis and has now been changed at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners to be a faster reacting two-year average index, which changed as you saw it early on the pages in the AUIR book. It was a very high index prescribed by the 10-year regression analysis that was changed down to a lesser percentage of increase and next year potentially, if things stay as poor as they are now, could go to a negative index. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you said that it's a national indexing schedule localized to our area. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. Page 43 September 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the national indexing for this item? MS. PATTERSON: It uses a combination of the Engineering News Record construction costs, local land values and the Consumer Price Index for equipment costs. They're weighted at 43 percent for construction, 10 percent for land and 47 percent for equipment. And we go through and we take the percentage prescribed and then they do this analysis that provides some local layered and on top of the national. I have those. Construction costs this year was 8.1. This is the two -- using 2007 and 2008 data for the 2009 index. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go any further, you have an indexing schedule fee here of 4.1 percent. What is the national indexing schedule? Just the number, just one number. Is it-- MS. PATTERSON: It's not one number, it's the combination of three numbers that have to be -- I know it's not -- I understand it's not making sense, but there's three components that make up the law enforcement impact fee. Each one of those components has an index and then they have to be weighted and added together to come up with that 4.1 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the national indexing generally have an increase across the nation? MS. PATTERSON: It had an increase, yes. It has. And it's been CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So nationally because of Engineering News Record -- which I used to subscribe to until I realized it was written for the industry and not for reality -- so they use that magazine, along with some other numbers they get from other sources to determine that even in an economy when everything is less expensive and the reports are that we've re -- we actually got an at least 16 percent better buying power now, we have an increase in indexing and cost. MS. PATTERSON: You had an increase in six categories for Page 44 September 23, 2009 indexing this year, with the idea that moving from the 10-year regression to the two-year average, that you will actually have decreases next year. It just couldn't get there all at once. Your land cost has already gone .1 percent negative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on Page 146, right there it proves my points, we didn't. But I understand what you're saying. You have reasons to raise them. And I'm not going to get anywhere arguing with you about it so I'm going to stop at this point. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Amy, you said you used the 2007 book, right? MS. PATTERSON: 2007 and 2008. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So things were not quite coming down yet. MS. PATTERSON: Which the Board of County Commissioners did acknowledge. And the reason that they moved to this two-year average is in the acknowledgment that probably next year they're going to capture a decrease on many of these fees. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, it's difficult to predict. I mean, a problem we have is our prediction skills a couple years ago was predicting a major rise. Obviously it didn't happen. So we can't assume today -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's going to go down forever either. I mean, so we've got to be careful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not asking anybody to predict. I know what reality is, not prediction. So anyway, I have another question on Page 150. I don't know who's got the answer. On that chart on Page 150, on year 2008 it looks like the only Page 45 September 23, 2009 year you ever give warnings. Is that something the new Sheriff decided is nice to do and Sheriff Hunter never wanted to, or how is -- how come we only have warnings in that year? CHIEF SMITH: You really want an answer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? CHIEF SMITH: You really want an answer to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah. It stands out like a sore thumb. So I'm just curious. CHIEF SMITH: It's not something that I'd associated with the A UIR process, but nonetheless -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's in here, Chief. I guess that gives us the right to ask about it, so -- CHIEF SMITH: That was just the way the numbers came out. I won't attribute them to one sheriffs philosophy over another. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So -- but we never gave warnings prior to 2008? CHIEF SMITH: Yes, sir, we gave warnings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. They were never on the chart. CHIEF SMITH: Again, I don't put the chart together. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess that chart's not -- doesn't need to be in the AUIR anymore then, does it, Mike? MR. BOSI: If that's the recommendation of the CCPC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's not accurate and it doesn't reflect possibly what could have occurred, why do we have it here? And if it's not -- as the Chiefs indicated, he didn't realize it was part of the AUIR. Maybe it isn't. I mean-- MR. BOSI: We -- once again, the AUIR purposes for concurrency management and for Category B is to make sure we are legally defensible within our impact fees. We provide demand numbers and ancillary information to provide a much more rounded picture for the board to consider and evaluate to see whether there's justification for the current levels of Page 46 September 23, 2009 service, for the activities associated with each individual division in the department. If we would like to limit the scope specifically only to the concurrency management and not provide some of the demand numbers and provide some of the activity statistics, if that's the desire of the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee, we most certainly can go more narrow within our focus. But we wanted to try to provide a broader range. And unfortunately I'm not sure why we didn't cull out the warnings issued before 2008. We can try to find out that information for you. But these are just to provide a broader picture for the activities associated with each division in the department. And it's not -- it really doesn't have any bearing towards the AUIR, whether we're within a legal defensible position for the collection of impact fees and the impact fees that we're charging, and maintaining of the levels of service that we as a community have adopted for the particular division and department. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't see its use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, the only thing I was trying to comment on, as a result of the discourse or discussion here, if you put something in the AUIR that nobody knows how it got there, why it got there, how it compares, why the questions are, then don't put it there. I mean, if you can't defend it, why have it? If we want answers and we can't get them, don't give us things that you can't answer. I don't know who put it here, but that just is common sense. I'm not telling you to take it out, I'm just telling you somebody better be prepared to have an answer if we ask a question about something that's in this book. That's all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, maybe they're showing compassion to the downturn and just issuing warnings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They ought to try it on red lights. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. Page 47 September 23, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I am -- I'd like to get down to a serious discussion here of our level of service. I think that's really where we need to focus the discussion, on whether or not the 1.96 per 1,000 is a correct number or not. It seems to me that what has been shown over time is that that number is too high. Weare now -- we can house 203 or five officers that we don't have and that we don't need. So it seems to me that the real number -- because the unit cost numbers are a trailing. It's either, you know, trailing something or getting ahead of something. And only over time can that unit cost number catch up or average out or whatever. It's really the level of service number that I think we need to concentrate on and figure out whether that's a correct number or not. And personally I think it's too high. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fee? MR. FEE: To add to that, that was my question. Where has that number been, 1.96 per 1,000? Let's say five years ago, three years ago. COMMISSIONER CARON: Same. MR. FEE: Has it remained the same? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2005 it started at 1.96. It's been static SInce. MR. FEE: And how is that arrived at? Is that a state, is that something the Board of County Commissioners has picked? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm afraid it's impact fee related. If it is, you'll never figure it out. Just accept it as a mystic number. MR. BOSI: Before law enforcement used to be covered, law enforcement and j ails used to be covered by general government buildings. And when we adopted impact fees for each of those respective components, they became sections within the AUIR. And 2005 was when we first adopted the impact fee related to law enforcement and jails. And the 1.96 standard was the standard that was related to the impact fees, the fee structure that we adopted by the Page 48 September 23, 2009 Board of County Commissioners. MR. FEE: So that number is in the impact fee studies and the data. Okay. The only other thing I wanted to add was as Productivity Committee members, we spend hours a year studying the impact fee reports and then making recommendation to the Board of County Commission. I'm not sure that the Planning Commission also does that same. Are you provided those reports? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, based on what I've heard today, if we were provided to them, they were written in such a manner that I'm not sure I would understand them. MR. FEE: And the whole -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's just confusing to hear all this different analysis to get to something that's so common sense. But that's the way government works, I understand that. MR. FEE: Those reports can be 20,30 pages from the consultant. And if you follow them year over year over year, you can get to understanding the methodology that they're using and the changes and the construction costs and all that. But if one isn't looking at those reports or involved in that process, it's hard to -- you know, so I'm defending the process and what reports are available to come up to -- I'm not saying the costs are right or wrong, it's just what's in those reports. And if you have not read them, and I know you guys have a lot on your plate, I wouldn't suggest you add anything, but that's where part of this equation is on the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't say I didn't read them. I have them all. Amy sent them to me a couple years ago, I have them electronically. I have read them. Whether I understand them because of the way they're written, I can't tell you I do. And obviously I don't agree with what I'm hearing here today. Not that Amy's wrong. But if that's the basis under which our Page 49 September 23, 2009 common sense has gone out the door and this is the way we're establishing things, I'm not buying it. And I guess you can go to -- anybody can hire tons of people to do a study to say anything they want. And we see that at the Planning Commission every meeting. The -- there's no developer that comes before us without an expert telling us that in spite of our common sense we need more commercial in this community and we need more this and we need more that. Yet it's always there and they prove it by numbers just like they prove through the impact fees. But without an organization, let's say trained in understanding these studies, and I'm speaking basically of a group like CBIA, they for all intents and purposes don't exist. Because if they did, they ought to be challenging this on an expert basis from those of us that can't get into it like that, and suggested alternatives. Before I forget, on this level of service standard, I have for years thought this was for police officers. Because it says police officers repeatedly, officers, officers, officers. In no way does this county ever need to reduce its number of officers. In fact, we need to increase them. And in fact, I thought the benefits provided here go to salaries and other things to help officers. In the past I would never consider have cutting such a thing, because I don't think we need to. We need to do just the opposite here. And that's my concern, if we change the level of standard. I would rather see a Category B element that talks about the feet on the ground, not the whatever you want to call them, bottoms sitting in chairs. I'd rather see -- knowing what we have out on the street, what we have doing the most effective work, rather than empty space and buildings. And if that's what this pertains to, if this pertains to actually the people on the ground, then I don't want to see a level of service cut. But if it's just for creating empty space and buildings, there's no need for it, so -- MR. BOSI: Page 148 provides the actual staffing numbers that Page 50 September 23, 2009 are employed within the Sheriffs Department. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my question is, if we adjust the level of service standard, is that going to negatively impact the staffing level of the personnel that are hired by the department? MR. BOSI: If you adjust the level of service standard, you're going to negatively -- you could potentially negatively impact the space available to house the necessary prisoners that the Sheriffs Department determines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's jail. This is not -- we're not -- officers aren't the prisoners. This is the jail -- MR. BOSI: House is a term for where they gain employment and where they do their work, outside of their cars. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, he did. But I think in this case I don't believe -- based on what we just learned today, that this is not an actual police officer, it's a space that could house a police officer -- that that the level of service for individuals would not be affected, unless we went down. Unless we were running a negative figure here. And according to what we've got here, we're not going to be running negative figures. CHIEF SMITH: If I could make comment to that. It's not really where officers are housed. You need to understand that it's space needed to support the officer contingent that you have. It relates to any number of different utilizations. It's training space, it's the space used to repair their cars, it's the space used for having shift briefings, it's the space used to come to do the assignments, you know, any time you have to come and cut paper, to do the reports necessary to generate to facilitate a booking of an inmate. It's not just a vacant office waiting one day for an officer to be hired so that he can sit in it. COMMISSIONER CARON: But right now what this report is telling us is you could hire 203 new officers and you would have the space to accommodate them; for fixing their cars and training them Page 51 September 23, 2009 and doing whatever else, that's what this report tells us. CHIEF SMITH: That's exactly what that report's telling you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. So that's what fm saying is that for -- I think that the level of service could go down a notch or two. And I don't know what that appropriate number would be. Because we've been tracking at 196 for at least five years and maybe longer, which keeps building us up this reserve that we're not using. So we're over-inventoried here at this point. And I don't know, you know, backing off slightly would just __ would not -- I don't want to go into a negative situation, but it would seem to me that we don't need to be quite at the level we're progressIng now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fee, then Mr. Murray. MR. FEE: The analysis of that number, Ms. Caron, the 1.96-- Amy, are we going to get an opportunity to evaluate that level of service number in the next impact fee update? And you said that's comIng up. MS. PATTERSON: Yes. Amy Patterson again for the record. '09 was an update year, full update year for law enforcement. The board has slightly delayed those '09 studies, but I expect come November or December they're going to reestablish their update cycle and law enforcement, and the level of service will be a part of that study. MR. FEE: So I think we can hear what you're saying. And when we see that study, that can be a key question, the cost being one, but the number used. And we can certainly raise that. Today you cannot change that number because it's in the data that we're using right now, it's been adopted and-- MS. PATTERSON: It's the number that was generated by the last full impact fee study. If there was a recommendation made to the Board of County Commissioners to change that level of service number, they would have to evaluate that against their current level of Page 52 September 23, 2009 service -- the impact fee level of service, I mean. And also then the anticipation of the new impact fee study. So all of these actually in time would be appropriate around the same time period. What I'm saying is if there were to be a change to the level of service, they would have to coordinate it with the impact anyway, because the adopted level of service can't fall below that that's call called for the impact fee study. MR. FEE: Okay. And the only other thing is, has there been a draft of that impact fee study yet? MS. PATTERSON: No. No. In November or December, probably early December, the board will establish what they want to be the study time frames. At that point then we'll send out the commitments to our consultant to start work on those. And once they get going, they can -- it's usually -- except in unusual cases like parks, we get the studies turned around probably in a -- at least for a draft in about a six-month period. So before the next AUIR there would be at least something available. MR. FEE: And maybe you stated this, but do you anticipate an actual drop in those impact fee numbers in this study? Can you predict that yet or -- MS. PATTERSON: No, because it's been -- since it's been the full three years and there's been quite a bit of construction activity, we would have to see how the changes in population as well as the changes in costs, how all the factors play in overall to effect the impact fees. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Close to average. MR. FEE: And when we do adopt that, when the board adopts that and if there is a decrease, then next year during these hearings we will see a lower unit cost, correct? MS. PATTERSON: Yes. MR. FEE: We could see a lower-- MS. PATTERSON: Right, whatever the actual unit cost is and Page 53 September 23, 2009 the level of service reflected in that impact fee study, we would bring forward through the AUIR process. MR. FEE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Chief, this is -- the AUIR is a budget document. But the level of service standard, seeming to have a significant difference between what is need versus capacity so to speak. Is it the intent of your organization to utilize this information so as to increase your budget, or do you rely upon it to increase your budget? CHIEF SMITH: We do not rely on this document to size our budget. This document is really used for planning purposes for future facilities as its use to us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So your budget, and I understand now that the last budget, actually it was reduced some from what a prior budget was. So that's pretty clear that that doesn't happen. So in terms of what mayor may not be real capacity, this is your means or this is the county's means of totaling up what seems to be there to support your organization. And it may appear, because of circumstances, that you have more than you need. If we had a rapid change and changes in government and so forth that precipitated additional crimes, would you see this so-called excess evaporate? CHIEF SMITH: I think you first have to categorize it as an excess. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I use that word, because there is -- CHIEF SMITH: Understood. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- a sense of it that it might be excessive need and therefore in order to adjust it, the suggestion may be to bring it down. And I'm concerned if we bring down the level of Page 54 September 23, 2009 service will we do ourselves a disservice. Because the way government works and a lot of organizations that are large, there's a lag in things. So would you help us with that? CHIEF SMITH: Sure. And I'll get to it eventually, so bear with me. There are any number of studies and metrics used on a national scale to say basically here -- you know, all factors remaining equal, which we know they never are, any case there's differences. But all factors being equal, this is the amount or the recommended amount of law enforcement officers per thousand. And that number is -- depending on which organization, you know, you're taking the information from, it's always greater than two. And I've seen it range as high as 2.3. So when different organizations look to an area such as Collier County to, you know, try to relate quality of life and, you know, levels of protection and levels of service and those sorts of things, they judge them based on those national numbers and see just exactly where they are. So, you know, could you stand here today and surmise that there may be some kind of negative connotation to adjusting that number downward? We could probably make that case. But I also know that, you know, in instances like if you want to talk about the fleet facility, I know it has capacity for the future, I'm not worried about that. But when I go out and I look at the various substations that we occupy outside of D-3, which is now located in the EOC, I see a need. And I see, you know, that we're not going to be able to go very much longer before we do have to start talking about facilities again. So, you know, to adjust that down, it I think is going to put us in a situation or has the potential to put us in a situation where if there is a spring-back in the economy rapidly, that you're dealing with a deficit which then you must build out of before you utilize impact fees Page 55 September 23, 2009 to go forward. So I think in answer to your question, could it be detrimental to the agency if we tried to reduce what we're doing now? Absolutely. Are we concerned if your recommendation is to reduce the level of service of law enforcement officers? We would be. But that certainly, you know, depends on the feelings of this group. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thanks, Chief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Law enforcement officers, though, are set by the sheriffs budget, I'm now realizing, this wouldn't set (sic) law enforcement officers. So us doing anything with this theoretically wouldn't impact law enforcement officer reduction. That's what I seem to be understanding from what this now applies to. And if that's true, what I certainly would like to suggest to our comprehensive planning department is that any reference to police officers on here gets removed. It's very misleading. And for five years I have understood this to be the wrong thing. MR. BOSI: And back to the purpose of the Category B facilities. Category B facilities are to ensure that we are not running afoul of the legal proceedings related to impact fees. The impact fees state the levels of service based upon the standard that's expressed within the A UIR document. Any departure from that would require a departure from our current methodology of the impact fee studies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, all I'm saying is stop calling it police officers. MR. COHEN: Commissioner-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It isn't police officers. It's police facilities. You can call it buildings, you can call it anything you want, but we're not talking about police officers here. Yes? MR. COHEN: Commissioner, for the record, Randy Cohen. What we'll do is we'll consult with our impact fee department, as well as our impact fee consultant to see whether or not we can modify Page 56 September 23,2009 that in accordance with your request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just mine as one member. I'm COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- just suggesting it's misleading. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, isn't it really saying capital cost per police officer? So it's just -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Composition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- an index. It's not really police officers. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it isn't. And that's what I'm saying, it needs to be clarified. Because the titling -- the way this is titled is extremely misleading, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Anyway, to me it looks like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to take a break too. So at some point we either wrap this one up first or we take a break and come back and wrap it up. I don't know how much more discussion there's going to be. And on the safety of our court reporter whose fingers are probably beat, let's just take a break till 10:25 and we'll finish up when we come back. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from the break. And our court reporter is smiling, so that means her fingers are ready to go. And we left off asking the level of service standard for law enforcement. Weare going to work our way into an eventual conclusion and motion. Is there any further discussion on the level of service standard issue? Mr. Kolflat? Page 57 September 23, 2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm still concerned about this disparity between availability and requirement that occurred in this section. Is there something we can add to the recommendation of commissioners to encourage them to pursue this issue further? I realize it's law enforcement and that the option primarily is to improve it, but I'd like to add an addendum to bring these points to light when they discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be appropriate if we wanted to have the level of service standard reviewed for the next AUIR. On this one it wouldn't be possible to do anything, because at this point it's recommendations to go forward, I believe. I think if that recommendation included a careful review of the level of service standard relative to the fact we have such a large surplus, that might be a relative point to make in the motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I make a motion to recommend approval with that stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, is that appropriate for you guys's needs? MR. BOSI: It's one of the potential recommendations at the end of your staff report. It says, the option to recommend evaluation or modification to any of the level of services is an option that is available as part of the recommendation process from either of the advisory bodies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I would second that motion. Also adding Mr. Fee's point from earlier that talked about the 10-year planning period. Mike's going to make that adjustment here on the wording in the staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so a motion's been made. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I would also add that there be clarification of definition of officers that you mentioned as the third Page 58 September 23, 2009 item. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to be sure of something. MS. VASEY: Have we finished the discussion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to discuss the motion. MS. VASEY: I thought we were -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion came faster. I hadn't asked for a motion, but Mr. Kolflat volunteered one. If we have discussion, I can ask the motion maker and the second to hold off. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. MS. VASEY: I had my hand up before we went on break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't remember, I'm sorry. MS. VASEY: That's all right. Well, I did a couple of calculations, and I think part of what's confusing this whole issue is that in the last year we added 82,000 square feet of space in this area. That's about 10 percent increase over what we had before. And the way buildings are added, you know, it's big chunks. You don't just add a few feet for every year when you add a few more people. So you've got those things happening. And in both of those cases, the people came out of leased space. And it was expanded for the future. So yes, it's more perhaps than what we need right now but it's looking to the future in the way building chunks happen. So I felt that should -- I wanted to make that point. Also on the j ails, I was talking to Amy during the break and she reminded me, and she was right, when we're looking at building costs for jails, it was true that we based it on the actual cost of the jail increase, the jail expansion in 2006. But we did have an architect come in and cost out things to update those numbers. And he looked at what else was going around in our area, he compared it in other Florida areas because it had been several years. So I had forgotten Page 59 September 23, 2009 that we had done -- made an attempt to try to take another look at those costs. And all those costs, you know, are not just land costs or building costs, you know, they're the cost for equipment too. So you get all kinds of things in there. And if you know what the cost of construction, square foot for construction of a building is, you have to remember that you're adding equipment to that too. So just a couple of things that I felt need to be added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Janet, and I think that's why I supported Mr. Kolflat's motion the way it was made, because I also talked to Amy at the break and I know that we're going to get an impact fee update on most of these categories. And so we will be able to reflect -- as even Mr. Fee indicated, we'll be able to take a look at those next year. So I think the update will tell us. And nothing's going to happen, we're not building anything, nothing's happening in the upcoming year so-- MS. VASEY: Right, we have a little time to clean up some of the stuff we need to. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think it should be noted too, and I talked with Amy -- she was talked to by everybody, I guess. Kidding aside, you know, we've been using a regression analysis and now we're going to go to an average. And two highest years. And next year you will not see a significant change downward. I don't have a problem if the motion is an evaluation. A modification I wouldn't be able to support. I would like to see an evaluation of it. And if I understand Ms. Vasey, that's already essentially been done. Did I understand you correctly that you actually, through the Productivity Committee, effectively got an evaluation of this level of service standard? MS. VASEY: That was for the jail. I jumped back to mention the jail. This one is coming. Page 60 September 23, 2009 MS. PATTERSON: It's an '09 study, so we're hoping the board's -- I'm sorry, Amy Patterson again for the record. Law enforcement was going to be an '09 study. We anticipate in November or December that the board will reset their study schedule and we'll be doing the six required '09 studies in 2010 so in time for the next AUIR. MS. VASEY: Okay, we'll take a hard look at that calculations when we get the study in. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, as long as we follow a process here, I really don't have a problem. Certainly evaluation is always working. If the cost of evaluation doesn't create additional burdens unnecessarily, that's good for me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs, then Mr. Fee. MS. DOWNS: Well, we do, productivity does work closely with impact fees and these different studies, so just to shed some light on that. I know there's frustration, and we talked about some of the frustration yesterday. The frustration is to get these calculations as true and accurate as possible. Whether it takes the fee up or down, we all want a more realistic figure. And we're required by the state to have impact fees. We had been for State Bill 360 and so far we still are. There are only two companies that I know of in the United States that do impact fee studies, Duncan and Tindale-Oliver. There are others. Those are the only two we have used. MS. PATTERSON: There are some other -- those are the two best known companies, Duncan and Tindale-Oliver. There are some other companies in California that do some. Henderson- Young Company in Washington, who the board did work with in the Nineties. However, we had a situation in the mid 200's and we no longer have a relationship with Henderson-Young. And it is currently the opinion of the county attorney that we work with a Florida company, because they understand the dynamics Page 61 September 23, 2009 with Florida and the legalizations in Florida the best, and they would prefer that we work with a Florida firm, which leaves us right now with Tindale-Oliver. MS. DOWNS: The other firm is Duncan. But they were challenged in court over the last year and lost, and so we -- the county settled with Tindale-Oliver because they have a better track record. Every impact fee has to be legally defensible, such as the CBIA should be challenging them. They do nationwide. So that was one reason the comfort level with Tindale-Oliver studies. There are thorough. Could they be more finely tuned? Like we said with Parks and Recs yesterday, I would like to see a lot more factored into the equation, if it's legally defensible. Therein lies the rub. Some of the smaller companies do not hire impact fee providers. They come up with their own figures. But that's taking a huge risk, and we're much too big of a county to do something like that. Now, they are required to be reviewed every five years, am I right? Every three years is the impact fee review. And they all don't come due at the same time on the third year. They're staggered. Now that we've had a downturn in the economy, we could go back and ask for a review on every department. And if I'm right on this, the cost of each review would be about 75, $85,000? She's saying yes. So for each department, if you wanted to review it in between that three-year time period, it's like Mr. Murray was saying, you have to adjust for the cost of doing that additional study. Now, the only thing I can see that is something we could possibly impact right now, right here goes back to the BEBR numbers. The county seemed to be justifiably quick to ask the state to move up the BEBR numbers from medium to high when we were having tremendous growth. Now that we are in a contraction, I think it's very reasonable to ask the state to drop down to the BEBR low. We're not even havinge Page 62 September 23, 2009 low growth, we're having zero growth. It doesn't mean in two years we can't go back to BEBR median. But by adopting BEBR low, it would impact every single cost that we're looking at. And I've looked at the BEBR low, median and high. Can't remember the numbers off the bat, it seemed like it was about, can you help me, 60,000 population per year? Does that sound right? Off the top of my head. MR. BOSI: Not sure. The comment that I was going to make is the BEBR population projections really don't account for the cost of your impact fees. Your impact fees are based upon your population at the time of the study and the improvements at the time of the study, so -- MS. DOWNS: But you're taking out a five. You're applying-- MR. BOSI: Right, right. MS. DOWNS: -- per population. So if you -- MR. BOSI: What the BEBR population -- MS. DOWNS: -- drop that population-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys got to both talk separately. And Mike, you need to slow down a little bit. MR. BOSI: What the BEBR population projections are utilized are for what improvements would be required over that five-year period. So you're correct in the sense that if we went to a BEBR low, it would show that the new improvements that we don't have planned within our five years that are out somewhere in that five to 10 years, they may be pushed out to the 10 to the 15 years, based upon the further reduction or decrease in population projections. If that's -- I mean, that most certainly could be a recommendation that would be contained. But the increase -- or the decrease from a BEBR high to a BEBR medium had a significant reduction in terms of what we were expecting. Page 63 September 23,2009 As you can see, as Mr. Fee pointed out, as one of the notes that were provided related to why we have so much excess space within the law enforcement was when the buildings were commissioned and authorized. For 2008 and 2009 we had projected, based upon our projections was 450,000 people. The reality turns out that that 450,000 people aren't here today. And that's why we have such excess in that space. And if we would go to the BEBR medium, we would further prevent that excess from happening. What we would potentially do is when there would be an upswing, we would be forced with bringing new improvements on quicker and without the consideration or the timing meshing with our prior plans. And that simply -- and that's a policy decision. That's a policy decision. Should we be more conservative, meaning that we expect that we're not going to grow and we're not going to do the -- we're not going to program improvements based upon the assumption that we're going to have flat growth, we're going to have no growth over a five or a 10- year period. Or should we be somewhere in the middle and think that the population may come back once the situation -- the economic situation begins to stabilize and have a population projection that is somewhat closer to what we've experienced in the past 30 to 35 years within this county. That's a policy decision. And that's most certainly a recommendation that either of the bodies can provide as part of the AUIR process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fee? MR. FEE: I don't know if the motion is for the Planning Commission or whether we would join them in that same motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you guys do your own separately. MR. FEE: We do our own. In the motion that was mentioned here, we talk about on Page 141 the recommendation. And staff puts in here there are no proj ects Page 64 September 23, 2009 in the five and 10-year planning. The motion is indicating we would change that because listed here out in year '17-'18, there's 2.2 million and in '18-'19, there's 32 million. Do you know if in last year's AUIR those two projects were listed in the approval? Are these being added this year? MR. BOSI: No, those have shown up all the way -- I'll check the 2007. I know it's in 2008. MR. FEE: Okay. So if the answer is yes, they've been in there, if you go to Page 146 where it lists the individual expansion proj ects, there's a note with four asterisks that says based on 2009 master plan update. Who hears that, and is in that actually adopted now, the master plan? Is there a Sheriffs committee or-- MR. BOSI: I would defer to Skip Camp from facilities on that question. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp. There is a master plan. And things are so dynamic right now that we asked for a master plan update last year. Things changed in six months so radically that we actually had to do an update to the update. And quite honestly, we've reviewed it with the sheriffs office. We know that the elements are valid, but when they actually come into place, we're going to be deferring those year after year, depending on the need. MR. FEE: Okay. And my question then is do we want to modify the motion to say there are proj ects in here, or do you want to modify this graph to eliminate those two projects? Because it says they're tentative in nature. If they're in some master plan, then obviously you want to put them in here 10 years out. But if they haven't actually been adopted in that master plan, if it's changing, maybe you do not want to show those. MR. CAMP: From a staff perspective they're valid projects. It's Page 65 September 23, 2009 just when are they going to actually be needed. That's the unknown. But they're valid projects, based on professional space planning. So we don't want to -- we want to make sure the projects are always addressed. When that actually happens is really unknown. MR. FEE: Okay. And then the only other point is, what Janet's saying, that you have to add capacity or expansion well ahead of when you're going to need. We do that in water treatment. You know, we have a graph that shows how many people are moving here and we have to stay ahead of that demand. And I know it's the same way with this facility. But my question would be, if you look at Page 142, when we add the planned capacity you still are in an overage. You're not requiring that amount of space. So I guess I'm just questioning -- I know that's 10 years out and who can guess, but should it actually be on there? MR. BOSI: In 2008 it was shown in the tenth year. This year we've shown it in the tenth year. And we're going to continue as the conditions remain flat, as the conditions remain as they are presented, that the need does not -- is not being triggered. The intention is to leave that in the tenth year. Because it is a project that's documented as a need within the master plan, and we want to leave it out there in the tenth year. And as the conditions warrant, we would adjust it -- we would adjust it forward. MR. FEE: And then the final, going back to the master plan, is it actually a document that has been drafted and approved that in fact it's in there? MR. CAMP: It has been drafted. Staff has reviewed it both on the board's side and the Sheriffs side. We're in concert with each other. The board hasn't seen it yet. And quite honestly, it's because things are so dynamic nothing's going to happen in the immediate Page 66 September 23,2009 future. So we're trying to make sure the environment stabilizes a little bit before we get final approval. MR. FEE: Okay. And I know I'm belaboring the point, but when that gets adopted, in fact you will see these facilities in that adopted report? MR. CAMP: Absolutely. MR. FEE: It won't be eliminated? MR. CAMP: No. They're in the report, it's just a matter of when they get done. MR. FEE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any discussion further on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Mr. Kolflat had made a motion to recommend approval of this with some stipulations. One is that the level of service standard be reviewed. And that the reference to this entitled section of police officers be more or less redefined or defined in a manner that's more accurate. I think that's a fair statement. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. And it was seconded by Donna Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and that's what I was going to-- and Ms. Caron added an addition to the motion concerning the correction to Page 141. And Donna, did you want to reconsider your -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I think all you have to do is just eliminate and 10- year. So we're approving no new proj ects in the five-year planning period. MR. BOSI: What my modification was going to be was after and it say no new projects over the five-year planning period and tentative improvements for the 10-year planning period. Or I can just eliminate the reference to the 10-year planning period. But there are tentative improvements that we put in year 10. Whatever the discretion. Page 67 September 23, 2009 COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't even think we need to go there. I mean, I don't think it's -- you know, it's not really a commitment on anybody's part, so we don't need to go that route. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that consistent then with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second seconds the-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- changes? Any further discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, isn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Isn't the bottom line here, I mean, with everything we said, we're essentially just approving using debt to pay debt, that's all we're doing today in the AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, no new changes, no nothing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's a no-brainer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm going to be voting against the motion because of my continued and persistent concern over the inaccuracies of the unit cost in today's marketplace. So I'm not changing my mind on that. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, all those in favor of the discussion, say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? Aye. Motion carries 5-1. Page 68 September 23, 2009 Does the Productivity Committee wish to take the issue up? MS. VASEY: I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval. And the level of service standard will be reviewed in the next impact fee study for law enforcement. MR. FEE: I would second that. MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. MR. FEE: Aye. MS. VASEY: Opposed? (No response.) MS. VASEY: Unanimous. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Same vote as us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up is the emergency medical services. And Chief Page. Welcome, sir. CHIEF PAGE: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services. On Page 168, I do have a change here that I was just made aware of this morning. For the total revenues, if you can adjust that to 4,714,800. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which? There's three, four -- there's several lines there. Which-- CHIEF PAGE: I'm sorry. Under revenues, total revenues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just the total number? CHIEF PAGE: Right. That total number is going to be 4,714,800. The general fund loan to make commercial paper for the debt service payments, that's actually going to be $3,859,039. So the -- at the bottom there, the additional revenues required at the level of service standard reduction, that would change to 3,750,000 instead of the 6 million, 112 that's there. Page 69 September 23, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, let's start with questions of the Emergency Medical Services, EMS. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you shook your head no, that's __ I thought you were saying I don't have any this time. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jeff, one thing. You know, we year after year mention that some of these travel times could be increased by, for example, bridges in the Estates and stuff like that. Has that been looked at this year at all? Has transportation worked with you to -- CHIEF PAGE: They always work with us. Especially any road closures, things of that nature that are either temporary or permanent. Future bridges, things of that nature, yes, they do. MR. BOSI: And to point out, as part of the East of951 Horizon Study, one of the components that came out of it from the transportation side was the actual bridge study, and the bridge study where they identified 12 locations to bridge within the Estates that were based upon the input from the individual first responders, from fire, EMS and law enforcement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And has anything gone further than that? MR. BOSI: Well, it's -- basically it's been accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, but it's accepted and can only be acted upon when funding becomes available. But other than that, there has -- that's where it stops. And I guess it's related to funding. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it didn't show up in transportation at all, in any long-range plan? No, probably, right? MR. BOSI: I believe that the long-range plan would factor in-- Page 70 September 23, 2009 would factor in the locations of the proposed bridge locations to increase the capacity within individual systems. But there's no money on board to actually schedule the improvements. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then I think my other question is, is right now some of these things are based upon support from the ALS, correct? CHIEF PAGE: The ALS engines? Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you ever lost that, how would this change? CHIEF PAGE: We had this happen once before where the City of Naples and North Naples Fire had ALS engine programs with us, and they backed out for a time period of a few years, due on staffing adjustments, things of that nature. And there was no impact, really. The fire districts would continue to respond on a first responder basis where they have automatic external defibrillators and they do CPRs. So that part wouldn't change. Whether they provide the ALS procedures or medications associated with that, typically less than one percent of the calls that we run on are actually cardiac arrests. So the significance of the impact, whether they provide the ALS portion of the protocol would not necessarily have an impact on the cardiac resuscitation rates because they would still have the defibrillator and things to actually save lives with. The medications that we provide enroute to the hospital typically are not going to have an outcome on the -- whether the patient lives or dies, it's just to provide support during the transport. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the emergency medical services? Ms. Vasey? MS. VASEY: Yes. When -- to follow up on Brad's question, when you have the ALS responding right now, do they use very many Page 71 September 23, 2009 of these procedures, the paramedic procedures and meds? CHIEF PAGE: Well, we've actually looked at it now for two years, and what we've found is that in East Naples the number of medications used prior to our arrival was down to 21. And when I say medications, that includes like aspirin, glucose, things of that nature, which really probably aren't life-saving medications. So I would have to say no, that they're not really -- there isn't any evidence that they're really doing a lot as far as the medical administration prior to our arrival. Now, when we arrive on scene, of course when we're there it's further into the call. And you've got to remember, initially there is a set protocol of, you know, taking the patient's vitals and administrating oxygen, basic life support stuff that happens well before you actually start an IV. So they make get as far as initiating an IV, but even in that case it's very rarely -- because what we've found is that 87 percent of the time one of the two of us is arriving within a minute of the other, and you just can't get that far into the protocol to really get into advanced life support. The NFP A standard put out by the fire department recommends that you have a BLS component, a basic life support component within a four-minute travel time or six minutes on scene to provide an AED response and basic life support. The ALS is an eight-minute travel time or 10-minute response to that scene. And that's when the drugs are administered. So what we're finding is they're basically getting there for the majority of the time at the same time we are, within that eight minutes travel time. And I think what the medical director is trying to focus on is perhaps having a larger component of basic life support/first responder capability to where whether you have code enforcement out on the street, if they have a pager similar to this and there's a cardiac arrest around the corner and they're having AED or automatic external defibrillator equipped, and whether it be a CA T bus or whatever, that Page 72 September 23, 2009 they actually respond to the scene as a first responder. And keep in mind that most if not all the Sheriffs Office vehicles out there on the road, and there's hundreds of them out there a day, they all have AED's now. So if you're able to capture that type of force for that initial response to a cardiac arrest to administer whether it be CPR or the shock, if it's required, that's really what's going to save lives. So I think that's where the medical director's focus is, is that initial response. And the ALS component coming somewhere down the line. So in answer to your question, we still have -- there's two districts right now. East Naples and North Naples are no longer providing the swap program to where their paramedics ride on our units. Dr. Tober had made a requirement that they ride at least one shift once every three months. And there's been a number of them that have not complied with that. He's decertified, as you've read in the paper. And we expect by the end of this month several more will be decertified to the point where right now in the agreements East Naples is supposed to provide us two ALS engines every day, 365 days a year. Today they have one. North Naples is supposed to provide seven every day. They have two up today. So that staffing's going to continue to go down. As long as they continue to not ride on our units in defiance, so to speak, those two programs will go. Now the City of Naples, the City of Marco, both those programs are in place and I think that they will continue to be so. Whether we're able to work out with the boards collectively or able to work out an agreement with north and east down the road, that remains to be seen. MS. VASEY: But even if they don't send an ALS engine, they still are sending somebody that can do that first responder? CHIEF PAGE: Absolutely. Page 73 September 23, 2009 MS. VASEY: Okay. So what they have historically done, with the exception of the 21 cases in East Naples, and you didn't say how many in North Naples, that they've been providing the actual paramedic intervention. So everything else is just going to work the same. So that's just that one small piece that's dropped. CHIEF PAGE: Sure. MS. VASEY: Okay. One of the things that we did in the master plan last year, we looked at where you were located, where your engines were -- or yours trucks were. What did we call them? CHIEF PAGE: The transport units? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ambulances. MS. VASEY: Pardon? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ambulances. MS. VASEY: Okay. An ambulance, okay. We looked at where they were located. And you were planning to put in several more actual physical stations. And we decided not to do those. Or we recommended not to and the commissioners agreed because of the ALS units. Where do we stand with those, since we didn't go forward with building those stations? CHIEF PAGE: Well, one of the things the medical director, Dr. Tober, had done is we had sent staff up to Wake County, North Carolina to look at a program that they have implemented or were getting ready to implement up there. And it utilizes advance practitioner paramedics that are above average skills that respond in a quick chase vehicle or fly car, and they'd have all the components that they would need, med boxes and such. And we have for several months now have been utilizing two to three, based on what staffing's available, of those up every day. And those quick cars actually maneuver into vacant zones as zones are vacated. They may move in to fill in as a first responder ALS unit. And that's what we've been doing with -- as these ALS engines have Page 74 September 23,2009 gone down we've actually been having -- and it's only up for 12 hours a day, I have to tell you that. But where the preponderance of calls are, it's staffed. And they continually move in and out of zones to areas that are either vacated or a serious call comes in like a cardiac arrest. They typically are the first response on the scene because they're in a much lighter car. They are actually in the vehicle all the time. They're not responding out to a truck and getting in and going. So they typically have a faster response time. So that's worked very well. And I think you'll notice, if you look at the tables in the ALS versus EMS call volume and response times, you'll see that our call volume in the urban area, because ALS engines are only in the urban area right now, you can see that that number is starting to compact to where I think there's like one to two percent difference now. But even with the ALS versus just EMS. And I think some of that is due to that MedCom activity out there. So I think that, you know, we're pretty progressive. Weare always looking for different ways to skin the cat. And if there's another way or a better way to do it, I have a number of staff below me that are always coming to me with different ideas and different ways to do things. So I think we're going to continue down that line. And certainly this MedCom program with these quick chase cars, that is working for us. MS. VASEY: And you have the cars to do that that can -- CHIEF PAGE: There were existing staff vehicles. I mean, if one of the units are down being repaired or something, they take my car. It's -- you know, everybody's car is up for grabs. So some of them came out of training and -- it's just existing cars. We had, you know, removed some of our battalion chiefs back into the field to fly on the helicopter. Well, when those cars became available, we actually took the MedCom program and used those Page 75 September 23, 2009 vehicles. So we haven't expanded anything in the number of vehicles, we're just utilizing -- or reallocating those vehicles. MS . VASEY: Do you suppose that that will -- this is like a test period that you're trying this out? Because it could really change the whole complexion of requirements under level of service standards if this becomes a way to go in the future. CHIEF PAGE: Well, it certainly is a pilot program, I'll give you that. But the challenge that I'm having is these we call them MedComs for medical commute. These guys that are in these quick fly cars, they're running three times more calls than most units, you know, that are at a station, because they're going all over the place. And then they're coming off that unit and going back on a truck and they're running the rest of the day. I'm not paying overtime to do that. So those guys are getting kind of run down a little bit. But so far, you know, because part of the -- in the pilot program we're wondering just how long would they be able to do this, you know, and still-- but they're very enthusiastic about it. They see that it is meeting a need. And so far they're continuing to do it without any additional compensation. It's not like they get an extra pay bump or anything. So as long as we're able to do that, we will. Now, another part of this is, is that the long-range plan is that, you know, as we get closer to the virus and the inoculations that are going to be required for health care and for people that are shut in at home, we see these individuals as also, if they're not running on a call, they're going to be utilized for other services. And let's say you get to the point where Dr. Tober expands their expertise to allow them to make home visits or in lieu of going to the emergency room maybe they go by and check someone out. I mean, that is the long-term goal and that's where you want to get to. But right now they're so busy running calls we just haven't got to that point. Page 76 September 23, 2009 MS. VASEY: One last quick question. Along with the station usually comes the truck, the ambulance. What -- you're the only one that can transport. You know, ALS can't transport and the units, the MedCom units, can't transport. So are you okay on transport vehicles, or is that a problem? CHIEF PAGE: Well, I will tell you that Friday I was notified by the county manager's office. North Naples has submitted the request for their own certificate or COM for an ALS license of their own. And East Naples has indicated -- I guess they've hired an attorney also to look into that. Now, so far from what I understand, it's just to provide advanced life support and non-transport. So I'm not expecting them to by transports. However, if they have a COM, they could. But as far as the units, you know, I think we addressed, actually on Page 170 and 169, the amount of replacement vehicles and how far we are behind in that replacement strategy. We're not looking to expand any stations, so that's good. However, we are looking -- I think -- well, I know that this fiscal year right now we're going to have a surplus of revenue over what was budgeted. And what we will probably be going -- I haven't talked to the board about this, but we'll probably be going back to the board and asking them if we can utilize this three or 400, $500,000 in excess revenue over what was budgeted to allow us to catch up on some of these replacements. Because we do have -- I've got one unit out there that's 13 years old with well over 250,000 miles on it. And some of these units do break down, and they break down more frequently as they age, and the potential liability is there, so we need to address it. But so far we're maintaining our own. MS. VASEY: Well, the budgets are just being approved. The final approval I guess is this week, and you already have $300,000 extra revenue? CHIEF PAGE: Well, by the end of this month, I mean, projected Page 77 September 23, 2009 right now, it will be over $300,000. MS. VASEY: Oh, that's for this year. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. MS. VASEY: Oh, okay. I'm thinking next year. It seemed like it would be hard to do that already. CHIEF PAGE: And I think we also have in the budget is to do a lease option on one of those, so -- MS. VASEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the EMS? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: On our Page 176 it's EMS equipment replacement cost. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can you help me do some math here? Down at the bottom it says the average equipment replacement cost per unit is 428,593. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: How did you get to that figure? And let me -- I'll give you the premise under which I'm working and then you can tell me where I'm wrong. But if I take your most expensive unit, which is an ALS ambulance, it's 256,200. And then you would add equipment from the top, correct? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: So if I add two portable radios, a laptop, two mobile radios, a UHF radio ambulance and a couple of pagers, two or three pagers, if I add all of that up I only come up to $281,300. I can't get to the 428. So what am I missing? CHIEF PAGE: Now, I may have to phone a friend here, okay, but let me see if I can explain it first. Page 78 September 23, 2009 If you look at the total replacement cost on the far side and you total those all up and you get that total vehicle and equipment cost. I think that if you divide that by the number of units, it gives you the average equipment. In other words, it's not just taking what's on the ambulance, it's everything else. I don't understand why it's done this way, but I think that's -- is that my explanation? Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, okay, so it's not an average per unit. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, I think that it's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's an average of all your equipment. CHIEF PAGE: Right. And that could be a boat trailer, you know. So it's not -- it's the cost of doing business. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. That's just a very odd chart and a very odd way to do it. CHIEF PAGE: I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Makes it look like we're paying, you know, close to $450,000 for something that probably -- CHIEF PAGE: That would be a fire truck. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- couldn't potentially -- yeah, couldn't get over $300,000. CHIEF PAGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fee? MR. FEE: The level of service on Page 168 mentions one unit for 16,400 population. CHIEF PAGE: Yes. MR. FEE: And obviously there was an adjustment here. And I know when we're talking about AUIR we talk about the level of service and then we also go into the cost component of it. And Commissioner Strain has voted against some of these based on the cost components. So I have some questions on this. Some of it is Page 79 September 23, 2009 probably related more to the impact fee discussion, but I might as well take the time while you're here. Underneath unit cost it says $3.2 million per new unit and then it reads 1.8 million per collocated unit -- CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. MR. FEE: -- and it has asterisk. Collocated unit is typically located in a fire station, EMS joint? Is that -- CHIEF PAGE: Well, I have a number of stations. The best example would be probably Station 22, and that's in East Naples there where we bought into 37 percent of their actual building costs. So that's collocated. And that can vary from station to station. Station 24, which is across from Fiddler's Creek -- or, no, Grey Oaks, that station is actually a three-way split between North Naples, East Naples and EMS. So there are occasions where we have -- and they have to factor in what that number is. But there are collated stations where -- in some cases where we're actually renting. In other cases we have an actual piece of the construction cost itself. MR. FEE: With that, if you go to Page 174 where it lists the existing EMS stations, you then have a column that shows leased versus owned, okay? And if I could draw you to number 43, which is a station located at Vanderbilt Drive, that would be a fire station where you collocate? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir. MR. FEE: And then down below it says for the east stations no rent is paid but rather a fixed monthly utility charge. CHIEF PAGE: In some cases. Now, there is one station in North Naples where they require us to pay 1,500 a month in rent payment. And I'm not clear on this, I didn't think you could use impact fees to build a station and then lease that out. However, most of the Page 80 September 23, 2009 stations in the agreements that we have where we're collocated and don't have a portion of it, we actually have in lieu of rent a portion of the utilities, and it's factored in based on the square footage. MR. FEE: Okay. Again, I know the discussion is the amount of units that you need per population. So some of my questions aren't going to change. I'm sorry if I'm going -- but I need to -- on your Page 1 73, individual, you have a yellow EMS proposed station and you have a blue EMS planned station. And I can see those located on this map. What is the difference between an EMS proposed station and an EMS planned station? And there's four located in North Naples: Station 73,411,45 and 49. Some are considered proposed and some are considered planned. CHIEF PAGE: Okay, just a second. MS. VASEY: Do you own some of that land? CHIEF PAGE: We have -- for the proposed station Medic 411 and Medic 73, we already have that land purchased. MR. FEE: That's the land? CHIEF PAGE: Yes. MR. FEE: Okay. CHIEF PAGE: Proposed stations, like Medic 45, that is a station that actually the county owns the land already so we're not expecting to actually have to do anything with that. But those are stations in the future. And they're actually outside of this AUIR. They wouldn't be built, I don't believe, until-- MR. FEE: Well, it says year 13 through 18. CHIEF PAGE: Yes, 13 through 18. MR. FEE: But I guess my point is you list them separately proposed and planned. And the proposed ones on this Page 174 through FY 13-14, that still seems to be -- is that in the five-year window and the planned are outside of the five-year window? Is that the only difference I'm seeing? Page 81 September 23,2009 CHIEF PAGE: That's it. Because actually we had a design in place for the proposed. The plan structures, however, have not -- initially we were looking at doing a joint station with North Naples at one of them and Heritage Bay. That plan has, you know, probably been scrapped because it's been changed so many times and things have changed so dramatically back from three years ago. MR. FEE: And maybe my final question is, if you go to Page 172 where you list the individual stations, and they're in green highlight, you've got Vanderbilt Beach Road/Logan, U.S. 41, Old 41, Goodlette, Immokalee, and Immokalee/951. Those are also listed in this list, obviously, but my question is, they all seem to be in the very North Naples area. Is that only because that's where the county is seeing the growth? CHIEF PAGE: Well, yes, it is. Because number one, we always look, and -- all the time. I mean, I can tell you every month we look at the call volumes to see where the call volume is. Now, when you're talking about planned versus proposed, things can change dramatically to where what was planned, these stations for FY '15 and FY '1 7, they may not be where we're going to be wanting to go by then. In other words, if it moves further east, those will be scrapped and will be moved. But at the time that we prepared the document, that's where we were seeing the need. MR. FEE: Okay. I think that answers what I'm looking for. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you say, Chief, that you already own the land for the Vanderbilt/Logan and the 41/01d 41? CHIEF PAGE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: In both of those situations you already own the land. Okay, thank you. Does any -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. COMMISSIONER CARON: Brad? Page 82 September 23, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's to staff. I couldn't find it, or maybe you didn't do it, but there's no staff recommendation for this one. Is there a reason for that? Are you hiding or is it just a -- MR. BOSI: No, that would be an omission by negligence on my part. There's no -- we're not shying away. We would recommend that the both advisory bodies forward a recommendation of approval as presented. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Just checking. MR. FEE: If I could make one more comment. CHIEF PAGE: You have my cell phone number. MR. FEE: Yeah, I know. The bottom line, though, on Page 168 where you talk about the unit costs, it's less expensive to have a collocated unit than to have a new unit. Is the county planning to do more collocated units so that the cost is different, or is it more beneficial to actually have them separated? I guess I go to the consolidation issue. CHIEF PAGE: Well, I'll give you an example. We had tried to get into Station 73 up there on 951 toward north, rather than go to Heritage. But the amount of rent they were requesting us to provide I think was -- I think it was 170,000 a month or, you know, totally out of my ballpark. But -- so that was a situation where we try to locate, collocate in some cases. Another example would be in Golden Gate. We've got one on 17th there right across from the library. We originally tried to add some construction to their station there. They did not want us to join them in that station, so we built across the street. So we do try, in most cases, I think in every case, to collocated. However, on the other side of it is if I'm building a new station, what I see for my need may not be the fire department's need. Because the Page 83 September 23, 2009 fire department basis their need of stations like every five miles. It's based on a fuel load, you know, where is the biggest fire going to happen, that's where I need my fire station. I know in Lee County they were looking the same thing we were trying to do. However, there is a difference. Because where the medical emergencies are may not be where the fire emergencies are. Another instance, you know, they may need to build a fire station because the water access is not available to those constituents, so they need to have in this area. That's not the same need that I have when you get into the rural areas. They may need to move a fire station because they have a number of structures out there that aren't covered by insurance. That's not my need. So it varies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of emergency medical? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is the Planning Commission ready for amotion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move we forward the emergency medical services with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be voting against the motion only because of the unit cost changes that I don't feel are necessitated by any valid study. With that in mind, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 84 September 23, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those posed? Aye. Motion carries 5-1 down. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take it up? MS. DOWNS: Productivity Committee will make the same motion. MS. VASEY: Second. MS. DOWNS: All those in favor? MR. FEE: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Passes unanimously. CHIEF PAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Chief. Next one up is our government buildings. And that would be Skip Camp. MR. JONES: Hank Jones, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Hank Jones is coming up. MR. JONES: Commissioners, I've reviewed this plan and it really shows that we're not doing any new projects within the five-year period, merely finishing up the one or two that we have still on the books that already started in the previous years. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I ask questions, I just got a statement to make, and Mr. Jones, I want to mention it to you. I've been tracking your department's costs. In 2005 you had a $307 unit cost and you went up to 514 in 2006. 2007, when things started to turn, you went down, I hope in reaction to the economic climate, to 451. Last year we went down to 352 and you maintained Page 85 September 23, 2009 that. You're the only department to do that. And I know if I were to ask Amy to explain that I'd hear some 70-year regression analysis upside down, backwards, explains it. I'm not going to ask her, but I want to congratulate you. Because your department is more in reality than the rest of the ones I've seen in this meeting since we started on Monday. And so I certainly won't have an exception in my voting in this issue with you guys. With that in mind, is there any other comments from the -- any questions from the Planning Commission? MR. CAMP: Could we just go now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wish everybody used -- whoever did your study used the same people, because we'd be a lot farther ahead in this county. Go ahead, Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: I have a question that might better be addressed to Susan, and that's I can see on your Page 190 several loans coming in for your department. I'm wondering how the interest on those loans is handled. MS. USHER: At the moment these loans are not paying -- we're not accruing interest because the impact fees are not earning interest. So -- but that is right now in a state of flux and most likely will change here very shortly. So I really can't tell you what's going to happen next month. I can't even tell you what happened in August. July all the impact fees did earn interest. So once the impact fees start earning interest, I suspect that they'll be obligated to pay the interest to the general fund and to the one-third of a mill and to solid waste. So I think there -- we're in a state of flux right now. MS. DOWNS: How long have they been interest free loans? MS. USHER: Well, some of these just started getting loans this year, '09. So whenever they started earning interest, we need to review it and we will come up with a final determination. But, you know, my gut's saying that if you don't earn interest, you're probably Page 86 September 23,2009 not going to have to pay interest. But once you start earning interest, guess what, you need to start paying us interest back too. But like I said, we're in a state of flux right now. We're not quite sure on how that all is going to get resolved here in the next couple of days. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on government buildings from anyone? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if there's no other questions, this will be the quickest one of the two days that we've had. Is there a recommendation from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. Move we forward government buildings AUIR with a recommendation of approval as -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Kolflat. Discussion. I'm not going to have an exception this time. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries unanimously. Does the Productivity Committee wish to take this up? MS. VASEY: I'll make the same motion. MR. FEE: I can second. Page 87 September 23, 2009 MS. VASEY: All those in favor? MR. FEE: Aye. MS. DOWNS: Aye. MS. VASEY: Aye. Unanimous. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Cohen and Mike, is there any issues remaining that we need to address? Are you guys satisfied with all the issues we have addressed? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. I think we have heard all of your recommendations. My task will be to consolidate these recommendations, provide the forward to Ms. Vasey of the Planning Commission's recommendations which she will edit and provide back to me so I can provide to the Board of County Commissioners. And I will provide the recommendations that the CCPC has heard for your October 15th Planning Commission hearing on the appropriate agenda plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Ms. Downs? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Downs. MS. DOWNS: I wonder when these transcripts will be available. I want to make sure we follow up on some of the requests, such as the line item on each of these impact fee funds. THE COURT REPORTER: Two weeks from today. MS. DOWNS: Two weeks from today. And they will be on-line or where will we find them? MR. BOSI: They'll be on-line. And what I can do is forward the specific link. MS. DOWNS: Would you do that, please? MR. BOSI: Sure. MS. DOWNS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 88 September 23, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think if it were possible, it would be nice to see a summary of -- or individual statements of recommendations made by the Planning Commission and the Productivity Committee to help us with continuity each year. We sometimes go through the same process again and again and again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he said we were going to do on the 15th of October. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Excuse me, I must have been in deep space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what he's providing us with. Randy? MR. COHEN: For the Productivity Committee, I know at one point you mentioned going back to the full Productivity Committee. Are you going to do that as well too and then make a recommendation as a collective body? MS. VASEY: Yes. Right now I'll be getting the information from Mike on our exact motions that we made as a sub-committee, and then we will take everything back to the Productivity Committee at our October meeting and then we'll provide a letter, that's what we normally do, that gives the full productivity position. Because right now we're acting only as a sub-committee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray needs to make a clarification. My interruption, and I apologize, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's all right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were headed in a different direction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're all striving to do the right thing. My thought was not just now, because that's logical, that's certainly desirable. But perhaps when we do the AUIR next year, a restatement of those things that were said here, those views that came out either in our motions with any stipulations or perhaps some key Page 89 September 23, 2009 element recommendations, so that we have a starting point. Because as the cast of characters changes, a lot of questions are being -- or would be asked or maybe they're not going to ask them and they should. Because it's a continuum. And it helps people to get their feet down. They can still take issue with the items, but I think it might be useful. MR. COHEN: Would you prefer both from the Planning Commission's perspective and also from the Productivity Committee's standpoint to include that in the appendix? That way you can reference those documents and have access to them. That's a good place for it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, where you put it is immaterial. The important part is that we get -- we revisit where we were, instead of trying to figure out if we really qualified that effectively. We know that something was relatable and that goes from there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I am very, very anxious to see us adjourn this meeting so I can go outside and get warm. So would someone please make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Kolflat, second by Ms. Caron. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are out of here. Page 90 September 23, 2009 MR. BOSI: Thank you. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :37 a.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 91