Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/03/2009 S (AUIR) November 3,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, November 3, 2009 AUIR MEETING LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special district as has been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Fred Coyle Jim Coletta Frank Halas Tom Henning ALSO PRESENT: Leo Ochs, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Department Manager Page 1 Special Meeting AGENDA Tuesday, November 3, 2009 9:00 a.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Tom Henning, Commissioner District 3 James Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. Page 1 November 3, 2009 LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1 :00 P.M. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES, CATEGORY "A" AND CATEGORY "B". A. AUIR OVERVIEW - MIKE BOSI B. IMPACT FEES RELATED TO THE AUIR - AMY PATTERSON C. ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT - CHIEF RODREIGEZ D. OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT - CHIEF McLAUGHLIN E. COUNTY ROADS - NORM FEDER AND NICK CASALANGUIDA F. DRAINAGE CANALS AND STRUCTURES - NORM FEDER/JERRY KURTZ/STEVE PRESTON G. POT ABLE WATER SYSTEM - JIM DELONY/PHIL GRAMATGES H. SEWER TREATMENT & COLLECTOR SYSTEMS - JIM DELONY/ PHIL GRAMATGES I. SOLID WASTE - JIM DELONY/ROY ANDERSON/ PHIL GRAMATGES J. PUBLIC SCHOOLS - ALVAH HARDY K. PARKS AND FACILITIES - MARLA RAMSEY/BARRY WILLIAMS L. COUNTY JAIL - CHIEF GREG SMITH M. LAW ENFORCEMENT - CHIEF GREG SMITH N. LIBRARY - MARILYN MATTHES/MARLA RAMSEY 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 INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383. Page 2 November 3, 2009 November 3,2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning, everyone. MR. OCHS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you all for being here this morning. And would you-all please rise and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo, I'm going to just turn it right over to you,eh? MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioner. Good morning, Commissioners. This is a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to hear the staff presentation of the 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities. Mr. Mike Bosi from your Comprehensive Planning Department will kick off the discussion this morning. Mike? MR. BOSI: Thank you, County Manager. Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning. Good morning, Commissioners. Today is the review of the Annual Update and Inventory Report, the AUIR. As far as I know, we are the only local community that has an AUIR process in place, and that is the opportunity for staff to present the level of service standards and the capital improvement programs contained to meet those level of service standards and publicly vet with the community the standards that we have created for ourselves and how we are doing to maintain those standards. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Mike, and when you talked about only community, I hate to interrupt, but I'm going to interrupt anyway and say, I noticed in here that we're also the only county in the 67 counties who has met the financially feasible title. MR. BOSI: Weare -- we are the only county that -- we were the first county to meet it. There may be a couple that have trailed along. But we are the first and we are the only one that I know of that are committed, even within this revenue environment, committed to Page 2 November 3, 2009 maintain that status of financial feasibility. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. MR. BOSI: And with that, and as a direct tie-in, the AUIR has two specific purposes, and the first purpose is for the Category A facilities, and that's transportation, drainage, water, wastewater, solid waste, parks, and now schools with the recent adoption of the public schools facility element within the Growth Management Plan. And the AUIR is the preparatory document for the annual update of the Capital Improvement Element or CIE of the Growth Management Plan, and that is the component of the Growth Management Plan that has the capital improvements for the next five years that will maintain the concurrency management system for Collier County and allow for the issuance of new development proposals and building permits to ensure that the standards that the community has set is maintained. In the updated CIE is the evaluating tool for determining concurrency for the proposed developments. So basically, this AUIR for Category A facilities will be the -- it's the blueprint for the CIE update that you will be seeing, I believe, scheduled in February, when Corby Schmidt from our comprehensive planning department will take that annual update. For the Category B facilities, which are jails, law enforcement, library, EMS, government buildings, and the dependent fire districts, the AUIR ensures that the level of service standards identified within the respective impact fees are maintained and meet the required dual rational nexus test required by Florida law related to impact fees. And as a distinction, the level of service standard contained in the impact fees are what we're maintaining. We don't -- the AUIR doesn't set the impacts fees, but we just -- we ensure that we're meeting the level of service standards that have been identified within the impact fees that justify the collection of those individual fees. The process of capital improvement programming for the county Page 3 November 3,2009 is -- it's a simple linear equation for most components of the AUIR. It's new population times -- versus your level of service standard, and that equals the capital improvements that are required within that five-year window. It's noted that public utilities and transportation have developed a more complex formula and system for maintaining the level of service standards which dictate their capital expansions. But the basic premise is the same. It's additional demand requires new improvement. New improvements is the underlying fundamental for all capital improvements that are put forward by the individual departments and divisions. This chart here -- and it was contained within your executive summary -- is the population projections. As you know, by statute we are required to -- we're required to maintain a level of service standards against the population figures that are provided to us by the University of Florida Bureau and Economic Business Research, the BEBR. And this chart here shows the population projections that we have expected to manifest over this five-year period. A good example or to accentuate the changing demand that this county has experienced is to look at the 2009, which is in red, starting in '04, which we had allocated a projection of -- by 2009 that we'd have 373,000 people. And as the years have gone by, as the conditions have changed, you see that that outward -- that number has trailed back. Basically what we -- what -- we've experienced an unprecedented level of growth that was manifested in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, and since that 2006 year we have scaled back those projections based upon the larger macroeconomic scenes and the microeconomic scenes that have been experienced within this individual market. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mike, let me stop you there, because there are two of us that wanted to ask you a question. I wanted to ask of those -- of those columns up on the top there Page 4 November 3,2009 that are not labeled, do they stand for 2004, '5, '6, '7, '8? MR. BOSI: Yeah. Those are the -- those are the out years. Those are the projection years. The 2004 estimate is the BEBR estimate for -- 2004, we'll take for example, is 292,466, the BEBR estimate for 2004. That next column over is what they are projecting for 2005,2006,2007,2008, and then 2009. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michael, the -- looking at '08, '09, it looks like the numbers are going down as far as population. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the annual percentage goes up. MR. BOSI: The growth percentage annualized from 2008 and 2009, in 2008 we had a 2.4 percent projected annual growth rate, and then 2009 we've stepped that down 1- -- 1.44 percent. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I see is in -- all right. Well, I see from 2005 in the red, 364,000 and some change. 2006, I see 373- and some change, so it's obviously going up, the population. You go from 2006 to 2007 -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Changed the BEBR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the numbers go down but the growth percentage and -- the percentages look like they're going -- still going up. Instead of a negative number, you've got a positive number. MR. BOSI: Well, in -- the percentage, the annualized growth rate, that is only -- that is only evaluating that one year. It's not comparing from the previous year. So when you see that growth rate percent annualized, that's -- that is only for that one particular year. And in between the -- you know, the 2005 to 2006, those were still growth years, and we were still experiencing, we were still projecting, from the University -- or from BEBR, they were still expecting positive and a high amount of growth. Page 5 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. BOSI: So the negative -- the numbers have been coming down. And if you look at those numbers, they're only -- and maybe I didn't articulate those enough within the presentation of this table. But that 1.4 is only for the annual growth rate for 2009 and doesn't try to compare itself against the prior years. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, is your capital facility needs based upon how much money you have or your population? MR. BOSI: Population. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. OCHS: And level of service. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And level of service, yes, thank you. So how do you project -- I'm assuming that you say to all the different divisions within the county, say, okay, here's what we got, guys. Here's how much we think that we have through permits and whatever or electric bills. So take this number and show me what your needs are. MR. BOSI: That's exactly how we do it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Show me the negative numbers. We had negative population. Show me the negative numbers that you're giving the different divisions to say, okay, here's a number, show me what your needs are. MR. BOSI: Well, in -- these are the numbers. The -- we're saying within the five-year period, within the next five years, that we're going to experience a population increase of only 24- -- of 24,000 people. The prior year before that, we said in the five-year period we were going to experience a population increase of 46,000 people. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. BOSI: So the negative number that you're referring to basically is the reduction in the terms of demand that we're saying Page 6 November 3, 2009 from year to year. And it kind of transitions into my next slide. The reason -- the manifestation of these numbers as we've presented them means that the capital improvement programs that we had in 2007 -- because we expected 75,000 additional people in the five-year period -- in the projects that and we had started, and we started the planning process. All those plans that we thought were going to come in 2009, 2010,2011, they've been pushed further and further out because the population growth we're saying that we expect now in the next five years is nowhere near what we expected just two years ago. So what you see, the negative aspect, is how the projects get pushed out because those needs aren't materialized as quickly as we once originally thought they would. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But if you have a negative -- you're having a continuing negative population, then what you have is extra capacities, right? MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the different divisions showing those extra capacities? MR. BOSI: Yes. A good example would be libraries, library space, because the south regional library and the Golden Gate expansion -- Golden Gate expansion. There's not a need based upon our population projection. There's not a need for another library to be constructed in this county till 2026, I believe. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe that's not a good example because I think that we -- we knew that we overbuilt. We knew that going in and making that. Maybe a good example would be parks and rec. or -- MR. BOSI: And parks and rec., if you look at the past AUIR, it's just the 2008 to 2007 AUIRs, projects that were scheduled to come online in 2009, this year, they've been pushed out, and they've been pushed out somewhat almost to the end of this five-year period. So you -- in each one of these components, you will see that Page 7 November 3, 2009 those projects have been pushed out based upon -- that need's not there that we once thought was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because you're not having growth. You're having -- and then you have extra capacity because your population is diminished. MR. BOSI: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: My last question -- MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on this item. What -- the census, 2010 census, how's that going to playa factor? Are you going to factor that into it, or is it just the BEBR? MR. BOSI: Well, BEBR will. BEBR works like extensively with the census bureau, and the early results will be provided to BEBR before most any other entities. And yeah, there will be sort of a -- an extra level of truing the numbers through the extensive fieldwork that's going to be done by the census bureau. So, yeah, not only within the pop- -- within the units, the vacancy rates within those units, but also within -- within the person per household allocation for the county, which is alternately a determining factor what those ultimate population projection numbers will be. So yes, they will be. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, you answered my question. I understand this a little bit more. Personally, I think it would help me if I -- we had a column that shows percentage year changes from one year to the next and then -- because, you know, when I look at this chart based upon my question, it looks like, well, wait a minute, this doesn't make sense. We've got increases of percentage but we have decreases of population. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Were you going to comment on that? MR. BOSI: What I could say -- well, and it won't help with this year's, obviously, because of the issue, but I'm glad we're able to Page 8 November 3, 2009 satisfy it. I can -- and next year I will do such -- I will do just that, show the change and the difference of the projections and you -- that's when you'll see the negative numbers where you'll see, it's much less than what was projected before. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks. That's a great suggestion. I'm glad you'll take that into consideration. When you step up to the microphone like that, does that mean you want to speak? MR. COHEN: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Randy Cohen. I want to clarify that over the five-year period of time, there isn't a negative population projection. It's increasing by 24,000 people over the five years. That 7.19 percent is the growth that's going to occur from 2009 to 2014. And that 1.44 is actually dividing that 7.1955 which shows an average annualized increase of 1.44 percent. Commissioner Henning is correct that there has been a decrease that's been occurring, and it's been occurring in the base year. If you look at the 2009 that's gone down, we've adjusted it from 2004 annually based on the BEBR -- the numbers, and that's why you see that market decrease that's occurring in the base year. And I would anticipate probably next year, with the way growth is going, we may see something similar. So it's something that we have to monitor annually. You had great wisdom in actually adopting a policy in your Comprehensive Plan that requires the annual review of our population projections and the methodology. So it-- (Phone ringing.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry. Gee. MR. COHEN: You going to get that? CHAIRMAN FIALA: I usually leave that in my car. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would everyone please turn off their cell phones? MR. COHEN: But that's a generalized explanation of the way population is handled, and we'll be taking a good look at it next year Page 9 November 3, 2009 as well. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Just to basically stay on the same -- stay on the same subject here. We also, I think, last year, went with the BEBR numbers from a high level to more of a medium level, and I think that also adjusted the count of where we are right at the present time; am I correct? MR. BOSI: Absolutely correct. And it shows a much -- a much decreased number relating to that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Compared to what we were -- we were using the more high level of a BEBR number than we are at the present time. MR. BOSI: In the early part of this decade, the high BEBR was applicable, and obviously those conditions have changed somewhat. And this kind of -- this slide tried to summarize what I hoping that table would convey, and it's based upon the success of years of downward revisions to the population projecting from BEBR. Projects within the AUIR have been pushed out to the later years. You know, capital improvements in place were under construction or expected to meet the demands of the population projected over the five-year area for most components of the AUIR with the exception of transportation and drainage, and EMS still has two additional stations that they want to put on, but those are in years four and five, and as the need and the demand determines a little bit more, the specifics ofthose will come into play. But what I will say is, this county, in these individual departments and divisions over this past decade have -- I think have responded in good turn to the demands that the population projections, the population increases that we're experiencing to meet the level of service standards. And now that we are in this decreased environment where our Page 10 November 3, 2009 projections are much lower, we are meeting our level of service standards, and the capital improvements required to maintain those are much lower than what we had experienced in the past outer years. On the 21st and the 23rd -- I'm sorry. On the 21st and the 23rd of September, the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission took a joint review of the AUIR. Both bodies offered recommendations on the Exhibit A, which are Exhibit A and Exhibit B of your executive summary -- offered individual recommendations for each component of the AUIR. The transportation and the drainage sections are the two areas where potential modifications were a suggestion. I think they were highlighted within the Exhibit A and Exhibit B from the Productivity and the Planning Commission. Additionally, both advisory bodies suggested that the level of service standard for law enforcement and how we calculate that standard be evaluated during the upcoming impact fee study, and both advisory boards recognized that the Productivity Committee would place extra attention within the review of that individual impact fee study and the level of service standard contained within. What we're asking of the board today related to the AUIR is to accept and approve the attached document as the 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities, provide staff direction for project and revenue sources for the Category A facilities to form the basis for the FY09/010 capital improvement update of the GMP. And specifically this year for schools, because it's the first year, we're asking that the board provide staff a recommendation to include the school's CIP by reference within our capital improvement update, and that's related to the public schools facilities element, and that's the action that specific element asked us to take related to schools is to adopt their already adopted CIP by reference within, to our plan. With that, that's -- that covers the overview of the AUIR and my presentation. We had on the agenda, we had an overview of impact Page 11 November 3, 2009 fees from Amy Patterson. Amy had asked -- we thought it would be better if we would just take the questions one by one instead of a big overview, just take them specifically as they come up for the individual components, if that meets the approval of the board. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Board members? Okay. All right. I've got nods. Commissioner -- MR. BOSI: So first -- oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle had a question when you were finished. And you're finished now, right? MR. BOSI: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess it's more ofa request than a statement or question, but -- although the formula is relatively simple in most cases, it can be a very complex process; otherwise, we wouldn't have all of these pages of data. And there's no doubt in my mind that the staff can justify their calculations in this document. But I would ask the staff to recognize one thing. Weare going to have another tough financial year next year and the year after that. We can already predict what that's going to be at least for next year because it's based upon this year's data. So we need to find ways to conserve money. And it does the commissioners no good, in my opinion, for the staff to try to justify the status quo or to justify anything near it. And my review of this document reveals that there has been no recommendation whatsoever in any area except perhaps in the sheriffs agency and perhaps one other that would adjust the level of service downward. When you leave us with no alternatives with respect to controlling cost, you force us into a position of raising taxes, and there is no assurance that there will be enough commissioners on this board to raise taxes again next year and again the year after. Page 12 November 3, 2009 That leaves only one alternative, and it's elimination of staff. It's all you leave us with. So I'm asking you today to please give us some recommendations about how we can save money, not how we can just postpone expenses, but how can we save money and where can we adjust level of service to achieve that goal? MR. BOSI: And I -- and I'll take that comment. And the one thing I will say as a staff member is, level of service is not something that is decided by staff only. Staff only -- only acts to maintain the level of service that's adopted by the board, because a level of service is what the board has determined -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But Mike, the board determines the level of service based upon your recommendations. And in almost all cases when we've challenged the level of service and issues in the past, the staffhas taken the position, oh, no, we've got to use this level of service. There has not been, to my knowledge, ever, when the staff has said, let's lower the level of service. And what I'm saying to you, your job is not to maintain the organization or the facilities as they currently are. It is to introduce some common sense into this process. And we know that we're already overbuilt on a number of things. We know that we do not have an increasing -- a substantially increasing population trend, at least right now. I'm just saying to you that I think some downward adjustments are necessary at this point in time to prepare us for the decisions we have to make in the future. MR. BOSI: And I will take that as advice. But I will remind the board that in the past two years, EMS and the regional -- the level of service for regional parks has been lowered in the past two successive years, so we have had instances where level of service have an adjustment. But I will -- we will take that as advisement, and as we go through the process, find out where potentially the adjustments could be made and see if it's -- it would be an acceptable reduction to the Page 13 November 3,2009 community and to the commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. In may, Mike. Going back to it, we have had reductions in the level of service over the years, so it's not true that it isn't something that staff has been working towards, and we've had recommendations in the past from the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission in some of those directions also. When we get down to it, such things as water and sewer, there's no plans to build new plants, is there? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. MR. BOSI: Not in this five-year window. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, too, we're talking about parks and recs. Is there any plans to build any more regional parks or new parks in the area in the near future? MR. BOSI: And Mr. Williams will get into that more specifically. I believe there is. And on the fourth year of the Capital Improvement Program for parks, there was an allocation for -- Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park was still contained in 2011/2012 as an outyear that's in year four of the Capital Improvement Program, but Barry will get into the specifics of that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, why don't we take everything in order, too, when the time does come. I don't want to start picking it apart. But the whole thing is is that the picture that's being painted as one of imminent disaster is we have funds that have been allocated for certain things, and they have to stay basically within that allocation to be able to go forward to move them and hold them to one side and not spend them at a time when possibly -- like for roads, for example, when the cost of materials, labor and everything is a lull. And even though the budget for roads that's there is minuscule compared to past Page 14 November 3, 2009 years, is it true that money is already allotted for like transportation? MR. BOSI: Well, transportation has their projected revenue budgets, and it's contained within a normal -- I believe we'll get into that extensively. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. Yeah, but there's a lot of thought that goes into this whole thing. So we're going to go through this piece by piece as we go through it. But everyone has to keep an open mind that it's not the case that this commission, Planning Commission, and the Productivity Committee have not weighed these factors many times in the past. They have. It's not staffs decision to make; is that correct? MR. BOSI: It's always -- I've always been of the opinion that staff does not set the level of service, but we -- as Commissioner Coyle had suggested, there can be potential options that would be provided, and I think that that would be an additional tap. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And in remember correctly, this has always been the directions that we gave you in past years, too, is always give us the options that are out there that might be a cost savings. There's nothing new with that particular option. It's something you normally present to us as a matter of course as we go through the process. Okay. But that -- I just wanted to go through that. And I don't want to be confrontational this early in the day. I'll wait till later. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, gosh. News of what's to come. MR. BOSI: And I would suggest that your advisory boards do a tremendous job oftrying to identify where those opportunities potentially could be, and try to give that full disclosure of all the discussions that we have going on. Any further questions? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes. I've got more lights on. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta was Page 15 November 3,2009 right on target there. We're the ones that direct to you, staff, what we can -- what we demand for level of service. Whether -- we're the ones that are guilty because we overbuild on libraries. The other thing that we're very touchy about is maintaining our road concurrency. And obviously there's people up in the state legislature that would love to see us fail with our concurrency, and then basically, they can dictate to us how we're going to address growth management Issues. So I think that when we proceed into this document, that we need to be mindful that there's more than just looking for ways of cutting the budget. The other thing is that I don't believe we have any other massive road building programs that are scheduled other than Oil Well Road, which basically was a DCA thing. But I think that we have to be cognizant of the fact that we've built an awful lot of infrastructure here, and we need to make sure that that infrastructure is addressed and that we maintain the level of service on that infrastructure. Too often, whether it's federal or state government, in regards to transportation funds, they felt that once they had some projects built that they no longer had to fund anything as far as maintenance. And obviously that doesn't -- doesn't work. In fact, it ends up being a failure. So I would hope that as we work through this thing, that we look at -- do due diligence on this, and areas that we can maybe look at level of service, if we in the past have made some thoughts that we needed more level of service in one area and right now we've got way too much, that we look at that with a jaundiced eye in regards to how we're going to address those issues, whether it's parks, libraries, or everything else. It could even be landscaping, looking at how we're going to save money in regards to landscaping or whatever else. Page 16 November 3, 2009 So I think everything is on the board, but I think what we need to do is look at this thing as far as the level of service goes in regards to what's here at the present time versus what the population has, and we also have to look at how we dictate to staff the direction to go. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The next on my list is Fiala. Does the law enforcement level of service reflect our reduction in crime? MR. BOSI: And I will defer to Chief Smith on that question. There has been -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I better ask it then when they come . . h? m,ng t. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. BOSI: The specifics of those connections and the decrease of force related to decrease of crime I will defer completely to him because I would not want to misspoke -- or misspeak, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. My point was essentially this: The board makes its decisions upon the data that the staff provides us and of course on our own independent research. If the staff doesn't provide us information that will help us make decisions about reductions of costs, then we're not likely to make the decisions. I will also remind the board and the staff that it was at my suggestion that the parks and rec. level of service was decreased, okay. So I fully understand that we have the right to do it. I am merely encouraging, or trying to encourage, the staff to participate in that process, and if you can find ways to save some money that you tell us and give us those kinds of alternatives. I didn't see alternatives in this document, okay. So I'd just like to encourage you to do that as we go through the process. There are a number of budgets specified in this document where Page 17 November 3,2009 the revenues depend upon general fund, a lot of money. What happens if that general fund money goes away? What do you do? What is the alternative? So, you know, I'd like to hear that today. That's what I'm saying. And I hope the staff will do that for us. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, obviously this process has historically set up the budgetary process for capital improvements. If we see that in our income through the budgetary workshops in June, can we change the level of service in our AUIR to reduce that demand for capital improvement expenditures? And I think that's -- would satisfy everybody's needs. MR. KLATZKOW: You have that prerogative. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, good. And based upon Commissioner Halas' comments, I direct you to cut out the landscaping Capital Improvement Plan out of the AUIR. MR. BOSI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let us all discuss that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is none. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not there. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. The next move? MR. BOSI: The first -- the first department to present will be Chief Rodriguez, who would be representing both the Isles of Capri as well as Ochopee Fire District. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Emilio Rodriguez, chief, Isles of Capri Fire Rescue. And basically in front of you you have our AUIR as well as Ochopee. Weare not requiring or requesting any changes to our Page 18 November 3,2009 AUIR, and I'm here to try to answer any of the questions that you-all might have with Isles of Capri as well as Ochopee Fire Rescue. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which page is this on? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm trying to find it myself. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: It's Page 201. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. There's been some talk about the state possibly partnering with your departments to put a new facility on 75; is that going anyplace? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: That is still in the works. We do not have any information yet concerning the station out at I - 7 5. There's supposed to be a meeting held with the state with Dan Summers and the chief out there, but we don't have a date set yet for that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the other question has to do with Port of the Isles, that new station or that -- excuse me -- that moving some of the resources down there haven't in any way impaired your ability to respond in the rest of the district? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. That is working very well right now. It is in place, and all of the apparatuses are in place and they are responding accordingly, and it's working out pretty well. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe this isn't the right time or place to ask this question, but is there any interest by either of the dependent fire districts to consolidate with any of the independent fire districts? Is there any benefit to that? CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Right now the way the independence is happening out there, I don't see any reason that the dependent departments would benefit. But again, the consolidation talks were halted. It hasn't gone anywhere that I'm aware of, and there are some Page 19 November 3, 2009 departments out there that are trying to introduce a shell bill, and that's what they're working on now. Our eyes and ears are open, and we're willing to look at every possibility that is out there that will benefit both of the districts that are under the county right now. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You said the consolidation talks were canceled. Was -- were they canceled by you, or were they canceled by the other -- CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: No. It just slowly went away. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. MR. RODRIGUEZ: But it is out there as far as the shell bill with a couple of the independents, so that is moving along. But other than that, I don't know of any other talks. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you very much. MR. RODRIGUEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Looks like no other questions for you, Chief. CHIEF RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Thanks, Chief. Madam Chair, that brings you to county roads. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have some speakers on this? MS. FILSON: I have two speakers on this one. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. MR. FEDER: Madam Chairman, Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: What page are you on, Norm? MR. FEDER: Right now I'm not on any page. I'm just going to give you an introduction, and I'm going to let Nick go through the exact AUIR. For the record, I'm Norman Feder, transportation administrator. I think the discussion you've had this morning is very good. Page 20 November 3,2009 Commissioner Coyle is very accurate in saying that staff needs to provide options. We also need to identify implications. And the board is the one that needs to give us direction. I think also Commissioner Henning's comments were very appropriate in that we need to recognize what we're working on today. Now, while we recognize that, we shouldn't abandon the fact-- MR. OCHS: Norman, excuse me. The board asked what page we're on. We're on Page 21, ma'am, under your Category A tab. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, thanks. MR. OCHS: 20 and 21, county roads. MR. FEDER: Okay. And Commissioner Henning's comment was also very appropriate in putting the AUIR into perspective. While we need to recognize that we are -- have been and continue to be in a revenue shortfall situation, that we need to respond to -- and we definitely need to be addressing that every time that we have an issue come up. In the AUIR, we're taking where we are at the current income streams, taking a snapshot in time of what we have out there based on our level of service and reviewing that with the board as to whether or not we meet our own established level of service and concurrency issues for submission to DCA and Tallahassee to continue, in the case of transportation, our realtime concurrency. And I make that distinction because while I appreciate -- and I know we'll be talking today about what are the implications particularly for general revenue funding in transportation -- your Productivity Committee and Janet, who we've worked with quite a bit throughout the years on this, has raised that issue, and reasonably so. But at the same time I'll submit to you that we're one month into our current' 1 0 budget. We seem to want to not only adopt a FY09 AUIR, but an FY11 budget and an FYI 0 AUIR. I think we need to take them into account, but I think today we're addressing adopting an FY09 AUIR for submittal to DCA in Tallahassee. Again, I think Commissioner Coyle's right that we need to look at Page 21 November 3, 2009 what we're doing and we need to look at options. Last budget cycle, which we're going to go from AUIR through budget and CIE and refinement of this AUIR and projects in it, but last budget cycle we had 1.8 million that we were offered up for landscaping. I have a strong commitment to landscaping. Commissioner Henning said, let's zero it out, and it is zeroed out. We've taken those actions. But I think it's important to note that we said we don't have the maintenance funds for it. Commissioner Halas raised that. And so we said, let's not take the capital because we don't have the maintenance nor the prospect. Well, we did it, now we're below on capital, and we're trying to figure out how to manage within our current budget. So we do need to look at these issues. We do need to give you options. We need to also identify implications. I'll be very brief to let Nick go into the specifics starting on Page 21, but I need to call your attention to basically the income stream that transportation's been facing. As you can see in here, that graphic shows you our three sources of revenue. The top line, which one time was our major source of funding, is impact fees; the middle line is showing you where we have been on gas taxes, which are stepping down; and the bottom line is ad valorem, which was originally about 24 million a year, 14-something of that being debt service and the balance being the remainder of the dollars to meet the backlog, which we came to in 2000. In the early 19 hundred -- 1990s, we faced a savings and loan crises, money was hard to get, mortgages were hard to get. Things slowed down. We didn't build for a while, and it took us five years of not building projects, about nine years to build our way out of it. It takes longer to build out. That's an implication, but it still has to be founded in reality. You look at the revenue sources we have here, you can see, our impact Page 22 November 3, 2009 fees have fallen off the table. After growing substantially, in '07 they are down to 13 million. As well, our general fund and our gas taxes have gone down. As we talk about the general fund itself, and this prospect, what we've experienced since the '06 AUIR, 2007, when you saw that peak on all the funding streams, since that time, our success of AUIRs, therefore CIEs and budget, have reduced quite a few projects. I bring this up only to identify for you that we are coming with solutions as we go through this. We're going to move our program out. As we get tighter and tighter on budget, we're finding that we're reducing scopes of projects, going to major intersection work and other issues to try and meet our concurrency to try and keep our realtime concurrency something approved by DCA. We look at what we have in revenue stream on general funds, and it's -- 22.2 million is the most recent. We had it at 23, but it's gone down. We did year end again. This AUIR starts up in April, May, as a development item. You'll hear that since then we even presented to your committees and then reduced another 5 million of our impact fees to recognize what we saw year end of '08 on impact fees. So basically on the ad valorem we're 22. Of that, 3.7 million is coming to us as return of interest. A good portion of that is impact fee interest. There's some on gas tax and the revenues. If you take that out, that leaves us 18,5-, the debt service is 14,6-. That leaves us 3.9 million that actually relates to what Productivity Committee is raising, and that is beyond the debt service to pull out. A statement was made, well, I can use that 3.7 that is interest returned possibly to cover some of the debt service. At least the impact fee portions of that cannot be used because that debt service and the moneys we're receiving in general fund were to address the backlog, so that when I use impact fees on projects, I'm not illegal by using impact fees on backlog facilities. So that's one of the reasons or implications in what we're doing here. Page 23 November 3,2009 And so that 3.9 is really only the dollars that may be available, and I put that up as an option for you to consider. We're going to go through what the impacts of that would be, and that you need to consider as well. Does that push us into a 10- and 15-year concurrency with DCA? Does that then push us into the prospects of by zone or by area concurrency backlog authorities? Now, having said that, are there things we can do? The commissioner's right, we're at reduced staffing levels. We cannot afford to impact staff further. So we understand that we're part of the solution. We've been previously, as I've tried to point out to you in projects. We'll continue to be part of that solution. The only thing I'm raising to you is we're adopting an FY09 AUIR. We have nothing in our second and third years for construction, pretty much as the board has instructed us in the past. Also it relates to the fact that we have to save up money after the current budget to be able to do projects out in year four and five. While we can take those reductions in years two and three, we need to find the revenue stream to come back in four and five; otherwise, those projects get further moved out and our concurrency issues for real time at least become questionable with DCA. So that's to give you some options, some implications, and I'll ask Nick to go through the AUIR. And of course, we're available for any questions that you have. Thank you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just ask a question about that slide? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we put that back up very quickly, just so I understand what you're saying to us. This is a fiscal year 2010 budget. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You say we're working on an -- Page 24 November 3,2009 2009 AUIR so when you talk about three years or four years out, are you talking about three years or four years out from the FY09 AUIR or from the FY20 1 0 budget? MR. FEDER: The FY09 AUIR. Its first fiscal year is FYlO, which is budgeted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. FEDER: So when I'm talking about second and third year, I'm talking about FY11 and '12 -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: And '12. MR. FEDER: -- the two -- next two budgets that are -- we need to be preparing for, and I understand that's part of the discussions today. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I see here some figures that don't really correspond -- well, maybe they do. Your figures on Page 21 show 118,000, but that's for four years. MR. FEDER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And is it four years -- it's not really four years times the 18 million 554, so what is it four years' time? MR. FEDER: This is one -- one year, let's say '11. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MR. FEDER: It's assumed the cost -- when we do the AUIR, when we have an approved budget, we look at that across the board and adjust to some degree what we maybe see. But essentially this is one year. We've been provided the debt service of about 14.6. Our total general fund coming to capital is 22.2. The difference is about 7.6. What we're pointing out is 3.7 of that is interest that came back to us so, therefore, about 3.9 is general fund that's not either debt service or interest that came back. It's actual general fund to our program, given that now interest is coming back specifically to the fund that it was generated in instead of going generally to the general fund and Page 25 November 3, 2009 then all of it coming to us is general fund. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But that doesn't answer my question. MR. FEDER: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's start with the $116 million in your AUIR summary form. That's for four years. MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if we divide that by four, we're -- MR. FEDER: Well, that's all five. It's including the current year, so it's by five. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, it's five years. MR. FEDER: Five years. MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that's roughly, what, $25 million -- MR. FEDER: Twenty-three-point-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- a year, 23 to $24 million a year? MR. FEDER: 2.334, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So at this point in time, you're estimating $22 million in total general fund and interest transfer to transportation? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're assuming at the very least a level commitment for general fund over the remaining five years of the AUIR? MR. FEDER: At this point, yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Actually you're looking at a little increase over that period of time. MR. FEDER: Well, considering the level fund, yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But what happens to you ifthere is a reduction in general fund availability of, let's say, 15 percent over Page 26 November 3, 2009 the next two years? MR. FEDER: Again, we have already started looking at that. We would then go to modifications of scope on proj ects, doing intersection as opposed to the full segment. We would move projects out as we have to, and we have that opportunity. At the AUIR now, you've made an assumption based on our current stream of revenues. If, in fact, we have reductions before we get to the CIE, we'll have budget directions, we'll make changes and we'll make those in our CIE, and they become the basis ofFYlO AUIR. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're telling me that you can, in fact, respond to a substantial reduction in general fund transfer -- MR. FEDER: It has implications, but of course we can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to transportation? MR. FEDER: Whatever you give us for funds, we'll make it work as best we can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it will not interfere with your debt service obligations. MR. FEDER: If it's beyond 3.9, then on the capital program, it would, and that's what I'm pointing to you here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the reduction is more than 3.9 million per year? MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you can plan on it being more than 3.9 million per year. So now what is our alternative? MR. FEDER: Then we have to cut further into our operations and any support there that we get from general fund. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And what are the opportunities for doing that? MR. FEDER: I'll have to get the budget information to you, Commissioner, but obviously then I'm hitting staff, I'm hitting some of Page 27 November 3, 2009 my resurfacing, striping, and those type of operational issues back to the maintenance which we, unfortunately, are backlogged and growing backlogging as well. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I won't go much further, but I just want to get a feel for this because -- MR. FEDER: I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we've got to understand how we service the debt. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we've got $3.9 million that is critical to servicing the debt, if you don't get it, you have to start cutting operating costs, which is going to be very, very difficult. MR. FEDER: No. The 3.9 is beyond the service of the debt. I don't want to confuse you here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you say beyond, does it mean -- is it a deficit or is it an excess? MR. FEDER: What you have here in general fund coming to capital is 22 million. I have, of that 22.2 million, 3.7 of it is coming as interest back directly to the account. So I've got 18.5 or almost 18.6 that is coming in general fund revenue directly to capital, transportation capital. In take out the 14.6 that is the debt service, it leaves 3.9 that is above and beyond debt service. That would be the first place that I'd look at a reduction into that scenario that you've noted to me. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you actually have an excess? MR. FEDER: Beyond debt service, yes. Beyond need and concurrency and implications, that's something we can discuss further. But beyond debt service, yes, I do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you get into the project by project? Page 28 November 3, 2009 MR. FEDER: Not yet. I was letting Nick go into the AUIR, and then we'll be open to questions, but I'll be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, I'll wait. MR. FEDER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Mr. Klatzkow, with transportation, if we determine that our ad valorem is not coming in, we can change the AUIR during the budget process? MR. KLATZKOW: You may have to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, we may have to. But are we going to nm into a foul with the DCA, Department of Community MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just going to say this as a generality. Right now the state's hemorrhaging money. They are acutely aware of their budgetary shortfalls. I can't imagine they're going to be strict with counties at this point in time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, but -- the development community, could they put pressure on to make us comply with the AUIR, or can we have a midyear adjustment in AUIR? MR. CASALANGUIDA: In can answer that, Commissioner. Nick Casalanguida with transportation. It's your CIE that will get adjusted as well as your budget. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And yes, you can. You can provide an update to that. And we can still meet concurrency. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You know, I understand where Commissioner Coyle's coming from. It gets down to either fish or cut bait during the budget process. So I'm not -- understand the concerns, but I'm not sure if -- I think we all need to be aware of what the potentials are coming down the road, that's all. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, you had said Page 29 November 3, 2009 something about you would reserve your other questions for afterwards, so I've kept your name on the list. Is that okay or did you COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm glad I'm on your list. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just briefly make another point. The reason this is important is if we pass this AUIR and we get into the budget hearings and we have to make decisions that will impact the AUIR, we will then be working with a revision to the FY09 AUIR, and we'll be right in the middle of the AUIR for '10. Now, which one are we going to be able to -- how will we make the change? MR. FEDER: First of all, if you pass this AUIR, you'll have no construction, no major projects in fiscal year '11, which would be the budget year, or in '12, the following year. We would then make that reduction. It would have impacts initially. But if we make it into the upcoming AUIR and we assume that across -- Nick will go through what those implications are -- but we make those adjustments, it goes into our CIE, and it goes into the FYlO AUIR. So you make the adjustments as they come. So we have the ability to respond. I showed you in general fund where -- basically the dollars. We have the ability to respond. And the thing I put up on the overhead was just to show you that since, successively, our AUIRs -- because our revenue stream since '7, as I pointed out to you, dropped dramatically, the biggest being impact fees, we've had to, every time, reassess our five-year revenue stream, modify projects -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I really just want to understand the timing. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: When are you going to do the Page 30 November 3, 2009 FYlO AUIR? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The same time next year about this time. But your CIE, to answer your question very -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: After the FY11 budget has already been established? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir. But your CIE is your driving document. So to answer your question, if you adopt this AUIR as is, you have every opportunity to make an adjustment to the budget and the following CIE, and we can respond to that. So nothing you adopt today sets in anything in motion that we can't adjust later on. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it will not be impacted by the upcoming FY11 budget considerations? It would be impacted by the budget considerations for FY11? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely, absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we'll have no problem from the standpoint of timing to get that done? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir; no, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Nick, go ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good morning, Commissioners. Let's get back to where we were. Okay. Your AUIR, it's a snapshot in time, as Mr. Feder pointed out. It's a valuation of your existing condition against the adopted level of service. It's not typically for -- when we say existing conditions, we talk about maintaining. It's compared against the level of service but not really against conditions on road pavement or bridges or anything like that. But more and more, I think we're going to be coming to this board and talking about that because that's something you're going to want to know about because it does affect your budget going forward. You've already discussed the AUIR is tied into your CIE and tied Page 31 November 3,2009 into your budget. Your AUIR is your planning tool that leads to your CIE, which is your programming tool, which then goes and drives your budget. At any point in that cycle, that one-year transportation project cycle, you can make an adjustment and we can respond to that. So it's not what you decide today locks you into your CIE which locks you into your budget, you know. So we can work on that as we go forward. In one of your exhibits is our AUIR five-year revenues 2008 versus 2009. As you can see the difference; 467 million versus 331 million. And at the bottom chart, the colors don't correspond, but they talk about specific revenue collections per different fee or fund. Impact fees showing one with the pie charts going down, the gas taxes trending down, the general fund trending down. We have been successful in grants and reimbursements. We've-- one of the projects, Davis Boulevard that we're starting this year, has $20 million payback starting in fiscal year' 1 0, so that comes back to us. The commercial paper loan we did not take advantage of, and I think that was prudent based on our part. This is a slide that Mr. Feder showed you earlier, and it talks about our revenue projections and trends. One thing we've done, when we started the AUIR approximately four months ago, we were showing about $18 million in annual projections and impact fees. The documents went out, we got in front of the Planning Commission, and we took a step back and we said, we just closed our yearend books. We are not trending in 18. We are about 13. And 13 is probably slightly optimistic as well, too. So we revised our document at that point in time to 12-and-a-halfmillion dollars in your first coming year. Attachment B talks about the conditions that you have on the road. And a couple things you need to consider. We had a 10 percent Page 32 November 3,2009 reduction in roadway travel in 2008 compared to 3.7 percent in 2009. We are experiencing stabilizing traffic volumes. We don't expect another significant reduction next year. And why it may not mirror your populations is, what you're seeing as well, too, is the service industry reduces their trips. If you take a plumber, for instance, he may have been doing 12 or 15 service calls two or three years ago. He may be doing only two now, so he's not getting picked up in that traffic as well, too. We're still under the gun for high vacancy rates. And we do sampling through NABOR. We take some citizen polls. We talked to some HOAs. You're seeing 20 to 30 percent vacancy rates, and that's important to recognize, because unlike back in the '80s when you had the savings and loan crisis, you didn't have that high of a vacancy rate back then. You had a credit crunch. So as this credit crunch starts to loosen up and things turn, the vacant units will be the first to be picked up. And that's where you're going to get those traffic counts coming back. And Commissioner Coyle specifically pointed out last year, he'd blame it specifically on me. I think that's what you said, Commissioner Coyle. It would be my fault. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I wanted to point that out to you. I'm still going to bring it up so I can cover my -- cover myself here. O&M continues to increase. When you look at attachment C, that is a legend that gives you a breakdown on the far right of what increases and what decreases and what's under construction. If you look at the graphic, you can see that Vanderbilt Beach Road experienced increase in traffic. Well, it's not that -- as much that more traffic was in the area. It's just we opened that up to service. And what was going on in different areas now goes back to it. And if you look -- there's no big numbers across the board, and Page 33 November 3, 2009 there's no big decreases across the board except for Bonita Beach Road in the northwest corner. You're not seeing that dramatic swing anymore in the county of increase or decrease. It's starting to stabilize throughout the county as it goes right now. This is your existing and projected deficiencies, we'll swing around the whole county as we look at this map. We have Old u.s. 41 in the northwest corner, and currently the developer at that corner is doing intersection improvements that should alleviate that issue over there. As you slide down to Vanderbilt Beach Road, the county has a project-ready construction in 2010. We'll expand six lanes from Airport Road west approximately a mile and a half to two miles. If you go north and east a little bit to I - 7 5 and Immokalee, and the red and orange is being taken care of by the state project that we're happy to report hopefully will be open in the next three months. As you slide farther east to northeast up to Oil Well Road, we're expecting to open bids on those projects within the next 30 days and have that out the door under construction. You slide south to Golden Gate Boulevard, although it's marginally deficient, it is deficient, and we are going to be construction ready in 2011 -- 2013, correction. Commissioner, you had asked about making modifications. Rather than doing the whole boulevard or any other project in there, you can go back, as Hillsborough County had done, and allocated their limiting funding to intersection improvements. That did give them the acceptable level of service and maintained concurrency. So we're able to do that and still get the project construction ready. As you slide west, you have Collier Boulevard. Projected deficient in 2011. Happy to report, staff has about $9 million in trip grants we've received for that project, and that is moving forward for right-of-way acquisition and design right now. As you slide south, you look at 951 and Davis. That is right now Page 34 November 3,2009 going through a court hearing for taking. It will be construction ready in the next couple months, and we look forward to putting that project forward. Southwest of that is Davis Boulevard, the second phase with the state. They still have it in their program in 2011, and expect them to keep that. They've made that a promise to the county, and so far they haven't pulled it out of their estimates, nor their program. As you slide south, you see u.s. 41 and 951. We have that developer contribution agreement that was adopted, and the state is taking care of 41 to the east in terms of design, but no program construction. These are the projects identified in 11 through 14. And can you see we've pretty much covered all the deficiencies that we have in the county for the road program. One thing to note, Golden Gate Boulevard we expect in '15 or '16, assuming the current revenue budget stream. And obviously, as we've discussed, if that changes, that time line can change as well, too. This is the slide you had up previous, and it talked about available funds to transportation. Right now you have approximately $3.9 million as we go through this budget process that we either can plan for in contingencies or adjust scope that we can work with the board on. The Productivity Committee requested an impact analysis of the following: Elimination of ad valorem support above debt service, what would be impacts, also reduction of millage rate from .15 to .1 mills. The five projects there in red -- they're supposed to come up individually because they're in priority order -- but Valewood would be the first at the north part of the county that would be eliminated as we started reducing influx of general fund if it happened that way, or if impact fee revenues start to decline. Your second project would be Santa Barbara. Your third would Page 35 November 3, 2009 be Collier south as well as Golden Gate Boulevard, not having a definite fiscal year or even pushed out even farther. So, again, in order of what would happen, it would be Valewood first, Santa Barbara second, Collier south, and then Golden Gate Boulevard. Deferred capital projects, increased maintenance obligation. I think it's important to note, most of the projects you saw on that sketch have maintenance issues today. Santa Barbara has drainage, sidewalk and deteriorating pavement, as well as Collier Boulevard, as well as Golden Gate Boulevard. The risk that you run is you spend several million dollars resurfacing, adjusting the drainage, and making repairs that would throwaway if you didn't do the capital program. Now, I realize that may be required, but that's something you need to consider when you look at some ofthese projects. Maintenance obligations. It's increasing every year. And if you look at these slides, what was happening in the past -- and I think this was brought up when we went through the budget, is there was a time where the developers or the contractors actually took care of roads as we were going through capital. If you look at the north, northwest, the top left bar chart there, as the contractors start to fade off some of our programs, that goes to county maintenance. Less and less lane miles are being maintained by contractors and more by county staff, as well as your number of maintenance road employees have dropped significantly as your operations have as well, too. You need to look at some of these, because I think you'll find them interesting as you consider some of your AUIR and budget conditions. These are some of the SPAN beams, and there's more than one of them in the county. I know Jay has been successful in establishing a bridge program, and he's working on maintaining that through the five-year Capital Improvement Element. This is Livingston Road, a road that's only six or seven years old. This is only one location where you're seeing deteriorating pavement Page 36 November 3, 2009 conditions as well, too. It was asked what the shelf life of our roads are. Your arterials typically nm six to eight years, and there are other roads that we nm about 12 to 15 years. More and more of our roads are starting to get in this condition. I mean, when you consider Livingston wasn't done that long ago, you're looking at resurfacing as well, too. This gives you a section that was done and then a section to the east that wasn't done to the right. You can see the pavement markings and the roadbed is starting to deteriorate as well, too. And that's on Collier Boulevard. These are sections of Santa Barbara and Collier. And now we get into stormwater as well. I've spoken to Clarence Tears at the basin. We have a five-year stormwater plan where right now it's primarily focused on LASIP. You have to consider that there's the Gateway Triangle as shown, Immokalee, and Golden Gate City. Each of those three areas right now is not -- is in the current AUIR, is starting to come into capital in terms of, Immokalee has a master plan. Golden Gate City, some of the outlets and the Gateway Triangle. If you reduce that stormwater millage down to .1, you'll, in fact, be eliminating that outside capital program. Those places will not get any attention, because the funds will have to stay on NPDES, maintenance, and LASIP. That said, I think it's something to consider. We did this analysis to give you a feel for the taxable value per hundred thousand. So per hundred thousand of taxable value to fund the $18.55 million of transportation, it's 26.33 annually, $26.33. So a home of $300,000 is looking at a tax burden of$75 annually to maintain that level of service. And that's something you really need to consider as we go through the AUIR. Now, that said, I could have left out those slides because, again, you've asked the question up front of this, can you go back later on and modify it? The answer is yes. If you find yourself in a position when Page 37 November 3, 2009 we get to budget with a 15 or 20 percent cut, we will adjust the scope of our program to meet that demand. With that, I'll answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have two speakers, so why don't we call the speakers right now. MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Janet Vasey. She'll be followed by Bill Poteet. MS. VASEY: Good morning, Commissioners. Janet Vasey, for the record. I'm here not as a personal speaker. I'm here to explain anything that you want to talk about on the Productivity Committee's analysis. I think you have a copy of our letter. And if you have any questions, I can answer those. In general, I wanted to provide the framework for how we reviewed the program, and that is, we looked at it from a point of view of affordability. This last year when property taxes dropped 11 percent, it was a cut of $30 million in property tax revenues. People are generally talking now about a 15 percent reduction in FY11. If that's the case, you're talking about another 30 million to $35 million. So you have to -- you have to really look very hard at what you're spending in construction on all these facilities. The real money in the -- in your AUIR is in roads and stormwater. So you really -- so that's where we concentrated our efforts. We did challenge the money that's being spent from the general fund, and it's -- it's $8.5 million a year over the debt service. $8.5 million a year times four years is, I hope, $34 million. And then I'll get to the stormwater later, but we were trying to get a couple of million out of that by dropping -- by seeing if it's possible to drop the millage rate from .15 to .10. In that case you might be able to pick up 3 million, two-and-a-half, $3 million. So what we were trying to give you is an opportunity to really look hard at a $10 million savings in each one of those years. Page 38 November 3,2009 Basically -- Sue, would you go ahead and hand out those -- do I have a little more time to talk? MS. FILSON: Yeah, that was your one-minute warning. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. MS. VASEY: Okay. I wanted you to take a look at what we were looking at. Things keep changing, and so what I've got here is kind of a rough view of what we looked at in the Productivity Committee and what actually changed. And Nick did a really good job of showing you what it is in terms of the roads that are affected. I wanted to show you where the money -- where the money is being affected. And you can see, I'd like to talk about first FY11 and '12. And while it's kind of handwritten, when we reviewed it in the Productivity Committee, we looked at the -- Norm's proposal on one side and what it is if we took the 8.5 out of every year on another page side by side. So I tried to just show you what this looks like all on one page. And in FY11, you take about a million dollars out of Vanderbilt Beach and Golden Gate Boulevard and just push it over to FY12. Very simple, probably not a big deal. You do take that Northbrooke funding out, 2.3 million. In '11 down at the contingency level, you take a million out and a million out of repairs. And just, you know, in general, looking at '11, you've taken about $6 million out, and then in '12 you put 3.5 back. So what we were looking at was minor changes in '11 and '12. Where you see the changes occurring is in '13 and '14. And there in '13, your Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate to Green moves the 27 million from '13 to '14; and then in '14, Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate -- north Golden Gate Canal to Green moves 31 million out of' 14 and is probably fundable in '15. And then the Santa Barbara, Green Leafto Green, goes out and probably is not affordable in '15, unless you start restoring money. And this is another thing. We looked at taking 8.5 million out in Page 39 November 3,2009 each one of the four years, but I don't think anybody on the committee felt that that would be necessary in every one of the four years. You know, you're in FYlO now and it's still bad, '11 looks bad, '12 is probably going to hopefully be getting better, by '13 money probably could be restored. You know, nobody knows, but it's unlikely that you would really need 8.5 out of every one of these years. But this is the impact, and you can see, it just slides the road construction. It doesn't get rid of it. It just kind of slides it out a year. And we thought that that was a fairly decent tradeoff for saving, in this case, what we were looking at was the $8.5 million against a potential 35 to -- 30- to $35 million bogey in '11, in FYI!. Now, I don't know if it's going to be a legal opinion that some of that interest -- you know, in the past it was never an issue. The interest money from the impact fees was run through the Clerk of Courts, came back to the county general fund, and then went back into the programs, so it was never identified as interest being returned. Now, I don't know ifthere's going to be a legal issue that that money cannot be used -- cannot be withdrawn or what. I mean, that's going to have to be, I guess, a legal opinion. But the way we were looking at it, we were looking at taking the 8.5 out of each year. And in no way does this mean that we don't think the road programs are valid or need to be done, but we thought it wasn't a bad idea to look at letting them slip. We offered -- another possible recommendation is to look at bonding. If you simply can't live with that kind of a cut, I believe you still have some bonding authority left under your 13 percent rule, debt rule. You were going to do it $50 million a year or two ago and didn't, so there may be some of that left. But that wasn't our main recommendation. That's just if you can't live with a cut to the program. But we felt like, you know, the whole AUIR is affordability. That's what we're looking at, and it's not affordable. It's not affordable Page 40 November 3, 2009 at least for the next few years. And -- so we really wanted you to come to terms with that. We're not -- you know, you're the ones that have to decide, but we wanted to present this to you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks, Janet. MS. VASEY: You're welcome. MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Bill Poteet. MR. POTEET: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bill Poteet, and I'm here representing the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. And we want to talk on behalf ofMr. Feder's proposal for the funding of the AUIR for transportation. We agree and concur with him that it's necessary, and we do it for a couple reasons. First of all, this commission's done some really wonderful things over the last ten years. You built a jail, you built a courthouse, we have a courthouse annex going on right now. You started the Collier Transit System, you have North Naples Regional Park, Freedom Park, and now you're going to have the new emergency management facilities that you're going to dedicate in a few weeks. These are all really good things, but your legacy as a board has been transportation. You took on a nightmare about nine years ago and made a commitment to make Collier County a place that you can actually get to someplace in a reasonable length of time, that the workers, your workforce, from out in the county could get into the city and not have to drive an hour every day to get there, and you accomplished most of this, but there's still work that needs to be done. There's still pockets of transportation that need to be fixed. Our personal one is Santa Barbara. As you heard on the plan, if you diminish the funds there, Santa Barbara goes away. We've come before you on numerous times telling you that, you know, this is an issue not just for transportation but for our entire community because it creates a blight on our community, but there's other areas that need that. The Golden Gate Boulevard that goes from Wilson out to Page 41 November 3,2009 Everglades. I would hate to drive that every day. I mean, it's just -- it bogs down every morning. So I -- if you do anything that's important as a commission, it is to put your emphasis on transportation because it's the one thing that will affect the entire community. It is the one thing that impacts everyone's daily life. And I do remember sitting on Airport Road at Golden Gate Parkway trying to get through that intersection, and it took me at least eight to ten lights before we could get through that. And you folks went through an awful lot of heartburn when you made these transportation decisions. I remember all the discussion on the flyover. And today if you go out there, I don't think you'll find many people that will object to the flyover. It has been a wonderful addition to this community. And I just ask you to keep your commitment to transportation and make our county the type of county that is worth being -- worth to be lived in (sic). Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks, Bill. MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Norm? MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. As a follow-up to Janet's, obviously that's what we've told you. We will adjust. If we hear we have dollar reductions, we move projects, but it has implications. First of all, what's been identified here is an assumption that if you move it out of the current fifth year in here, fiscal year '14, that you can somehow address it in '15 or, ifnot, in'16. What you have in this program right here, we showed you one of your current deficiencies. Deficiency today is Golden Gate Boulevard. That project is set in this program, ifit stayed as it were, to go into '15 because of its cost factor. It would have actually gone before -- excuse Page 42 November 3, 2009 me -- but -- before Santa Barbara as far as this concurrency need, but it was considerably more moneys then we were able to balance with Santa Barbara and with this level of revenue stream. And so it's already in '15. So when you move the Collier out, it moves out past '15 to '16, then Santa Barbara moves further out. And reality is, you go through with the cost of the projects, you're about 2022 in reduce as the stream is recommended here, 8.5. Now what I think we've shown you is, again, we start this process earlier on before we get yearend numbers and other issues. We're about 7.6 beyond the debt service. It's not 8.5. And a portion of that is interest. And the understanding we have is at least the impact fee portion of that interest I can't use because I'd be covering backlog with impact fees. But that, again, can be evaluated by the board, and whatever direction we get. But I just want to make sure that you understand, we're not here to you today to tell you we can't address or we won't respond to changes. I think we've shown that in our AUIRs previously. We've shown it in reduction in projects that we've been having for the last three years. The process is to look at the revenue stream that we have now, try to develop a program, say, can we meet our level of service. Again, I need to point out, our level of service is E, which is about as low as you can get. Plus we set it on 250th highest hour, which means where about ten months out of the year we're not taking the two highest months. So we didn't set a high level of service and then say, we want to meet that. Our level of service has been down to, as I'll say, board-approved acceptable level of service, and we've been trying to hold to that. The implications are greater than just the prospect of a one-year delay. Are the prospects of funding shortfall real that will have to be addressed? We'll hear that during budget guidance, we'll have to Page 43 November 3, 2009 respond to that in our CIE, and then it will be incorporated in future AUIRs as the process continues. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Collier Boulevard, didn't we see -- receive state moneys for that between -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: All the northern sections of Collier have trip grants on them, planned, under construction, completed, and programmed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the book it's highlighted as red. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be one of those that would have to be deferred in order. You would lose that grant, so we'd have to go back to the MPO. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you recommending to defer that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, not recommending at all to defer it. What I would ask, for a change in scope from the MPOs to see if we could keep the money there. As I'd mentioned to Commissioner Coyle, if we had to shrink the project, first thing I'd ask from the MPO is the concurrence, and obviously DOT as well, too. It's a joint MPO decision, the trip grants. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other question, I'm sure you're doing trip-by-trip traffic counts? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. All the concurrency segments are counted on the four corridors. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is -- I mean, that would be something to consider if we do need to reduce the program is, where's the least impact if we need to do that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Impact compared to deficiency, that's right, sir. That's what we would do. And, again, as we pointed out, I think we'd look at scope. It's not something we want to do, because your cost to benefit of doing a project decreases when you just do the Page 44 November 3, 2009 intersection. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: But we would look at reducing the scope of the projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, sometimes you got to do what you got do. Right, Sue? Right? MS. FILSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, the last nine years, eight of them this commission recognized roads as the number one priority. And I appreciate Bill Poteet's comments about legacy. It is. You can -- I can well remember how bad it was for about the first five years we were here and the amount of phone calls we got and the fact that the previous commission that was here wanted to save money, wanted to cut taxes, and so they didn't build roads for, what was it, about three to five years there wasn't any lanes or lane miles or significant lane miles built? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Five years. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Five years. With the idea being, if you didn't build it, they wouldn't come. Now, I know a lot of people are looking at this present economy, and they're trying to project everything about what they see today on the world of tomorrow, and it doesn't work that way . You can't -- you can't start an engine like this up and get it going full force in a matter of a couple of years or so. This is a planned process and it has to be ramped up over a long period of time. The money that we have set aside, you said it was financially feasible due to the program that you recommended, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. So by putting this off into sometime in the future, we back everything up down the way; in other words, every other project that's there, including my Golden Gate Page 45 November 3,2009 Boulevard -- which I can't tell you that I'm overly pleased with the idea of 20 15 when we were looking at originally it was going to be, I believe it was this year we had projected as the construction would start. But, once again, I understand how the world's put together and money is the driving factor that's out there, but I still have to answer to the people that are out there, and traffic numbers are starting to pick up again, and it will only take a short period of time for our economy to pick up, more people to come down here, and we're going to start to see the impact of it, and we will start to start getting the phone calls agam. I wish that there wasn't a money situation. There is. And I think transportation, working with all their advisory groups, have come up with a very feasible plan to keep going forward in a very minimal way. And I, for one, am not going to agree to do anything to undermine the small efforts that are there going forward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, the best part is, you don't have to. We will respond accordingly during the budget and the CIE, and you have the ability to do that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think we need, once again, to introduce a little reality into this consideration. We know the population isn't growing as much. We know there's not as much traffic on the roads. We know that the tourist industry is suffering a decrease in visitors. We see it in gas taxes and sales taxes declining. So to pretend that none of that is happening and just go blindly down the planning path and say, don't worry about it, we'll do it later, is a mistake. It is far better to plan for what happens next year or the year after than to be placed in the situation of having to react quickly and immediately, in which case we might have a lot of problems doing that. I just don't like this idea of saying, oh, it's okay. Everything will Page 46 November 3,2009 work out next year, and we'll take care of it. At some point in time we've got to face the facts. The world has changed for us, and we've got to do something about it. Now, am I saying that you stop building roads? Of course not, and I don't think that's what the Productivity Committee was saying either. But maybe there are ways that you can slow down the outflow of the cash, because you might not have 7- or $8 million of ad valorem property taxes next year. And in fact, I can promise you that we won't have that much. We know that. The data is already here. It's November, for goodness sakes. We already have ten months of the data, and we know it's bad. So we know we're going to have a problem, and I just would like to encourage you to stop sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that it's all going to go away next year, because it's not. But I just think that even though you've got money that is allocated by Department of Transportation and you stand the opportunity of losing that if you don't do something with it within the prescribed time frames, there should be ways of allocating funding in a phased manner so that FDOT funds are sort of allocated first and general fund expenditures are allocated later. You get the same job done, but you don't need the general fund money as much in the early phase as you need it in the later phases. So, you know, there's got to be some reasons -- I mean, some ways of doing this without gutting the program and without sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that everything's okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Coyle, in my past life I was not a transportation planner per se. I ran pretty tight budgets running my own business, and I can tell you, we are prepared to make those cuts. The difficulty is, we don't want to come to you with proposed cuts to that level of detail until we know what you're asking us for. We'll back that program accordingly down, attend to your trip Page 47 November 3, 2009 grants for some of the funding. They're matching funds as projects were presented to the -- both the joint MPO and FDOT. So could you ask for some leniency in how those funds are spent? That's difficult. Could you ask for a reduction of scope? That's possible. And we've already talked to the DOT about possibly doing that. So we are prepared to consider those options. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You see, you're not telling us those things up front. We're having to drag this out of you. Okay? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Hopefully not. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the -- I'm not suggesting that you not have matching funds. I'm suggesting that you have matching funds that might occur toward the end of the authorization period rather than having the requirement of having general fund money up front to expend on these projects. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It usually doesn't work that way with DOT. They want -- it's almost an agreement. You're locking in your funds and their funds at the same time. What I can do and what I will try to do as we go through this MPO cycle and allocation cycle is to reduce the scope. The only thing that does though is, once you go back and ask, it puts the project up for grabs again. Your other MPOs will be able to compete for that money. If I change one quarter mile in scope, it goes back to committee for review. Not necessarily we won't meet that priority still, but it does put the money up for grabs. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: There is one road that we haven't discussed on here, and I know there's state funding supposedly coming down for it, and that's Oil Well Road. Is there the potential for us to push that out a day -- a year or so? Because there's really no growth potential that's taking place out there at Ave Maria. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually, the capital project that's Page 48 November 3,2009 primary is the western end. That's the two-lane section that has the three schools in Orangetree. That's the one that's deficient today and has issues. You're in a constrained area where you can't go to six lanes, and you have multiple utilities in there. That's the bulk of the funds. The rest, again, is by contract. You'd have to go back and renegotiate that contract with -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would that be a possibility? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think that they would consider renegotiating that contract, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it seems to me that there's no real development taking place out there, so the impact on Oil Well Road at this point in time is really not that important. So I'm -- when I look at the whole picture of everything here, what's the projected cost of the section of Oil Well Road from Everglades Boulevard out to Camp Keais? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's actually not the middle section. Those two costs together, from the Immokalee Road to Everglades, and then from about Camp Keais Strand to Oil Well grade road in front of Ave Maria is about $46 million, and the bulk of that cost right now is, it will be on the west end of the project. COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, is there any way that we could see if we could negotiate where we wouldn't have to meet that only just at the west end right where the school is? And that's what, from Oil Well Road -- or from Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard, right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then -- so what we're looking at is from Everglades Boulevard to Camp Keais? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd be renegotiating that whole section, that's right. MR. KLATZKOW: I've been working with staff on this issue really now for three or four years, and we've been juggling it. And I Page 49 November 3,2009 would be happy to have a private conversation with you on it rather than having a public conversation because we do have contractual obligations here. But it's something that Nick and I and Norm and -- we've been struggling with this, and we have been doing things and we have been having discussions with them. But at the end of the day, that road, sooner or later, needs to get constructed. COMMISSIONER HALAS: But what I'm saying, can we push it down the road? What do you -- what is the projected -- what are the projected costs from Everglades Boulevard to Camp Keais? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The whole project cost is roughly a hundred million dollars, 95- to 120-, depending on estimates when they were taken. I think the developer has agreed on that middle section being deferred, not only for funding reasons, but also because there's another DRI near that may pick up a part of that project as well. Again, as Attorney Klatzkow's pointed out, that discussion's been had. If you're asking staff to talk to them, we certainly can. MR. KLATZKOW: Your ongoing discussions -- I mean, at a recent board meeting you approved a contract involving Oil Well Road where we're concerned about maybe relocating that middle section entirely, and that section would be done perhaps at a developer expense. So these are things that we are actively working on because we are dead serious in trying to save the county money on this road. We're well aware of the density issues out there, but we have to balance those with the contractual obligations. MR. FEDER: Later this month, Commissioners, we should be getting our bid opening to have an idea of what the bids are for both that western section and the shortened eastern section. But what is important is to note to you, what we've committed in that dollar estimate is only the dollars that have been based on the Page 50 November 3, 2009 impact fees collected in those two districts since the DCA. So if it turns out that it's more, we've already told the folks at Ave Maria that we may have to pull back on some of that eastern section if it bids out poorly. If it bids out well, as we anticipate, we've got a lot of interest in the project that we can do both of those. And we had already shortened that section on the eastern end relative to the dollars that were generated through the impact fees not only by Ave Maria but by them and in the two districts consistent with the developer contribution agreement that this board structured. So we are already pulling back to a limitation to those dollars. The primary still remains the western section, we've shortened the eastern, and we'll find out very shortly in bids whether or not we can accomplish that. Possibly more for the dollars we have or possibly less and then to figure it out from there what we do. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess when it comes back to the board we'll make a determination whether to move forward on it or to maybe use that as a revenue to try to take care of the shortfalls in the budget. MR. FEDER: Very definitely. Any contract that we get, even after we open bids and the like, has to be approved by this board. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. FEDER: I also need to note to Commissioner Coyle -- and I'm waiting for the softball because I sure wanted to hit one out of the park for him. I'm not doing that all the time. But on the issue that was raised -- and I think it's a reasonable idea. Why not try to use the state dollars first? I love the idea, with one exception, the state sets it up on a reimbursable basis. You pay the costs, then invoice them for those costs to get paid back. So unfortunately it doesn't mean long carrying time, but it means that our dollars have to be available to do it, and then to get reimbursed, and we can use that next dollar of reimbursement to go through. So some version of that we can do, but I just want to make sure you're aware that it's reimbursable dollars. Page 51 November 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I'm going to be very, very careful not to overreact to the suggestion that we reorder the priorities that are out there, but it's extremely difficult. This is something that's been in the works for just about forever, and when it comes to taking a hit, my district isn't seeing any parks, they're not seeing any libraries, but one road project after another has been canceled because ofthe economy, I understand. My district isn't getting any median beautifications while the rest of the districts are. So let's be realistic. If you want to start reordering all the projects and seeing what the projects are going to be as far as the order they're being built and everything, then let's go back to square one where we are right at this point in time and start tearing everything apart. But it's very disheartening to even hear that suggested at this point in time. We're limited by finances, that's for sure. Mr. Feder has got that covered very well in the fact that if it comes in over the budget amount, they're going to have to make adjustments. But don't forget there's been commitments made not only by this commission but by Ave Maria and the Barron Colliers and Collier Enterprise to give all sorts of land, give all sorts of concessions for fill to make this whole thing going forward. I mean, to have any idea of moving this off into some later years is just about undermining that whole project at that end of the county where a tremendous amount of effort went into it and a lot of promises were made. So please proceed with extreme caution. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, County Manager, do -- what do we do from here? We're about ready to take a break, but I don't want to take a break until we finish this subject. MR. OCHS: I believe Mr. Bosi's asking for a vote on each element of the AUIR as you move along. So at this point, ifthe board is prepared to address the roads, we would ask for a decision on the Page 52 November 3,2009 AUIR as presented. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the road as state -- as staff recommendations are in here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. Yeah. Commissioner Henning has stepped out, but do we -- Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'd just ask a question. The staff has made certain commitments with respect to investigating ways that we can postpone the expenditures of general fund dollars and still get projects completed. Can we make that part of our expectation as far as approval is concerned? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, we can. And what I'd recommend is staff won't offer this up. It will be us working on it as, if you adopt it this way as we come back and get ready for the CIE and the budget, that we have a detailed line-item by dollar-value list to be able to provide to you that you could look at getting ready for budget where you could trim and adjust and do those things, if that's what you'd like us to do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like that if the motion maker would provide that guidance with his motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you're looking for the option in there that we can look at that time when it comes back for us, at what point? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm not -- we're going to look at it anyway. I mean, it will have to come back to us anyway. But all I'm saying is that the staff has said there are ways that they can conserve some dollars or move dollars around without severely impacting the project, and I would merely like that guidance to be placed in there and ask them to look at that. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll include that guidance with the understanding that this is something to be decided later. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes. And just one final Page 53 November 3, 2009 comment. Remember that you're talking about 20-, $22 million of general fund money total and a lot less than that when you strip out the allocation for interest and stuff like that. And I understand that you need to match money with FDOT funds, but you can do that by matching gas tax funds and sales tax funds against the FDOT money first to achieve those -- those allocations, and then allocate the general fund moneys a little later on. And so that -- the further you put off the allocation of the general fund money, it seems to me the better off we are financially. It doesn't affect the timing of the project, I don't think. But I certainly would like to see you look at things like that, and that's the reason I wanted you to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand your guidance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we'll respond to that with the CIE coming forward. We'll get a feel for what the budget reductions may be, and we'll give you a menu list of things that we've looked at and a way to review it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll include that in my second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, 4-0. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we're going to take a break. We'll be back here at 10:53. Page 54 November 3, 2009 (A brief recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to your -- it would be Item F on your agenda; that's drainage canals and structures. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's Page 35. MR. FEDER: Page 36, yes; 35 it started. Again, for the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. I'll be fairly brief and then turn it over to Jerry Kurtz, who's your manager for stormwater. Again, we have a lot of the same issues here, and I understand why. I need to point out though your stormwater, as is currently structured, is .15 mills of assessed value, or taxable value, I should say. And that makes it probably one of the only funds that's millage neutral. Even last budget the program went down from just under 12 million to 9 million because of an 11 percent reduction in assessed values experienced throughout the county. So to go to the quick, if we experience another 15 percent reduction in assessed values next year or something even close to that, we are going to have to adjust this program. What we're trying to respond to is the request to look at basically a one-third reduction to go from 1. -- to -- excuse me from .15 mills to .1 mills. That actually got modified slightly by Productivity Committee to request about 9 million come out of the common four years. To do that, basically you would take your program -- you've got three items that you need to address. And I'll just call your attention to Page 39, if I could. And in your program you've got, first of all, Freedom Park, which is completed other than the required monitoring based on the Florida Community Trust moneys and other moneys we obtained for that product for water quality testing. Page 55 November 3, 2009 As you go further down, I'll call your attention to non-CEI to item number 12, which is NPDES TDML program, about 300,000 a year. It has to be addressed for us to meet and qualify under federal permitting requirements and to avoid some of the implications if we don't qualify. And then just a little further down, you've got interfund transfer under operation support debt service of just under a million a year. That is the debt service paying off the land at the Freedom Park when we took out the loan for that, beyond the moneys that we're getting from Big Cypress Basin as well, a million a year for ten years, is coming in and assisting on that. So that's in your revenue stream. So in effect, what I'm telling you is you've got those three requirements to be addressed. You then have LASIP, which is commitment after 16 years of permitting to be completed by 2015. Its cost, along with the other three that I've mentioned, would pretty well cover all of what you can do in the next five years if we were to try to take 9 million out of the program over the next four years. What that does do though is now allow us to start the other initiatives that are in the program that we particularly are looking for, as we phase out of LA SIP, to go to other needs throughout the county. We're looking to work with the CRA out in Immokalee, not to do everything, but to work, coordinate with them, much like you see in here we have the Gateway Triangle, second phase of last year's moneys and now '10, that we are building the pump or the outfall opportunity for the improvements that the CRA -- as you'll find in next board meeting -- are going to try to do to get the water to it within the district. We're providing them the outfall through some retention and pumping, which is our role. So we don't get to some of these others. Golden Gate City, we get collapsed pipes, other issues, so that's really what you're dealing with as far as implications. The dollars are there. Obviously the decision is a balancing act Page 56 November 3,2009 to all your other demands. Again, we try to give you options. We did try to look at -- the option was brought up to us, as a matter of fact by Commissioner Coyle, of trying to basically contract out all of the LASIP project as one project to hopefully get a better bid right now and to move faster on it and meet our deadline. Problem with that is, we've got 26 phases or projects within the LASIP overall project within the basin. Of those, 11 are completed already. Of the 16 remaining, 11 of them require right-of-way or easement which doesn't allow us, even if I had the funding up front, which I show it each of the next five years -- but even if I had it up front or if I could go out to a design/build/finance like they did on the interstate, let's say, in a much smaller scale, I couldn't do it without the easements of the right-of-way. So we're trying to progress and move as quickly as we can on it. You see the dollars higher in the beginning years. But, again, balance the revenue stream and trying to get as many phases done as quickly as we can as right-of-way's down, construction's down, and to get the benefits of those phases as we work from downstream to upstream. With that, I'll ask if -- there he is -- Jerry Kurtz to hit anything that you might have, and then we'll be ready for questions that you might have as well. MR. KURTZ: Good morning. Jerry Kurtz, for the record. I'll stay on that same page and give you a little bit more information about the projects, very briefly. It's Page 39. Starting at the top, in this year's budget we have $100,000 for the Freedom Park. That's for the water quality monitoring and a little bit of the operations stormwater-wise for that facility . The next project is LASIP. Again, Norman alluded to the 27 components in LASIP. Including this year, we'll have 11 of the 27 segments completed. There'll be ten remaining and 16 -- 16 remaining with ten that include right-of-way acquisition in the future. So of the Page 57 November 3, 2009 16 remaining, an additional seven are under design right now, so we're looking ahead for the next two or three years. And the total construction is to be completed in 2015 per our Army Corps permit. The next project is Gateway. Gateway, we're letting the second and last phase for construction. We should know in another month what the bids are on that project. That project, we will finish the outfall and the stormwater treatment facility for Gateway with the completion of this project. We do show some FY11 moneys projected in the outer year. That is for anticipation of working with the CRA. But our anticipated product cost for this phase is approximately $4 million for the completion of the pond expansion. We're providing an adequate outfall for all of Gateway with this project, so its completion of the primary system so that the tributaries or tertiary systems can flow into our completed pond and hopefully drain the whole area of the triangle much better. The next project on our list is the Belle Meade area stormwater improvements. That is a master plan project. There is an approved stormwater master plan. There's eight elements in that project. We've deferred the initiation of that project out into the later years as shown in this A UIR. There'll be development opportunities as the development picks up in the Belle Meade, so that's kind of the look-ahead when an activity picks up in that area. The master plan was completed in 2006. And there are, again, eight elements of stormwater improvements with that project. Next project is Immokalee urban improvements. That is an approved stormwater master plan by you, the BCC, in June of this year. It has five problem areas identified throughout the Immokalee area, some including the downtown area, some in the Lake Trafford watershed area. It's a pretty comprehensive plan. And we're looking at beginning to implement that slowly now with a few small Page 58 November 3,2009 stormwater improvement projects, and then in the outer years we would pick up on the efforts there as we -- there's a little bit of right-of-way acquisition involved with that project. And so that shows in the AUIR outer years to pick up that effort. As LASIP gets finished we will move with the Immokalee Master Plan project. And current budget numbers for that, the total project could be as high as six million, maybe even more in Immokalee. There's great stormwater needs in Immokalee. The next project is Golden Gate City outfalls and repair. Nick showed a picture of the rusted outfall pipe. The -- some of the information about Golden Gate City, it was originally created and designed in 1963, platted. So the system that's in the ground now, parts of it, a lot of parts of it are 40 to 45 years old. And it's -- that's the typical end of the life of metal. A lot of the pipes were metal. Most all the pipes were metal. They're in the ground. They're rusted, a lot of them. A lot of them are between homes and buildings. It's a safety issue. It's a drainage issue. Our current numbers for that project range from six to eight million to replace all that. So if you look at the schedule again, we start out slowly, we're doing some planning, we're -- we want to implement a small replacement project in a specific area, and then we'll ramp up in the outer years. As LASIP, again, winds down, we'll take this on, and this will also be a master planned approach to a large-scale drainage project. I have lots of photos. I don't want to trouble you with those. But the conditions of some of the facilities there are in really, really bad shape. Our next item is our stormwater master plan. That's budgeted this year at a 100,000. That is tied to our effort to finalize our maps of our secondary system, how it interacts with the South Florida's primary system. And all of this is tied to two things, our NPDES program Page 59 November 3,2009 which mandates that you have a very accurate map and inventory of your system, as well as the watershed plans that will be coming on line. The more data that we have on our system, the more accurate modeling we can do. Modeling will be part of the watershed plan completion. So those three items all work together to accomplish multiple goals. NPDES requirements are pretty detailed as to how -- when kind of inventory you have of your system. The next two projects are projects where we find and have a lot of issues with drainage as the storms appear. We find a lot of deficiencies in the system, relatively small ones, but often things that need to be designed quickly and put out for construction and fixed, and those are the countywide swale maintenance and repair and the minor secondary repairs. Those two projects there are funded at 100- and $400,000. The last project we fund is our NPDES program. I'm happy to say that we're in the second year of our renewal of our NPDES permit. That's the federal permit. The permit has many, many elements to it to keep it in good standing. And in that regard, our effort is very successful. It involves the website, community presentations, we track our community outreach as far as pollution, and stormwater issues, and just a multitude of things. So that is also funded for this year and subsequent years. And that's a quick overview of our items. We're ready for questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: First we have a speaker. We'll hear our speaker, and then we'll call on the commissioners. MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, Janet Vasey. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, for the record. I don't really have a whole lot to say. Our rationale is in our letter on what we thought needed to be done in this program. There's -- in the four years, there's $28 million being spent. If Page 60 November 3, 2009 you want to get at any capital money, you've got to do it in roads and stormwater. Your .15 mill was established a few years ago. I think you were all on the board then. Before that time there was very little money, almost none, put into stormwater. Now you've been putting money in. You need to have more matching grant money come in so that you can -- so that you can expand this program, and that's what we wanted you to look for. Maybe take a little bit of money out from the general fund and then try and ramp up on the ramps -- I mean on the grants and tighten up LASIP to the extent that's possible. That's what we were looking for. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now we have Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. In regards to the matching grants, we have asked our elected representatives in Washington to try to assist us, especially in this LASIP program. And as of to date, we have not been successful in getting any federal moneys in regards to addressing the stormwater programs in that area. Hopefully, maybe, we can address some of these when it pertains to -- directly to citizens such as Golden Gate outfall, but we'll see what happens. That alone is about a $5 million -- is budgeted for about $5 million just to address those particular issues. I think that, yes, we budget 1.5 mills, but as was brought out in the discussion, as the revenues or the tax base falls then, of course, the amount of money that comes in to address stormwater issues -- obviously it also drops. And when we started this program a few years ago, I think we had over a $500 million problem with stormwater. And we've addressed some of the stormwater in my particular district, and I think it's time that we address stormwater needs in other areas. And I don't see anything other than the countywide swales, but I'm sure there's probably some major issues in District 5 in regards to Page 61 November 3, 2009 stormwater, and maybe you can enlighten us on some of the areas that you need to address out there other than just addressing swales and culverts. MR. FEDER: Obviously, the Immokalee Master Plan is something that was brought to this board, as Jerry noted, in June. That's been approved, and we have a number of initiatives that we're doing, or proposing, I should say, in coordination with the CRA. A lot of the tertiary work needs to be done by the CRA. They're looking to help us some on the what we call the secondary or art system, but we're trying to bring some funds as well along with them to address those needs out there. So that is a major emphasis in District 5 that would be coming online further in the program. COMMISSIONER HALAS: If we go back down to .1 mills, where does that leave us as far as addressing these other issues? Can we still address LASIP, and can we address any of these other issues like Immokalee? MR. FEDER: We're asked to look at nine million, which would actually be less than looking at .15 starting next year, because that would be three million a year or 12 million. But regardless of that, the answer to your question essentially is, the three items that I mentioned that we have to do, debt service, NPDES and the monitoring on Freedom, which we have commitments to do, beyond that, we would be very close to, and we'd struggle, but we'd get LASIP done, but nothing else in the program. But the point I need to make though is, the initial, and that is, this is a millage-neutral fund. One of your only ones. Last year there was significant reduction because we went down 11 percent. If we do realize, let's say, 15 percent next year, this program will have to get adjusted. Some of what we're trying to look at beyond LASIP, in answer to your question, would have to get removed, modified, or stretched out over the years. But, again, that's only a 15 percent reduction, not a 33 percent reduction, which the change from .15 mills Page 62 November 3,2009 to .1 mills would be. And of course, that's still subject to the board's direction. But a reduction of that magnitude would leave LASIP very close to whether or not I could meet it, but we seek to get that done. The other requirements, we wouldn't get to any other projects or any other issues you have here. A 15 percent reduction would require us to pull back, stretch out these other initiatives. We still would look to try to finish LASIP and meet the other demands. That's as quickly as I can give you as an overvIew. But there is a difference between going from .15 mills to 1 mill -- .1 mill versus the potential of a 15 percent reduction. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Norm, when did you establish the budget for the LASIP project? MR. FEDER: The budget has probably been three years now. The initial budget was a little over three years ago. It's been modified every year when we've done this as we see the costs as they've come in. Actually the costs have come down some. Our initial estimates were much higher. But then, again, our latest lettings and our costs for easements have been down. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we recognize that the costs for these projects is going down. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just not comfortable that the lower costs for accomplishing this project over the period of five years from FYI 0 to FY14 have been accurately factored into this budget. Also -- well, just as a general comment, I've never seen a $33 million budget that I couldn't cut by 10 percent and still meet the project objectives. MR. FEDER: That's why I told you that even though the Page 63 November 3,2009 numbers don't quite work, we'll make LASIP happen even if I had that 33 percent reduction. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I think you could still get some of the others done. But let me get to my overall point. Weare dealing with a lot of water kinds of problems, including the watershed study and some of the things that you're looking at with respect to stormwater master plan updates has sort of depended upon that, and we're looking at the TMDL program and LASIP, and those things are fragmented. In fact, even fragmented between departments. I'm not convinced that there aren't some efficiencies to be achieved by consolidating these projects. A lot of them are using the same lidar data, and I have a fear -- in fact, I've seen evidence of duplication of efforts where we're paying consultants twice to do the same thing if you take a look at the Corps of Engineers floodplain map exercise. Some of these turn into never-ending projects. And I believe that if the county manager would take a hard look at that, you can find some ways to save some money here and get these projects done faster without sacrificing any projects. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hear, hear. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'd like to see that done. The LASIP project, I think, by its very structure, is designed to be inefficient and slow. Breaking it into so many components and having multiple contractors is, I believe, just an invitation for inefficiency. And so, I would very much appreciate somebody taking a look at this to see how we can make it better. I don't understand why design/build works real well when talking about an intersection or building, but design/build doesn't work when we're talking about LASIP. You know, that makes no sense to me. And furthermore, if we've got 11 still requiring easements as long as we've been involved in this project itself, I don't understand what the problem is. Get out there and get the easements. They're cheap Page 64 November 3, 2009 right now. So ifthat's causing you some difficulty, I'd suggest we get it done. But I think by doing this quickly now and consolidating some of these projects and consolidating the contractors and maybe -- and I don't know if design/build works on this. I really don't. But it's worked on lots of other things. It's saved us money. Why don't we give it a shot and see what we can come up with, okay. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, you raised some good points, and we definitely take on that challenge, always trying to look to reduce the cost of projects. I will tell that there's more coordination than maybe you're thinking between the various activities. Stormwater was set up specifically to implement projects. We're working with the planning process. And part of what you see in that master plan is working through that watershed process, which is not only stormwater, but land use and various other issues that are being addressed. But we're definitely a part of that process, and we're trying to make sure we're coordinated and definitely don't want to have data have to be duplicated. So we'll renew our efforts there. But please be assured that there are significant efforts already in coordination there. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't doubt that, okay, but I have been involved in multiple -- managing multiple projects myself, and they have never been efficient no matter how hard I tried because of just the nature ofthe projects, so -- the other thing is, when we're paying consultants to work on those things -- we've got a consultant -- I presume we've got consultants working on TMDL program. Have we contracted that out? MR. KURTZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, that's four people making $75,000 a year working for five years. Give me a break. You know, I could build a bridge to the moon by doing that, facetiously. MR. FEDER: The only place in the TDML, and it's part of Page 65 November 3, 2009 between the master plan and NPDES, is surveying of our facilities out there right now and rectifying what we have in the ground. Something I would have like to have told you that even before I came we had. But the new we do have, but the old we're still trying to inventory, and its capacity. I understand, Commissioner. I accept the challenge I assume to this board, and I'll be held accountable, along with my staff, that we'll bring back to you how we're approaching these projects. We're always looking at them. I think you've raised some issues for us. I will tell you that we've looked at the issue of design/build, and the only point I was trying to make on that is, where you have -- which is the bulk of the remaining ones -- easement requirements or actual right-of-way taking requirements, I still have to go through the process. It takes just as long to do condemnation on a single parcel there, but I can't do design/build if there's a right-of-way portion involved, and so I can't have them design, construct, when there's a right-of-way or easement issue involved in them. So that's why we're trying to look at what our options are for design, getting the right-of-way faster. But there's a tradeoff between doing all the design, all the right-of-way, all the construction in the outer part of the fifth year and the ability to move on some earlier and get relief initially and get that construction cost lower in some of them initially. So we'll bring all that back to you, and I'd be happy to review what we've looked at and what we're proposing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just remember, you don't have to have a project completely designed to decide what right-of-way you need. MR. FEDER: Of course not. At 60 percent designs, I'm moving on right-of-way both in roads and in stormwater. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? Page 66 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Last night -- Commissioner Coyle, last night I heard the county manager's looking for efficiencies in departments, and I'm onboard with your suggestion to take a look at stormwater, you know. Studying water where it goes is like -- what do they say -- watching the grass grow or something like that? The question is on LASIP -- and you've been in it three years. You're going to be in it for, you know, looks like another few years. What is the total cost estimate for LASIP? MR. KURTZ: This number includes a lot of estimates, but total cost is 56 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that pretty much on target of what the estimates were in the beginning? MR. KURTZ: The early estimates were in the $30 million range, then it rose up during the high period to over 60 million, and it's coming back down. But in -- when we -- when we first got our permits 2004, 2005, it was identified as up as high as 60 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can you determine that your costs are coming down when one department in the county their construction costs are actually going up? I don't understand that. MR. KURTZ: Costs for construct -- costs for construction is coming down. And I wanted to say that we do -- even though we design and approach these as 27 different components, we're now letting two, sometimes three together for a construction bid and finding there is a savings there. The last one we did we had a portion under construction south of U.S. 41 near Traviso Bay. The same contractor was up in between Rattlesnake Hammock Road and U.S. 41 doing both segments, and we saw quite a bit -- a good price for that, same company doing both segments across town. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about your professional costs? MR. KLATZKOW: Professional costs seem to be going down. Page 67 November 3, 2009 We're doing the best-value offer now with our consultants. And with the nine or so segments that we have under design, we've seen consulting costs come down. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Huh, okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just need to clarify something. Commissioner Coyle, on your proposal for the-- combining the number of these bids together, I mean, it sounds -- it sounds like it's not a bad idea. The only concern I got is you're not talking about rearranging the order and trying to put everything into one basket? You're talking about keeping the schedule as it exists now; it's just being more prudent with how we spend that money? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, more efficient. I'm not saying merge the projects. I'm saying, find a better way to manage them, maybe consolidate the management of the projects, because you're dealing with water flow for goodness sakes. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It goes downhill. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it goes downhill, and I can figure that out, give me a day or so. And the idea of paying all these consultants is, I think, pretty expensive. But I know that there are -- there's duplication of effort here. There has to be. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but under no circumstances are you suggesting the reorder of the schedule? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I haven't -- I haven't identified any that I would suggest we reorder. But the point is, if we ever get to the point where we don't have the money, we're going to have to reorder. But if we can find the efficiencies at this point in time, there's no need to do so. We can just proceed on with the existing schedule. If we don't find efficiencies, then we might want to start talking about reordering. So I suggest we look for efficiencies first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. My biggest concern is the way that the money is allocated to come out over the years. And Page 68 November 3, 2009 forgive me, but when you look at coastal Collier County, which is about 22 percent of the total makeup of the county, we have it heavy loaded towards the front, where District 5, which is 80 percent ofthe rural area of the county, is heavy loaded towards the back end. I'm a little bit concerned over the allocations of funds as they're coming down and they're allotted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that -- in could, that's a natural course of evolution of growth in Collier County. The greatest population was one time in the western portion of the county, and those are where the developments occurred that, unfortunately, were built in floodplains and they got flooded, and we've had to do something about it, and we've done something about it. But as the population grows further east, we've made the right decisions, and we've been getting more money out east to take care of those problems. It's going to take some time to catch it all up. But the point is, that's the way the county has developed. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that, Commissioner Coyle. I just had to bring up that -- the objection to that. Now, Immokalee does have a serious flooding problem, just as the triangle and a number of other places throughout Collier County do. With the allotment of moneys that's coming down, it's very light on the front end and heavier towards the back end if moneys available. Once again, it's at risk as we go years forward. While you get closer to the coastal part of Collier County, it's heavy on the front end and lighter on the back end. And you know, it just seems disproportionately unfair the way it's set up. And I just wanted to go on the record to mention that. Maybe Mr. Feder might have some reason why it's set up like that. MR. FEDER: I think Commissioner Coyle hit part of, and it's a matter of the development patterns and the demands that are existing versus evolving. The other part of that, too, to an extent, not totally, but to an extent is that you always work since -- everybody's figured Page 69 November 3,2009 out water nms downhill, you work downstream to upstream, and a lot of the outfall for a lot of your district comes through the western part of the county. So you work the downstream portions first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow, that was pretty good. Just shooting from the hip? You did all right with that one. MR. FEDER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Most my questions have already been answered. I was wondering if the downturn in economy had also reduced the purchase price for land, and you've said yes. And it's also reduced the labor costs, and you have figured that into -- into the costs that you have included into our agenda today. I also wonder now, is this LASIP project -- I know you had 16 years of permitting, I know it's taken you a long time to get there. It also helps -- doesn't it help also the Golden Gate area so that it helps to reduce some of that water? I understand it got that far so that this LASIP project will even help other areas, right? MR. KURTZ: It's a pretty large basin. The Golden Gate basin is another basin, but this one's right next to it. We're talking a 17-mile, square-mile, area, so it's a large, large basin. It's not just in the areas around u.s. 41. It really reaches way up to the north. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's over 11,000 acres. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, yeah. But -- well, thank you very much. You've answered my questions. Any other questions, Commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now we need to take action on this item. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve as submitted. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve as Page 70 November 3, 2009 amended (sic) from Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Halas. And Commissioner Coyle, you had a question? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just to ask if the motion maker would include guidance to the staff that they look at ways to increase the efficiency of administration of these proj ects to save some money. MR. FEDER: By all means. We've gotten that message. We hopefully had that message long ago, because we've always tried to, but we'll renew that effort and look at all of it and see what we can do. The question I have on the motion is, as amended? Just so I understand the motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- yeah. I said as submitted. What's the amended? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I mis- -- I misunderstood. I'm sorry. MR. FEDER: The answer to Commissioner Coyle's question, very definitely, we'll renew that effort and look at it in full detail. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- and I would include that, but I'm reluctant to do so because it would appear that we're interfering with the day-to-day business. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Asking for efficiency? MR. FEDER: I believe that's not interference at all. That is guidance that we have that we bring to you and you definitely bring to us. So ifthere's any impression that we have opportunity, which I think is what's been identified, we appreciate that. Whether or not you put it in the motion, we'll take that as direction to go back and look at it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- here's the reason why. In the discussion we were talking about, you know, taking departments and consolidating them. That's up to the county manager. I'll tell you that one of the previous employees filed an action against me for what they considered interfering with day-to-day Page 71 November 3, 2009 business, and I just don't want that to happen to anybody else. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if -- Leo, if you want to comment on our comments, I think that would be sufficient. I think he really gets it. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I understand that the board wants us to look for improved efficiencies in every area of county operations, and whatever means and methods that I need to employ to do that, I'm prepared to do. I think that covers the general theme that the board has expressed. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And in particular, I think Commissioner Coyle was right on target, is, you know, if we can gain some efficiencies by looking at the operation and -- to where they're working on similar or the same things, put it together and see if there's efficiencies. MR. OCHS: I understand. I understand the guidance. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I heard. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I correct my statement that, as amended, and say, as submitted. I'm sorry about that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so I have a motion on the floor and a second. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that -- it was corrected. That was the thing I was bringing up. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Any further comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Page 72 November 3,2009 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) MR. OCHS: Commissioner, your next three items had to do with your public utilities division; potable water, sewer treatment and solid waste. Hopefully these will move along a little faster. They aren't ad valorem impacts to these areas. First is potable water. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Page? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Page is? MR. OCHS: Page, Phil? CHAIRMAN FIALA: 41. COMMISSIONER HALAS: 41 and 43. MR.OCHS: Page 41, sir. MR. GRAMATGES: 41. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. I'm Phil Gramatges, interim director of planning and project management for public utilities, and I'm ready to answer your questions, together with Mr. DeLony, the administrator, and his staff, on potable water. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions from board members? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recommend approval as so stated here, staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to recommend approval as submitted and a second from Commissioner Halas. The recommendation was made by Commissioner Coletta -- or regarding the motion was made by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excellent presentation, Phil. We really Page 73 November 3, 2009 liked it. It was in depth, you know, meaningful. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) MR. OCHS: Ma'am, next item is your sewer treatment and collection systems. You'll find that on Page 52 of your agenda packet. MR. GRAMATGES: And Commissioners, I'm ready to answer your questions, together with Mr. DeLony and his staff. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve staffs recommendations on this. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) MR. OCHS: Ma'am, that leads you to Item I on your agenda, which is solid waste. You'll find that on Page 66. MR. GRAMATGES: And Commissioners, once more, I'm ready to answer your questions, together with our administrator and his direct staff on solid waste. Page 74 November 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you explain the chart on Page 76? There's no -- there's no numbers there on previous and future. I don't understand exactly what you're doing. MR. GRAMATGES: Yes. In may turn this over to Mr. Tom Wides, who's the director of fiscal operations. MR. WIDES: Commissioner, for the record, Tom Wides, operations director, public utilities. May I respond to a question here? COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you doing now, fiscal operations? MR. WIDES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. Yeah, please, answer my question. MR. WIDES: I believe I understood your question to be, where's prior information? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. MR. WIDES: In all of these cases, we proactively look at the current year and then look at the next five years and ten-year cycles. The history is pretty much stated in the previous charts of the actual operations, but the financials we've looked forward rather than looking backwards. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You're spending capital -- total capital expenditures is 10.92. MR. WIDES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dollars? MR. WIDES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're spending ten dollars, almost 11 dollars -- MR. WIDES: $10.92 million. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's for the landfill? MR. WIDES: That is for landfill operations. That would be remediation of the cells, et cetera, at the landfill. Page 75 November 3,2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Where is your income? Is it just from tipping fees? MR. WIDES: The primary source of income for landfill operations is tipping fees. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's -- where's Waste Management's responsibilities for reclamation of -- and construction of cells? Where's that at, what page? MR. WIDES: Okay. I'm going to turn that over to Dan Rodriguez, our operations -- our landfill operations director. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your solid waste director. Commissioner Henning, the costs are right there in the chart. If I understood your question correctly, for Waste Management, are $10.92 million. These are the costs for Waste Management to not only prepare the site, but also to build the cells that will receive waste from the county. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's Waste Management, Incorporated? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct, Waste Management, Inc., of Florida. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that is their total costs. What is -- okay. Their total costs for the four-year program. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. As they construct cells, they have capacity for four years, five years, ten years. And as with the new cells, the range for expenditures is different. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any other expenditures that you're having in the five-year capital plan? MR. RODRIGUEZ: As it relates to the disposal capacity as shown in the AUIR, no. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any other that's supposed to be reported in the AUIR? Those are just landfill capacity? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Just landfill capacity, that's correct, Page 76 November 3, 2009 Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question. I'm not going to mess with your capacities or anything. You've been doing a really good job. You've kept us out of a lot of trouble. But just for my own clarification, we're talking about peak populations -- I'm on Page 68 -- for FYlO of 401,804. So you've somehow determined that there's about 75,000 seasonal residents in Collier County during FY10, and I'm trying to determine how you use that figure. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you multiple it by the tons per capita used over the prior three years, do you use the maximum peak or the peak population for the entire 12 months, or do you factor the peak population only for certain months of the year? MR. DeLONY: Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator. Sir, let's be -- this is a pretty gross concurrency model. I get from -- concurrent from a comprehensive planning a population figure approved by this board to plan against. I observe actions in the landfill over a period of time. I take the average ofthe two and then project forward what that's going to be on a per-capita basis from that historical experience. If you gave me a population number of one and I put a hundred tons in the landfill, then our experience would be a hundred tons per person. So it's pretty gross on a person basis. I use the population number, again, that I get, then this is the methodology. So there's no, you know, partial year, you're only here for three months, therefore, you may not put a ton in or half ton in. It's not that discrete. It's just that gross. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a conservative collection? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. And I would submit to you that it's Page 77 November 3, 2009 only -- it's conservative as long as we continue to divert and recycle. When we break the paradigm that we're currently on where we're limiting to the maximum extent possible through your integrated Solid Waste Management strategy, not put it in the landfill, don't ever let it get there, let's put it in a recycling bin or recycling center, strategies that ensure that maximum diversion, this is an appropriate, in my view, and a conservative strategy for as we plan out this very critical resource for the county. When we begin to deviate from that, I think this model is sensitive enough to tell us that we're off schedule. If you'll look at that, look where we were in 2000 on that chart in terms of a per-capita disposal rate. You see it there? It was over one, right? 1.23 in 2000. This is on Page 68 of your chart. And you see how we whittled that away in terms of our diversion. You saw a chart from Dan Rodriguez last Tuesday, and about one out of every three tons of refuse that we -- one out of three pounds of what we generate is buried. The other two we never see at the landfill. So I think this is sensitive to that model. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this your pitch to move Naples transfer site? MR. DeLONY: I lost that pitch at 4-1 last time I checked. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You remember that? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, I do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. No, I just needed a feel for what you're doing. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. I understand. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with it. I think it's great. It gives us a conservative estimate of the life of the landfill, and that protects us, and I'm happy. MR. DeLONY: Sir, in may, there's one thing that it doesn't do for us, and that's on your chart on Page 70. And this is -- this is something that we will be coming back to you, I believe, in -- you Page 78 November 3,2009 know, over the next several years, and this is kind of a highlight to that effort, and with the county manager's indulgence, I'll speak to it. I don't know how long it's going to take us to build a new landfill because I don't know where that new landfill would be or how long the permitting or land use associated with that landfill will be. Now, this chart tells you as commissioners there somewhere along 20 -- FY29, two nine, we only have ten years left of permitted capacity in the landfill, okay. That's -- so somewhere back we're planning FY29 till today, we've got to begin to look hard at several options. And our integrated solid waste management strategy provides those options, and we've looked at them, will continue to look at them. But that's the one thing that this strategy does not give me certainty of, and so this is very carefully measuring our utilization, and I think it's an appropriate concurrency model therefore. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think it's important that you do take into consideration the fact that 20 years can result in a lot of technology change, and technology is probably the way you're going to be able to react to this issue in the future. So I think you're still safe. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, with that, I -- wouldn't it be the perfect opportune time, since we're doing the RLSA, to plan for that? If that's where the growth is -- I mean, if you're planning in that area for parks, if you're planning in that area for all kinds of service that is needed for the future out there, why wouldn't you do the same for solid waste, right? How do we -- Randy, how do we do that? How do we -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Buy land in Hendry County. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well-- and you know, the Page 79 November 3,2009 technology may be there, but it doesn't make sense to nm those trucks all the way in to accomplish that. I mean, you wouldn't do that with schools. You-- MR. COHEN: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: You wouldn't all take them to Naples High School ifthey live in Ave Maria or something like that. MR. COHEN: Yeah. This board has actually authorized movement forward with some items dealing -- with respect to a contract pertaining to our R V A. You're also aware that you had a committee that met for two years making a series of recommendations with respect to the RLSA. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That wasn't in there. MR. COHEN: That's where I'm going there, sir. When the amendments come forward back to you, if you see a deficiency in those amendments and you want the staff to pursue those amendments at that point in time, we will do so with your direction. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's -- when we set up that whole -- I mean, it was award-winning comprehensive planning to set up the rural stewardship area. Said it'd be self-sustaining. I think this is just one area that it can be self-sustaining is provide that element for those future residents. My opinion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have your answer then? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I mean, I think Randy heard me well, and we'll have to keep an eye on it. MR. COHEN: You're correct, sir, that the intent ofthe RLSA is to be self-sufficient and for the internal capture to happen over a period of time. And some of those items such as landfills, as well as possibly some other capital improvements down the road, are going to have to be looked at and addressed. And again, the landfill's not included in the study that came forward, Phase I or Phase II. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? Page 80 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: One ofthe things that I've made very clear to the developers who are going to be dealing with Cypress Creek out there is that they need to come up with land that can be donated to the county and also to go through the permitting of landfill so that we don't have to put up with that expense. They kind of looked at me like, are you serious? And I said, I'm serious as a heart attack, that when that new community comes online or you start coming in here to get approval on it, that's one of the areas that I'm going to address, and that is the donation of about 1,600 acres, and they go through the permitting process to get that clarified as a landfill someplace out in that area where they own land. MR. COHEN: Yeah. Just to give the board an update on the Big Cypress DRI, they asked for an extension with the Regional Planning Council, which was granted to them. So this board has not seen the DRI request or a request for a stewardship receiving area that would establish that Big Cypress area. So you still have two bites at the apple down the road with respect to that particular development. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The last time we had a more detailed discussion about this, I seem to recall that there is a solid waste facility in that area, or there used to be, just east of Ave Maria closer to the Hendry County line and/or there was a good possibility of purchasing some land in Hendry County that could be used for a new landfill. MR. DeLONY: Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator. I'm going to look over at Leo. He's nominally known as the institution of knowledge here. Leo? MR. OCHS: There was some discussions. MR. DeLONY: But as far as site identification, no, in my view. I mean, in my recollection. Sir, and out of county -- Page 81 November 3,2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no -- MR. DeLONY: -- I'm not aware of. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not suggesting that anybody agreed upon or selected the site. MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we did discuss, since the property was so expensive here in Collier County, that we might want to go to Hendry County to see if we could purchase some land for that purpose. And I'm wondering if there's ever been any followup on that. MR. DeLONY: Well, you know, first of all, on the issue of out of county, this board was -- not this board, but previous boards, prior to the five of you sitting, my recollection -- and Leo -- direct the county, do not go out of -- that staff not go out of county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that was because they were thinking about taking it over to Miami-Dade. That's a long trip. MR. DeLONY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a long trip, okay. MR. DeLONY: We actually -- you know, we actually have the ability to haul out of county if we get to that point, and we actually have at our disposal a contingency agreement should we have problems with our landfill to still be able to take the haul-away stuff to Okeechobee, which is 123 miles from here. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. But-- MR. DeLONY: So that -- so we have that contingency agreement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you see my point is that we have created the Rural Land Stewardship Area since those, okay. MR. DeLONY: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it makes no sense to try to haul it 100 miles away. Ifwe could find some property in Hendry County, it would be a perfect solution for those rural villages, DRIs, that are going to be developing in the Rural Land Stewardship Area. Page 82 November 3,2009 They could take that solid waste to the east and save us all a lot of problems with respect to transportation and road capacity and solid waste fill capacity. So-- MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I, just yesterday, confirmed a date for a joint staff level meeting between Hendry County staff and our staff. We're developing the agenda, and I will certainly put this topic on there for some preliminary discussion along those lines, if the board -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I mean, we're talking about something maybe 15 -- well, maybe it's less than 15 years away. Maybe it's something that's only ten years away if we're going to use it for the Rural Land Stewardship Area developments. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that we have a responsibility of keeping the garbage in our backyard instead of throwing it in somebody else's backyard. So I would suggest that we look at all opportunities here in Collier County in regards to looking for a landfill. So -- I know if I was Board of County Commissioners of Hendry County and somebody said, hey, we want to dump your (sic) garbage in our county, I think I'd have a strong opinion on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. If I may respond to that. You're going to -- you got big landowners in Hendry County. They're looking to develop their land. So if they're going to have residential, you would want some kind of regionalism. We're not -- be more efficient to -- for Hendry County to create a regional landfill and use it possibly as income also. I don't know what their future growth plans are but-- , MR. DeLONY: If you may, I believe that the direction you've given me to date and the integrated solid waste management strategy Page 83 November 3,2009 gives me that direction to look at that alternative. I think you've given me strong direction with regard to the utilization of our existing landfill to the maximum extent possible. We still have not nm out of room there. We can go up. We can go a little south. We may be able to go a little whatever, you know. You're going to have some work coming ahead of you at the next board meeting about some of that. But the bottom line -- and I didn't mean to drag this out, I just wanted to answer directly to Commissioner Coyle when he asked me about the adequacy of the model. That's the one thing I can't tell you. And with the discussion today, I feel more invigorated to work to see if we can't come up with some of those answers in the near term or at least for sure keep it on the record for a long-term solution to this situation. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And might have new technology where you -- MR. DeLONY: Sir, we would not walk away from that one, that's for sure. I know that we spent a lot of time in the late '90s with former County Manager Mudd and Commissioner Coletta going as far as Australia looking at proven -- at that time, proven technologies to find an alternative, and this board -- not this board, but previous boards looked at waste energy and other options and decided that was not what Collier County intended or wanted to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, good. MR. DeLONY: So there -- again, all that's there. Certainly, that's all there. And some of the things -- and so I'm not pitching a new landfill. I'm just telling -- I told Commissioner Coyle what the concerns were of this chart. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, we need to make a decision on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve as submitted, Page 84 November 3, 2009 the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would be public services. Public works submittal would be water sewer. MR.OCHS: Public utilities division. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public utilities. MR. OCHS: Solid waste. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whatever you do. MR. DeLONY: Sir, public utilities division, sir. This is a solid waste management element. COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're talking about approving all three of the elements? MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. MR. OCHS: You approved the first two already. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, we did? I apologize. MR.OCHS: All we need is a motion for approval of the sold waste element. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the solid waste capital improvement element. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) Page 85 November 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: 4-1 -- 4-0. Thank you very much. MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now, we -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn for lunch. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. MR. OCHS: Commissioners, in might ask the board's indulgence, we have Mr. Hardy here from the school district who's been here all morning. His item is the public schools facilities elements. If there's any opportunity to take him before your break, I would appreciate that, and I know he would. Mr. Hardy? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I only have one question. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Hardy, would you like to come up? COMMISSIONER HENNING: For Mike Bosi. MR. BOSI: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you -- Mike, do you verify the output of these improvements based upon growth? MR. BOSI: Very much so. We -- I am part of the school working group. On a monthly basis I meet with the district staff and we coordinate all of these efforts. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just in general, I mean, I was looking at projections of income, such as impact fees, and they're all over the board because they're not all set at one price. And impact fees are not related to -- on schools it doesn't relate to commercial properties. So do you look at the details and say, okay, these numbers match, I need to put that in the -- MR. BOSI: Absolutely, and our impact fee coordinator and our manager has -- that's their primary function to make sure that there is that coordination and inconsistency amongst them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: She does more than just collect impact fees? Page 86 November 3, 2009 MR. BOSI: Very much so. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's the only question I have on schools. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could you tell me where Eden Park Elementary is? MR. HARDY: Alvah Hardy with the Collier County School System. Eden Park is in Immokalee on the end of Westclox, which is northeast of Lake Trafford just accessed through different road systems. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Has that already been built? MR. HARDY: Yes. This is its second year of operation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, my goodness. I never even heard of it before, I'm embarrassed to tell you. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see all that money going out east, you know. It just gets completely lost out there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we appreciate it. Thank you for all you give us. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So Alvah Hardy, would you like to make any comments on this item or -- MR. HARDY: No, ma'am. We simply request approval. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Board members? Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any thought about consolidating some of these schools and possibly closing down one or -- since you've lost a lot of population? MR. HARDY: No, sir. We chased growth, as most of your departments did, during the boom years of construction. We've all caught up somewhat in the east part of the county. But the coastal part, our densities vary. So we don't have any schools that are sufficiently underpopulated to warrant closing at this time. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Are you moving -- taking some of the load off of some of the schools then that are used heavily Page 87 November 3,2009 and putting them into other schools where they don't have the full capacity? MR. HARDY: We evaluate that every year during our annual update. We use our October student data, which we've just received, and we'd be downloading that into our GIS system and demographic systems, and we start our capital planning in December. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any other commissioner -- any other questions from the commissioners? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And may I have -- MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I think Mike wants to get something on the record. MR. BOSI: And just a clarification. The recommendation we're seeking from the board is a little bit different than the other components of the AUIR. We're seeking that you direct staff to include the school district CIP by reference within the upcoming CIE amendment process. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. MR. BOSI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve with that -- with that addition from Commissioner Coletta and a second from Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. Page 88 November 3, 2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Hardy, for staying with us all morning. We're going to have a nice agenda this afternoon. You could join us for that, too. MR. HARDY: Thank you very much. I appreciate the offer. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, we'll take a break. We'll be back at 1:10. (A luncheon recess was had.) MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike. We're on Item 2K in your AUIR, and that's parks and facilities. Mr. Williams? MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, good afternoon. Barry Williams, parks and rec. director. MR.OCHS: I'm sorry, Barry. It's Page 113 in your booklets. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, I just wanted to, just as an overview -- you have before you our recommendation, and we would ask that you adopt that recommendation. You can see throughout the next five years the increases that we are showing. They're very minimal. Most of what we have and we're showing are transfers. We're not spending money in the next five-year period to speak of. So just to, I guess, mention a couple other things, in may. Just in past years, there have been discussions in working with the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission. There have been recommendations that we include the federal and state lands, and we have done that this year. You can see in the appendix our materials related to the state and federal lands, recreational lands that we have. We also -- last year I remember Commissioner Henning asked for a checkbook, a checkbook that just shows what projects that we have, what we have funding for, and what would be projected for future projects. Again, the checkbook is pretty blank. We don't have a Page 89 November 3, 2009 lot of outlying expenditures because of the times we're in. So with that, I would stop and just ask if you just have any questions. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, I think you were first. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Commissioner Coyle was first. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, he was first. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to arm wrestle over 't? 1 . The -- there was a discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about the capital cost of land, rural land, and adjusting that to real market. What -- it doesn't reflect that here at all, correct? MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let me ask Amy, if I could, to -- Amy Patterson to explain that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: If she comes up here she's going to have to explain the board's direction, because I was listening to that, and I definitely didn't get that either. MR. WILLIAMS: I understand. Let me just -- before she does do that, let me just mention -- and that has been an ongoing dialogue that we've had with the Planning and Productivity Committee. And in the -- what you see is a $230,000-an-acre unit cost. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. WILLIAMS: And that unit cost, its relevance in this process -- our level of service is determined by acreage per thousand. The unit cost is a placeholder, and that has caused us more grief in showing that $230,000 per acre. The biggest concern from the Planning and Productivity Committee has been, that dollar doesn't really represent what true market costs are now, and we understand that. We're not suggesting that that 230,000-acre (sic) is what we Page 90 November 3, 2009 would go out -- if we were in the market to purchase land, what we would pay. Land acquired would go through real estate services. They would pay fair market price. But I did want to let Amy describe to you how that $230,000 per acres is calculated, if I may. So let me just ask you if she could come forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson. I'm the impact fee manager for community development and environmental servIces. The $230,000 per acre is partially based on the most current adopted impact fee study but also comes out of lengthy discussions with the Productivity Committee regarding land values. When we were going through the impact fee study with the Productivity Committee, they spent a lot of time working on land costs, making sure that they were appropriate and representative of those things that will be done in the future. And so out of that came a recommendation by the Productivity Committee which was forwarded to the board during our discussions on the adoption of the impact fee study. That $230,000 is the representative cost of acreage that will be purchased likely in the future. It's the urban estates land values. And so that was the number that they worked on with the consultant. The way that the land is valued in the impact fee study, each individual parcel is valued. So you would have a range of values ranging from inexpensive land all the way up to the most expensive beach and boat access. And what the Productivity Committee recommended was that this $230,000 per acre represented the best guess of the value of the land that will be needed in the future. We could take a different number or use a different number. We could use numbers right out of the impact fee study, if that is Page 91 November 3,2009 something that would be more desirable for the board. Those costs range on about $200,000 per acre for community parks all the way up to $400,000 per acre for regional parks. That's based on the actual value of the land, not what we intend to purchase in the future. As Barry said, they attempt -- they go out and get the best price when they're purchasing land and negotiating prices. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What would be the effect if we give that direction to change it? MS. PATTERSON: They would have no effect on the impact fees at all because the AUIR doesn't drive the impact fee rates. It would change -- for whatever you adjusted that to would change the value of what they need in the future. So if you are to reduce the calculation based on the land value, it would just be adjusted down based on that number. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Leo, wouldn't it make sense to try to reflect what your true costs are going to be in the future so you can plan? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I think what Amy -- what I hear Amy saying is the true costs are really a range of costs. And if you don't want to average them, then we need to adopt some range so you can apply the appropriate costs to the appropriate geographic area that you're looking to purchase. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if -- I mean, we just impacted update fees for this -- MR. OCHS: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and they don't reflect -- I mean, they're a lower number than this. MS. PATTERSON: There are lower numbers and higher numbers in the impact fee study. It values every parcel that we own. MR. OCHS: But go over the impact fee that was just adopted recently by the board. MS. PATTERSON: Right. The impact fee that was just adopted Page 92 November 3, 2009 by the board to establish the value of the inventory values every parcel that's in the park's inventory. So some are higher than this number and some are lower. So to come up with an average, you're still-- actually if you come with an average, it may be a number higher than the $230,000 annually. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Has anybody ever figured that out, I mean, with the recently adopted impact fee study and applied it to the lands that we have? MS. PATTERSON: The-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or the lands we want to acquire? MS. PATTERSON: Well, that's what the Productivity Committee attempted to do. We went through four scenarios with them, and they were happy with the $230,000 an acre as a cap. And so with one of the scenarios they were proposing -- it had to do with beach and boat access land because that's the most expensive land -- they valued a portion of that land at its true value, and they capped everything else at this $230,000 an acre, which is why we felt comfortable, as did the consultant, at using this as the representative cost per acre. It was a number that everybody involved got comfortable using as an -- if you want to call it an average cost. It's truly lower than the average cost, but it's -- I understand that it seems a high number -- and this was the Planning Commission's point -- that they could go out all day long and buy -- they felt they could go out and buy acreage for less expensive than this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. PATTERSON: So ifthere's a number that the board feels is more appropriate to use than the $230,000 an acre, this was the consensus opinion of the -- of the Productivity Committee as a good value to use. We certainly can look at other numbers. I can pull -- I have the impact fee study with me, and we can go through some costs that are included by parcel, ones that maybe are similar to those that Page 93 November 3, 2009 may be bought in the future as the value. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What would you recommend to do with this number in our book? MS. PATTERSON: As the unit cost? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. MS. PATTERSON: I -- I think I'd turn that to Barry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I asked you the question. I didn't ask Barry the question. MS. PATTERSON: The only suggestion that I could have, if you want to change this number, you could reduce it to the average cost for community parks and the average cost for regional parks. But it's going to bring this number down a little bit for community, and it's going to bring it up on regional. That would make it consistent with the impact fee study. But I do hesitate, as we're going to talk about later, to tie this too closely to the impact fee study. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But the regional parks, you're not going to buy any in the urban area. You're going to be buying it in the rural area, which that won't reflect the true costs. And I don't want to -- I don't want to do this up on the dais. MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do I know about property values? MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, public services administrator, for the record. Commissioner, we've bought two parcels in the last few years, and both of them are water access parcels, and they, by far, exceed $230,000 an acre. We haven't bought anything in the rural area, and we don't have any plans in this ten-year plan to buy anything in the rural area. But the direction that I've had from you in the past is, if there's an opportunity to purchase lands for water access, I should bring them to you. And right now I have three pending things that are routing around Page 94 November 3,2009 of people who want us to buy water access, which I will probably be bringing to you shortly. And again, $230,000 will not reflect the acre unit price of those facilities. So when you think of regional, please don't think of rural out in the middle, in District 5, because where we're buying them are along the coast and the waterways. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Could we take a look at those $173 million in acquisitions you're going to plan to make over the five years? MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me what they are. MR. WILLIAMS: You're talking about regional park land? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. OCHS: Page 118. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 118. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and what's reflected in the chart -- and let me just put it on the visualizer, in may. What you have reflected -- and you see the first two properties. That's actually -- was in FY09. That reflects Freedom Park. Freedom Park just opened. It is a collaborative effort with stormwater, Conservation Collier and parks and rec. Parks and rec. is managing 25.14 acres of Freedom Park. It includes the Freedom Memorial at that location. The 5.55 acres is the Port ofthe Isles purchase that was made January of this year ofFY -- of2009. Four-acre Pulling Park is a lease agreement that we're seeking with Mr. Pulling, John Pulling, who owns property on Gordon River, has approached with us a concept to allow for the county to provide boater access at that location, and we're in discussions with the Pullings about that. The 65-acre BCIRP -- yes, sir, do you have a question? Page 95 November 3,2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It would be helpful if you would attach numbers to these costs. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Well, the cost reflected, the --let me just characterize it by saying Freedom Park, the cost associated to that was borne by transportation. There was no money paid by parks and rec. for that property. We've just taken over the management of that property . The cost associated with Port of the Isles, I believe that was $5-and-a-halfmillion (sic). And again, that was paid for by a collection of forces, including the fire, Bureau of Emergency Services, to put the Ochopee Fire station. There I can break that down. I don't have the detail at this moment, but just to mention that. The Pulling property or the Pulling lease agreement, funds associated with an agreement with the City of Naples for the Pulling property in a project of $700,000, and those are moneys that could be used for this project, but they've not been identified nor has board direction been given for that process. But that's what staffs thinking is, and that's what we would bring to you in a recommendation. The BCIRP is Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. That's a mouthful. That is a projected park near the Orangetree community. That park, the land associated with that park, would be part of a land transfer that we're seeking. We own 47 acres, parks and rec., on Randall curve off Immokalee Road. What our discussions have been with transportation is them taking those 47 acres and their purchasing 65 acres at the location that -- near the public utilities where the plant will be built at some point in the future. That's just a discussion point. We haven't arrived at any type of inner-departmental agreement, but we are -- that's our intent with identifying that. That would not be any out of cost -- out-of-pocket cost for parks and rec. That would be a strict land swap that we would make with transportation. Page 96 November 3,2009 The 625-acre A TV site, you-all are familiar with that, I'm sure. That is -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me what that was. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm kidding with you. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've heard as much as I ever want to hear about that. MR. WILLIAMS: I respect that. And believe me, I understand, too. And -- well, that 625 acres, that's a big question mark for us whether that's going to happen in that time period, but that represents the Lake Trafford site that was promised by South Florida Water Management. Then you look at -- in the outyears, there's some descriptions that you see. The nine acres, Isles of Capri. That's a discussion that we've had with Rookery Bay about establishing a canoe and kayak launch. Of course, we had those discussions when we thought we had money. And it's not likely -- we don't have money associated with that project. It's out there. It's more of a wish list. And we don't have any money that we're projecting at that point that we could spend in that area. There are also 50 acres at Pepper Ranch. Weare in conversation with Conservation Collier with the Pepper Ranch property. The discussions have been about us managing recreationally a portion of the Pepper Ranch as a trail head to allow for recreational use, and that's just a discussion that we're having. The benefit that we could provide is that we have staff in Immokalee that could provide some of the maintenance needs that are there and also provide opportunities for people to recreate in that area. That's something that wouldn't be any out-of-pocket cost. That would be -- we would exchange our managing the property, or those Page 97 November 3,2009 50 acres, with Conservation Collier in that agreement. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Barry, I think that takes us far enough. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, maybe I've misinterpreted your $173 million in expenditures, because you haven't indicated that there's anywhere near $173 million in expenditures. Are you just valuing the land at that -- for inventory purposes? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you're really not expending -- it says expenditures for acquisitions, and that's a little misleading. MR. WILLIAMS: It actually -- in the chart on-- MR. OCHS: This chart may help, Commissioner. MS. WILLIAMS: Page 121, if! may. MR. OCHS: It's value as opposed to-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I'm talking about 118, the summary form. Page 118, it says expenditures proposed AUIR acquisitions, $173,190. Apparently that's not really what that means; am I right? MR. OCHS: Right. MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, for the record. You're absolutely correct. And what I have said every year for probably five years is that, you know, our level of service is based on acres per thousand and that in order to send this up to DCA or whomever, someone requires that we be able to show that we can fiscally afford this. But we aren't planning on purchasing very many of the these acres at all. It is a placeholder. The 230,000 per acres is a placeholder number. It is -- doesn't reflect reality of what we would purchase something for or that we're even going to purchase these pieces of property, because a lot of them are coming through donations and land swaps and various other areas. So, you know, there's very few, as you saw, that -- when Barry Page 98 November 3, 2009 went through here, that we're actually looking to purchase. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So there are really not many purchases at all during this period of time, and I'm wondering why we bother to program those half-acre lots down at Bayview in view of the fact that you're proceeding with a major expansion of the parking facility at Bayview Park. MS. RAMSEY: And, Commissioner, I think that recently within the last two weeks there's been a meeting in regards to that particular item. And, of course, we started this process back in June when the direction we came in on the rezoning was, is that you haven't amassed enough land in this area to warrant a rezone. And so you would need to do -- continue to amass that land. In the meantime, let's try and add 40 parking spaces inside the park. And just recently we met with you, and we've revised that plan to try and get 69 parking spaces into that park. And as you can see, this is out in the five-year plan, way out, because money isn't up against it anyway. But that was the direction we had. And up until two weeks ago that was the direction that we were moving. New direction that we do have, if that's the direction that we move, the new AUIR next year would reflect that, unless you wish us to make that, you know, correction today. But it's brand new as of two weeks ago. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm making the observation that the requirement -- I mean, the acres available far exceed the acres required under our current level of service. MS. RAMSEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I'm asking, why shouldn't we adjust the level of service so that we don't have what apparently is such a huge excess of land? After all, there are one million acres of land already preserved by the various federal and state parks in Collier County that are recreational areas, too, and I'm wondering why we want to continue to have such a high level of standard that it produces Page 99 November 3, 2009 -- or level of service standard that produces an apparent huge excess in availability . MS. RAMSEY: I would just point out that the 625-acre ATV park, you know, every time I turn around it seems like that's going to be farther and farther and farther away, and I don't really believe that's going to happen. That's my opinion at this moment in time, but it could. If it doesn't, you'll notice where we will drop to. We will drop to under a level of service, and so -- and if you look on my Page 239 -- and I'm not sure where your -- where that runs in yours, but it's in the appendix. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 120 is -- Page 120 is where I'm at. But -- MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. In the appendix itself, you know. There's the different level of services that we've done a couple of years ago that show, you know, what are other communities around our area and what are they offering to their community. And like Charlotte County, for example, is at six acres per thousand. Lee County is required to be at 6.8 per thousand but desires 10 acres per thousand. Palm Beach is 5.12 per thousand. And Sarasota is seven acres per thousand. We currently sit at 4.1 acres per thousand. And in -- when we -- when we're talking active recreational opportunities, not preserves, and I think that's sometimes where we get confused is that we want to toss all the preserve lands into our level of service, and that's probably okay, except there's not necessarily a lot of recreational activities going on in those particular areas. And the things that we've concentrated on over the 12 years that I've been with the parks department, either as a director or now as administrator over the top of that has been active recreational facilities, not preserve areas. And so our level of service standard, I think, has to have a definition of what does it mean that that level of service is going Page 100 November 3, 2009 reflect. So far it's been water access, beach boat ramps, large facilities for athletic fields, active -- active things where, if communities don't necessarily have in their communities, they're able to come and do these at our public facilities. So you can reach this level of service by adding other lands, conservation lands, whatever it is that's out there that could fall underneath this area as long as we own it or have an agreement over the top of it, but does it reflect what the -- what the wants and the needs of the community are. And I think that's what we've been trying to address, and I think sometimes we come in conflict with the board when we talk about this because of those two issues. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, and rightfully so, because I don't think we can compare our level of service standards with the other counties that you have referenced. And there are a lot of differences between us, not just demographics, but also the amount of land that is preserved already in Collier County for recreation purposes. And I would say to you that there is a lot of recreation in those areas. There's a lot of fishing that goes on in those areas and people hike in those areas. So there's a wide range of activities available to people in Collier County on land that we are not even considering here. And I'm afraid that it inflates our inventory of parkland and inflates the amount of money that we spend on it. According to your analysis, you would not consider the Pepper Ranch as a piece of land that is available for recreational purposes. MS. RAMSEY: I wouldn't include the entire acreage, no, sir. I would look at the recreational area that has the most activity on it, because a lot of that land is going to be probably some mitigation for panther, et cetera. It's not going to have recreation elements on top of it. Page 10 1 November 3, 2009 And a pathway that goes through, or if someone goes out to hunt on it, you know, how many people will actually take advantage of that particular issue? Will it be a thousand people out there that will participate on an annual basis? I don't believe so. And so it's a very low impact recreational activity for a very specific group of people. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so is the ATV park-- MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for a very specific group of people. MS. RAMSEY: I agree. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But anyway. Your own chart shows a very large excess between the acres available and the acres required. MS. RAMSEY: Ifwe count the ATVs, is that the-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MS. RAMSEY: What you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. And that's okay with you? MS. RAMSEY: The ATV park, again, is a specialty item, and it isn't going to be included in -- if it comes around, it will be included in our inventory. Does it serve the same as a boat ramp or a beach access? No, it isn't going to. It's got a lot of acres up against it for, again, a small number of recreational elements that's associated with it. And, again, our goal has been to try and get, you know, as many people to the beach, as many people into a boat, out into the water, athletic fields, you know, for large numbers of people at one time, and to keep those things in our inventory. That's what we've been purchasing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I thought we just agreed that it's going to be very difficult to maintain that, particularly in the western portion of the county. Page 102 November 3,2009 MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. If -- you mean as far as levels per -- for service per thousand people or additional purchases in the future? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Both, both. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I think in the urban -- in the District 5 area, there are a couple things that will be driving some needs yet, and those are some DRIs that are still coming online and the Immokalee Master Plan that we haven't really solidified yet that are going to have some recreational elements in that -- particular areas. And until those come online -- again, are those parcels that we'll purchase? Probably not. But we will continue to work with DRIs as they come online to provide recreational opportunities for not just their own community, but try and pull it out into the surrounding community so that people can go east instead of west for their recreational opportunities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think maybe that's a policy the board should make is that those DRIs should be required to provide the necessary recreational facilities to support their communities so that we don't have to go out and buy the property to do that, because it gets very expensive for us to do it. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. And I would submit that it serve the surrounding area as well, especially as you get out into the Estates area, because otherwise we would have to come in right next door and provide some additional levels of service that we wouldn't need to do if they were all-encompassing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there is no way to improve this disparity between available acres and acres that are actually required under our own calculations? MS. RAMSEY: I believe that this time next year we'll have a much clearer vision of what this particular chart, as it's related to regional parks, will look like. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Marla? MS. RAMSEY: Yep. Page 103 November 3,2009 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Has it been your observation that our parks are underutilized? MS. RAMSEY: No. My observation is, is that when you want to talk about beach access, boat ramps, we are overflowing our parking facilities, we're overflowing our athletic fields, and there is a need to continue those particular areas. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I mean, what we have down here as far as numbers of acres required -- what did you say, four-and-a-half acres? MS. RAMSEY: We have 4.1 acres per thousand between community and regional parks. Weare the lowest of the five or so that I cited to you. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In projecting that out, I take it what happens is as the population increases, we start to put on -- we'll put on some of the other parks that are out there where we own the land -- MS. RAMSEY: Correct. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to try to keep that number in place. So right at this point in time, we have a demand of the public that far exceeds the supply. I know what it is for baseball fields and soccer fields. God help us. I don't think there's enough land in Collier County even if they leveled the forests to be able to fill enough soccer fields. Listening to some of the comments about, can't we include the national forest? Can't we include state parks? Well, I mean, if we're going to do that, we may as well include the Gulf of Mexico, and then we can claim one square mile per individual. You know, it doesn't make -- it doesn't make any real sense. We've got to deal with real numbers and real things. And you were absolutely correct, and some of these very specialized type of things we're looking at with possible hunting opportunities at Robert's Ranch, a small, small number of people that will ever take that Page 104 November 3,2009 opportunity, and even then it will limited by permits to be able to meet the resource that's available and what Fish and Wildlife would let us be able to take from that particular land. So, you know, we can't start to figure that in proportionately. It's not the same thing. And also, too, with A TV riding, when that park ever gets built -- and I'm telling you right now that I'm beginning to doubt that it's ever going to happen -- it's still a limited facility for people to use. It doesn't -- and it's not usable all year long. Wherever it is, it's probably going to be in an area that's susceptible to flooding during the rainy season, and it will probably be shut down also when there's dangers of brushfire, so it's going to have a limited use. I mean, you've got to be responsible caretakers of the land. But one of the things that really concerns me, I mean, is the fact that District 5 is 80-some -- almost 80 percent of the county, and we still don't have a -- what's known as a regional park. We've got two of them online that could happen. One off Vanderbilt, another one down to Orangetree. But the whole thing is that it gets farther and farther out. And I know you have seen the letters I've been receiving from my constituents asking when it's going to happen. They want to also know about their museum, and I tell them at some point in time there will be a museum, but I don't know if it will be in our lifetime. It's sad. I don't know what the answer is other than when it comes time to reapportion the districts, that maybe everybody gets a slice of what's District 5 now has to bear some of that responsibility. This isn't working out well, I can tell you that. I'm looking at it, and I'm less than pleased. I'm less than happy. I understand the money crunch that is out there, but I can also tell you that it's disproportionately affecting the area they I affect more so than any other part of the county. We've seen parks come on after park after park after park. We've seen libraries open all over the place, and I still got an underserved area of the county, and it's always going to be Page 105 November 3, 2009 manana, but it never seems to come. I have a large Spanish population, so that was for them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You finished? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a few questions. Back to Bayview. Are we taking Bayview off of our purchasing project? And if so, why are they on here? MS. RAMSEY: Well, as I explained, that we are -- we were given direction at the zoning element to continue to purchase lands to amass something larger that could be gone into a rezone. And one of the conversations that we had about two weeks ago was to look at maybe trying to really build out -- accelerate the build-out of Bayview park, eliminate some of the facilities that are in there, and really turn it into a parking lot, and in exchange for that, then maybe we wouldn't be coming out into the neighborhood to put in that parking area, but that's in a development that happened two weeks ago, and we started this plan back in June. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So in other words, these are here, but they're not really going to be there anymore because you've expanded that to, what, 69 parking spots? MS. RAMSEY: That's -- well, we're meeting with the neighborhoods, as you know, to discuss that, and that is the discussion on the table. We have not received a solidified response from the neighborhood yet on that, and I believe that there's another one in the next couple of weeks to have a better discussion again with the neighborhood. MR. OCHS: That is the basic nature of the discussion -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. MR. OCHS: -- Madam Chairman, is that if the neighborhood would support optimizing the parking inside of that park, the existing park, then we could come back to the board and ask for relief from the prior direction to assemble individual parcels outside of the park in Page 106 November 3,2009 hopes that some day we could gather enough of a -- that are adjacent to one another to develop, you know, some kind of off-site parking. So that's the discussion that's going on most recently in the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you'll be bringing that back to us? MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. There's another one or two meetings yet to be planned on that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And then I notice in here also, you mention Manatee Park. And there are probably others, but I don't know them. Manatee Park under south Naples, but that isn't built, and I don't believe you even have it in your five-year plan. So I was just curious as to why it's in your land -- is it only just the land that you have there? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's not a park? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. This particular AUIR is a snapshot of land purchases, land per thousand. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MS. RAMSEY: And there -- you know, like Commissioner Coletta mentioned, his two parks that we've purchased those lands or we have those lands that are coming online, but we don't have the facilities in them yet. This just reflects land purchases to meet the level of service, not the fact that they're even open. You know, as you know, we've had that land at Manatee for 25 years. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. MS. RAMSEY: And now just getting around to developing it because the neighborhood has come around it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But thank you for building that soccer field over in East Naples Community Park. Boy, that was desperately needed. And you were asking about the parks underutilized. I don't know Page 107 November 3,2009 about any other parks, but I can tell you about the East Naples parks, they're teeming with people all the time. They're just overflowing with people. What is -- so we're not underutilized. And that's good news, especially in this economy. That's great news. Where is Panther Neighborhood Park? MS. RAMSEY: Panther Park is actually down in Copeland. It's the small playground that we moved off the church land. Remember we bought one small parcel in there, and we've moved it, and we just opened maybe last month or so. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. And then what is -- it says, Port of the Island Regional Park, and I have two questions on that. I didn't know that we had a regional park there, number one, unless you're talking about the boat park. And then number two, I didn't realize that 5.55 acres could be considered a regional park. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Well, regional parks can be as small as beach access, 20- foot by 200 feet. We will count them as regional parks because they have a draw that brings people from the entire community, not just from the neighborhood that they are placed in. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Okay. And my last question is, doesn't Ave Maria have parks in there? MS. RAMSEY: Yes, they do and-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: But they're not mentioned in here. Is that because they're not a county park? MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, and they are -- were part of the DRI, and one ofthe references that I made is that they are there to serve just their community. They do not serve the surrounding community . CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, if I lived in Golden Gate Estates about five minutes away from there, I'm not allowed to use their parks? MS. RAMSEY: That's the way that I understand that, yes, Page 108 November 3,2009 because they pay for that through their homeowners association fees. They're a separate taxing elements within Ave Maria that pays for the maintenance and upkeep of those facilities. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow, I see. MS. RAMSEY: Maybe Commissioner Coletta can give you more on that, but that's the way I understand it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But Commissioner Fiala, I'll give you permission to use those parks anytime you want. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you. I've been wanting to play baseball out there. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't -- I don't know of anything that's restricting people from pulling up there and using the different facilities. I haven't seen any caretakers. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I can't imagine why anybody would. I mean, the more people using it the better, I would think. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if anything that I've seen with Ave Maria, they're doing everything they can to try to attract people there with special events. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would think so, too. Okay. I just -- I just wanted to ask those questions. We go on to Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HALAS: This -- one of the things that kind of bites me in the craw all the time is this 206 -- or 625-acre ATV park, and all I see is this is going to be nothing but a big hole that's going to take a lot of money to operate because of the maint- -- high maintenance it's going to take after these guys tear this place up. I'd just as soon see this thing taken off of the -- our parks, and maybe we can utilize more parks for baseball and softball and soccer that have a high usage rate than worrying about a 625-acre A TV park. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Before we go there, we're involved in a lawsuit with the state concerning this item. One of our Page 109 November 3,2009 potential outcomes is to have them pay us money in lieu of the land. MR. KLATZKOW: One of your -- well, it is substantially more likely that you will get a monetary settlement out of this than you will actually get a 640-acre section of land. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I thought. So that puts us in a position to use the money to do whatever we think is best for the greater part of the population. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would hope so. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it could be for whatever we wanted it to be and -- because I tend to agree with the rest of you, the state isn't going to fulfill their obligations with respect to that park, and the best we can get out of it is something that will benefit a larger number of people in Collier County. So I think maybe we ought to really actively try to work toward that goal. But just one other question, fairly simple. We went through all of the land acreage you're going to add to your inventory over the next four or five years, and I think we agreed that none of it was going to require much out-of-pocket expense. It was going to be traded; some of it has already been acquired through impact fees and other kinds of things. What is that -- how is that going to affect your estimates next year of the cost per acre for future expansion? MS. RAMSEY: Cost per acre as it relates to the AUIR? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. MS. RAMSEY: The cost per acre that's sitting in this particular item here could be anything you want it to, I believe, Commissioner. You could put any dollar amount you want to. It doesn't really affect anything that the parks department is doing. It's a requirement that the planning department has to have in order to show that we monetarily can solve whatever issues that we have here. That's why you see dollars amount here and that's why you see $165 million that we're not going to spend, because we're trying to be as frugal, we're trying to work with the communities that are coming online in order to provide Page 11 0 November 3, 2009 the recreational services at little or no cost to the county. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, it will have an impact on the impact fee calculations? It will not? Okay. MS. RAMSEY: No. It's historical purchases, I believe, that have more of an impact than the actual -- Amy, is that correct? MS. PATTERSON: Hi. Amy Patterson, again, for the record. The AUIR does not establish the impact fee rates. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. I'm talking about the cost per acre -- MS. PATTERSON: The cost per acre. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- not the AUIR. MS. PATTERSON: No. The cost per acre used in AUIR does not transmit into the impact fee studies at all. It's been the position of this board over the last several years that we tighten the relationship between the AUIR and the impact fee studies for consistency purposes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MS. PATTERSON: However, if the board feels it's more appropriate to use a different unit cost for parks, to value the parks in the AUIR, it's not going to affect the impact fees. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, that's my problem. We use different numbers for different things and then people tell us it doesn't make any difference. If it doesn't make any difference, why don't we make them the same? MS. PATTERSON: That's what we have done. We've made them the same, but now -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is the $230,000 what you used for the impact calculation? MS. PATTERSON: $230,000 is -- that of the impact fee study is the representative cost of the urban Estates acreage. So, yes, you will find that number in there, $230,000. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if we were to make a Page 111 November 3, 2009 decision that, well, $230,000 is too high, we're going to go with $200,000, now, what does that do to you? MS. PATTERSON: It does nothing to me because there's -- I could probably pick a parcel of land out of the -- every parcel of land that's in the inventory is valued separately in the impact fees. So if -- I could probably find a parcel of land in here valued at $200,000 an acre. That's the point. That does it's -- it's not going to translate into the impact fee study. We've had them close together because it's been the position of this board and the Planning Commission that it makes sense that these documents remain similar. But if the number all of a -- costs were always going up up until this point, so our impact fees and our impact fee numbers always seemed low compared to the market. But if -- it's turned faster for your knowledge than it has -- that we can capture in the impact fees and a different number makes sense that we can't validate yet with the impact fee study, then it's appropriate to use it in the AUIR, if that makes sense what I'm saying. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it doesn't. And I hope you've got some understanding now of why the public doesn't understand why we keep spending tons and tons of money paying ostensibly $230,000 on average for the land when, in fact, the land is worth a lot less than that, but it really doesn't make any difference because we can use any number we want. You understand what somebody listening to this is thinking right now? MS. PATTERSON: I understand, and this has definitely been the problem that's been created by this relationship between the AUIR and the impact fee studies. The impact fee studies cannot be as responsive as the AUIR document is. The impact fee studies are done every three years with an indexing in the mid years. They just -- as you just did with changing the index methodology to be more responsive, just like they were when costs were escalating faster than we could capture, now in the downside, that document, the impact fee Page 112 November 3, 2009 study, just isn't as responsive as you can be with this AUIR and the land costs. So ifthere's a better number, a number the board feels is appropriate to use in this AUIR, then that's fine, and it has no bearing on the impact fee study which was just adopted. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't buy it, but go ahead. That's all right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you know, Amy, I have two-and-a-half acres of urban Estates that I'd be happy to sell you. I'll throw in the house and the boat for that price. MS. PATTERSON: I understand. I understand. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, you're saying these numbers are more reflective of what's out there in the market. It's not. It's definitely not in the neighborhood. But if you want to buy it for that price, I'll throw in the boat. COMMISSIONER COYLE: No takers I see. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there's not going to be. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think you covered this earlier on in stating that this is the average price of land, whether it's out in the Estates or whether it's along the coastal area where you're going to have boat launches or access of some water access. So the end result is, when you go to coastal areas, you're going to be paying more than $230,000 an acre. And when you go inland, you're going to pay a lot less, maybe $120,000 an acre. But the end result is, it all comes out in the wash, I believe, at $230,000 an acre for your AUIR calculations. I understand it. I got the picture. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think another thing that wasn't stressed clearly enough; Marla has got her eyes on three pieces of property now. We all, all five of us, have been stressing for years now, if you can find boater access, if you can find beach access, we need to buy Page 113 November 3,2009 this while we can. Right now the prices are way down, and a lot of people want to get rid of their property, and she's got her eyes on three pieces of property that will respond to this directive that we've given her for years. Probably works out to $230,000 an acre. And you're correct, Commissioner Henning. I mean, I don't know of anything that costs $230,000 an acre anymore, except maybe a boat launch or maybe a beach access. So I'm sure that that figures into it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, those are -- those are regional facilities. They're not -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: But it doesn't make any difference -- MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, they are. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- if it answers -- if is responds to what -- the directive we've given her to find beach access, right? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't matter why we're even arguing about it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, you're probably right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put in any number you want. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, we will. Two hundred thirty thousand sounds good. No, I understand where the commissioners are going, and this is a great place to reduce our costs. That's exactly what they're really saying. And yes, there is. And yet at the same time, if we have an opportunity to buy something where the boaters will benefit or the beachgoers will benefit, I don't want to say no, we can't because we haven't planned for it. So I don't know what the answer is, fellows. I'm just putting this on the table. So here we are. Now we have to make a decision. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, motion to approve. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, wait a minute. You've got public speakers, right? Page 114 November 3,2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have a public speaker? MS. FILSON: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Did anybody from Bayview want to speak back there? MR. LITOW: I'll say something. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You'll have to tell us your name and fill out a speaker slip. And I know you didn't ask to speak, but as long as you've been sitting here all day long, you might as well have an opportunity, right? MR. LITOW: I can fill out the slip later? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. MR. LITOW: My name is Philip Litow. I live in the Bayview Park area. And we've gone over this before. And we in the Bayview Park neighborhood -- there aren't many of us here today -- but we did go to a meeting the other day. Mr. Williams was there. And even though -- we weren't aware at that meeting of what was going to be presented to us. We just saw a plan for a park, increased parking, which almost all of us were in favor of. But if we had known that we were going to have the opportunity to approve that plan -- and the approval of that plan would mean that they would no longer be trying to buy up more properties in our neighborhood, I think I can say with 100 percent certainty that we would have approved it overwhelmingly, very happy to see our homes left alone, our property values finally secured rather than keeping us on tenterhooks for years now, and that our way of life in our neighborhood being preserved as well, as well as the community needs. Because you can you go down there any day, and except on a rare, rare holiday or a Sunday, 69 parking spots in that park is going to be more than sufficient, more than sufficient. You're almost never going to see any cars, any trailers parked along Hamilton Avenue if you have 69 contiguous spots in that park. It's just not going to Page 115 November 3,2009 happen. When you leave here, go down there and see. It's a gorgeous day. Come down on Saturday, come down on Sunday and see if you think that 69 spots won't be sufficient. And in the future, if there is, as we see, very slow growth now -- if the county does start to get an increase in population towards the east, well, that makes the unused 951 launch spot that's been closed so far and all of the spots in Port of the Islands even more accessible and more desirable as the county moves east. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you coming here and spending the day with us. And Barry, maybe you can meet with them and talk about whatever the next meeting is and give them some ofthese plans so they can, as a community, discuss it together; and they may want to call their commissioner, Fred Coyle, as well, because he's been very actively involved in with this. MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, make a motion that we approve the parks and rec. capital-- AUIR capital improvement plan as submitted. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion and a second. Any more discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-1 vote. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Commissioners. Page 116 November 3, 2009 MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes you to item L on your agenda. It's -- you're moving into your Category B facilities now, beginning with the county jail and Chief Greg Smith. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is it warm in here, Leo? MR. OCHS: A little bit, yeah. I'm sorry, ma'am. Page 130 on your agenda. CHIEF SMITH: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Smith chief of administration for the Sheriffs Office, and I'm here today to answer any comments or concerns related to the county's submission of the AUIR relative to county jail and law enforcement. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, there's no capital improvements on this plan, so I make a motion that we approve. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve. And do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. There was just a recommendation by the Productivity Committee that we at least try to determine if the 3.2 bed standard is still valid. The sheriffs agency has done a wonderful job in reducing the number of people occupying beds in the jail by either deporting them or diverting them in some other manner, and the question arises as to whether or not we should give some consideration to changing that level of standard. So we can do like we've done with everything else, just say, well, okay, let it go like it is and we'll deal with it later, or we can deal with it now. I always like dealing with things now. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what is your jail population? What has it been running average? Page 117 November 3, 2009 CHIEF SMITH: Lately it's been running the low 900s. COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what have you -- did you experience at the height? CHIEF SMITH: The height probably happened about a year ago, and it was a little more than 1,000 inmates. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're down about 100? CHIEF SMITH: We're down about 100 from where we were last year. We're down about 300 from our historical trending data as well. I'll only comment, you know, related to adjusting the level of service standard, you know, we've operated previously with a level of service as low as 2.4. You know, this was -- the 3.2 was adopted during an era of unprecedented growth, you know, at the recommendation of the consultant, working with the sheriffs office and county staff, and it seemed prudent at the time to make that adjustment. However, given the available inventory that we have today and the surplus, we certainly would not be opposed to adjusting that level of service downward. And as pointed out most aptly by all the members of the commission, you know, this being a responsive living document, we can always adjust it from year to year. But certainly over the next 12 months we do not anticipate using anywhere close to available inventory. COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what would you -- what would be your suggestion for level of service here? CHIEF SMITH: I think we certainly could go down as low as 2.72 without any negative consequence whatsoever. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: 2.72? CHIEF SMITH: 2.72. MR. COHEN: Randy Cohen, for the record. There's some issues associated with reducing levels of service associated with jail beds. And I think it would be more appropriate, if you're going to consider Page 118 November 3, 2009 that, that Amy Patterson address it with respect to the impact fee level of service and what might transpire if you do decide to reduce that level of service. CHIEF SMITH: Yeah, there is that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, again, for the record. As we've talked about before, we just have to be sure that if we're going to make a reduction to the level of service, that we do not lower the level of service below the achieved level of service that's established by the impact fees. In the case of county jails right now, that achieved level of service is 2.77 beds per 1,000 population. If we were to reduce the level of service below that 2.77 beds per 1,000 population, we would need to do a restudy, and in fact, that would have a negative effect on the impact fees. So we just -- just one further note. We just adopted -- this is an impact fee that was just adopted in 2009, so it's not due for update for three years. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I -- if the motion maker would agree to an amendment of 2.77 so that we will be consistent with our impact fee levels -- CHIEF SMITH: Commissioner, I'd just like to state, I misspoke; 2.77 was the figure I meant to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. You were right all along, Greg. CHIEF SMITH: I think I eventually got there, but yes, 2.77. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the -- yeah, I would like to actually amend my motion, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I'll amend my second. Page 119 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's -- yeah, here's what the Productivity states. We recommend the evaluation of the standards during the impact fee study update next year. Well, actually we just did the impact fee study, so it won't be due for another three years. So why don't we -- why not include in my motion to staff to -- on the next law enforcement impact fee study, to reduce the level of service standards for the jails? MR. BOSI: Well, there's two. There's the impact fee for law enforcement, and we're on -- and -- but now we're on jails. We're talking about j- -- there's two separate impact fees, two separate components of the AUIR. We're currently on jails. The next section that we'll be talking about will be law enforcement, and that's where the recommendation IS. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, okay. Is that where Productivity -- MR. BOSI: Yeah, that -- the Productivity specifically made the recommendation on the level of service for law enforcement, but on -- for jails, they were silent, but there was some discussion about the level of service. During the actual meeting it didn't translate to a motion or a recommendation, but there was discussion about what was the appropriate level of service based upon our current population. MR. OCHS: So you could lower it now, sir, instead of waiting on this one if you wanted to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: On what, jails? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FIALA: To 2.777 MR. OCHS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: To 2.77. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's a part of my Page 120 November 3, 2009 motion. Sorry for the -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it if it hasn't already been seconded. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's got a second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it hasn't been seconded, I will second it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Donna's-- CHAIRMAN FIALA: I already seconded it, thank you. And I include that in my second. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Apologize for the mixup. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's all right. You're allowed. Commissioner Henning -- oh, you already spoke. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. Amy, help me with this just a little bit. Right now we have a tremendous reserve capacity for jails; is that correct? MS. PATTERSON: According to Chief Smith. CHIEF SMITH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, for -- and so any changes we're making are almost meaningless. I mean, are we still charging impact fees even though we have reserve capacity? How does this work? MS. PATTERSON: We're still charging impact fees. We've built the jail, and we're paying debt on the jail. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I see. In other words-- MS. PATTERSON: So the impact fees will stay in place, and they'll stay in place at their current level -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see. MS. PATTERSON: -- because you're just lowering your adopted level of service to match your achieved level of service. Page 121 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that was it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Very good. So we have a motion on the floor and a second. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0. MR. OCHS: Ma'am, that takes you to Item M on your agenda, and that is the law enforcement -- on Page 139, the law enforcement element of your AUIR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion that we adopt the Productivity Committee's recommendation. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second to adopt the Productivity Committee's recommendation. And would you state what it is, please. MR. OCHS: Excuse me. That's a good question, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? MR. BOSI: I could provide clarification on the Productivity Committee's recommendation related to law enforcement was during the update ofthe impact fee, which is currently scheduled for 2010, that the level of service be evaluated during that review of the impact Page 122 November 3, 2009 fee study. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a question before we vote and that is -- wait, I wrote it down someplace. Does the law -- law enforcement level of service reflect our reduction in crime? I mean, right now the level of service, where it's at, is that responsible for our reduction in crime? And if we reduce our level of service, will it change that -- how well you have done in reducing crime? CHIEF SMITH: Let me try to answer that. And if I mess this up, Amy or Mike, please jump in here and straighten it out. But the level of service that we adopt as part of the A UIR has no bearing with how we provide for law enforcement officers throughout the county. It's not a number that we adhere to as far as staffing. It's not a number that we reflect upon when we do our budget. It's simply a formula and a number that's contrived by a formula taking the square foot of available inventoried space and dividing that by the number of staff that we have? Yeah. So it really has nothing to do with how we do business regarding response to crime. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. CHIEF SMITH: I will say this, though, since you give me an opportunity to talk about that. We're very happy that we have a reduction in the crime rate. We also have a reduction in the incidence of crime. We attribute that largely, of course, to population, but there's several other factors that are weighing in there as well. Certainly we have a seasonal aspect still within our county. We also have taken note of -- you know, the economic downturn has forced some people around, you know, redistributing them, and some of that redistribution occurring within Southwest Florida. But at least for the time being, you know, Collier County reaps the benefit of some, you know, otherwise undesirable circumstance. But with relation to how it's affecting crime and the crime rate is good Page 123 November 3, 2009 news. We do see larcenies and property crimes on the upswing though, and that's why the sheriff is maintaining his community initiatives and getting out there to try to do some crime prevention tactics, especially in the outlying areas, because they are our most vulnerable. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have another question. We're all so proud of what the Sheriffs Office has done with this ICE program and getting those people that do not belong here and are committing crimes out ofthe area and, you know, out of the -- of people's homes and lives. Are other surrounding counties doing the same thing or not? I mean, I'm just wondering if these criminals then will hide in the surrounding counties and just come over the borders into ours. CHIEF SMITH: Well, there's a great deal of interest both within the state and nationally right now related to this initiative. Sheriff Rambosk, you know, has been named to a council ofthe National Sheriffs Association that will convene in -- I think in January in Washington, D.C., where he will address this issue. So, you know, I think the whole nation is taking notice of what's going on here in Collier County. I think we've experienced, you know, the same thing that we would be doing normally, which is holding those people who are committing crimes accountable. It's just those who have been identified as being in the country illegal -- illegally on top of committing acts of criminality. Those are the ones that we're taking advantage of this program and turning into the custody of ICE, and they're then making the determination of what to do with that individual. But certainly it's something that, you know, I think that other counties should take advantage of as long as it's available. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we're the only ones doing it in this area right now from what I hear you saying. Page 124 November 3, 2009 CHIEF SMITH: To the level -- to the level and degree that we're doing it, with a component both out on the streets and investigative arm, as well as the detention and removal arm that Chief Sally's group is heading up. Both of those working in concert is really paying dividends, and it's probably the greatest attributable factor to driving down the population of the jail. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's just wonderful. We're all so proud of you. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tell the sheriff thanks very, very much for the turnback. Appreciate it very much. CHIEF SMITH: Sir, it was our pleasure, and I hope that there's something that can be done with some of that turnback relative to a permanent substation home out in District -- out in our Zone 4, District 5, for the residents out there in the Estates because we really-- to stay on top of crime, we're going to need a permanent, well-founded home, you know, not just a doublewide trailer that we've outgrown. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. CHIEF SMITH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one final question. The Productivity Committee suggested we take a look at the level of service, and the level of service, the certified law enforcement officers per 1,000 population, is, I guess, 1.856 in 2010. It's 1.870 in 2009. You said that the level of service wasn't really important to you from the standpoint of how you carried out your duties. CHIEF SMITH: Level of service in this document. COMMISSIONER COYLE: In this document, that's right. Okay. Does it make any difference to you if we adjust that level of standard (sic) to more closely comport with our actual requirement? Page 125 . November 3, 2009 CHIEF SMITH: Related to operations in the number in the AUIR, no, but there is that impact fee thing again -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHIEF SMITH: -- that we have to be cautious of, but other than that, you know -- again, it's not really related to how many deputies we actually have on patrol. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHIEF SMITH: You know, we actually have, you know, 602, which would give a far -- is a number far less than what's represented here if we actually have 1.96 per 1,000 in the county. The number would be greater than that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Amy will just assign whatever number she needs there to make it all balance out, I know, just like we do with the other things. But, Amy -- Amy, tell me, what was the level of service standard used for this calculation in the last impact fee update? MS. PATTERSON: The last impact fee update used 1.96 officers per 1,000 population. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, if you used 1.856, what does that do to you? MS. PATTERSON: Well, I don't know what that will do to us. This is a three-year-old study, so there have probably been major changes to the inventory costs, credits. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it's going to be updated again this coming year? MS. PATTERSON: It was actually scheduled for update in 2009, and as the board directed, we had delayed those studies for six months. I'm going to be reporting back to the board in December to reset the study schedule, so we're anticipating starting this in early 2010. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so you would be expecting to evaluate that level of service -- Page 126 November 3, 2009 MS. PATTERSON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that you use for impact fee calculations? MS. PATTERSON: And also in consideration of the Productivity and Planning Commission's recommendations. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're going to do that regardless of our approval of this document as it currently stands? MS. PATTERSON: It would be done regardless of the approval of this document, but we will, obviously, put special emphasis on it because of the recommendations that are being made. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion on the floor and a second to approve this to include Productivity Committee's recommendations. Motion and a second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, your next item is Item N on your agenda, library. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, there's no growth in the libraries except for a donation of 4,000 square feet; therefore, I make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, and I second. Any discussion? (No response.) Page 127 November 3,2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wonderful presentation, Marilyn. Thank you very much. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) MS. MATTHES: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I say one thing? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope you -- all the commissioners take an opportune time to visit the libraries. The -- a lot of people are using the Internet services at the libraries due to, I would imagine, unemployment and cutting out those personal -- those personal services, so -- and a lot of people are, like Leo mentioned last night, are using -- getting DVD's at the library. So I know some people wanted to cut that out or charge something but, you know, that's a real good service to our citizens. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think so, too. I think more and more people are turning to the libraries and to the parks because they can't afford to go anyplace else, and it's a blessed relief that we have these things for them. So I totally agree. Oh, Commissioner Coletta? I don't know who was first. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Yeah, I just want to check. We talked at a previous meeting about computers for the libraries to supplement what's there, and we were talking about a possible grant out there to be able to do that. Is there -- that grant underway? Anyone have any update? MS. MATTHES: This is Marilyn Matthes, library director. The Page 128 November 3, 2009 grant is actually written by the State Library of Florida, and I asked that we participate, and the State Library will hear something hopefully by the end of November on their success with this grant. It's a stimulus grant, federal stimulus grant, and we hope to get about $350,000 from it if it's successful. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And do you plan to buy some extra computers with that money to help supplement -- MS. MATTHES: Bunches of computers, even laptop computers. I think there's three or four mobile labs of 12 computers each in there, as well as more desktops, definitely. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good, thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this Obama stimulus money? MS. MATTHES: It's federal government stimulus money. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I see. Okay. The other question I have, the unit cost, are we still looking at $433 a square foot? MS. MATTHES: That's about the cost of our recent construction projects, South Regional Library; Golden Gate library wasn't too much cheaper. So we typically have used the latest construction project for that estimate. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. MS. MATTHES: You're welcome. MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to emergency medical services, page 167. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did we vote on this? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did we vote on that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. MS. FILSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. Page 129 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, sure. MR. OCHS: You already did. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought we did. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. MS. FILSON: You did. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's do it one more time. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: In chorus. MR. OCHS: Go ahead. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi with comprehensive planning. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Page 167. MR. BOSI: Before Jeff takes over, I just wanted to let the commissioners know that I had provided an updated summary page for your EMS, and the only change in that was there was an increased allocation from a loan from the general fund to make commercial payments, and that subsequently decreased the amount of additional revenue needed to provide funding for EMS. That was the sole change within that updated summary form. It should be the page that's -- the separate single page that I put on your place. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. $2.4 million increase is what it is, in the commercial paper? MR. BOSI: About -- yes, about a 2.- -- yeah, about a 2.4, that's correct. And then a subsequent decrease in the additional revenue required. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where is that money coming from? I know it's coming from the general fund, but I mean, how do you think you're going to get it when we're not going to have -- MR. BOSI: Well, I believe -- Page 130 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- as much as we think we will? MR. BOSI: This was the amount of -- this was the amount of money allocated from OMB to cover the existing debt obligations for this year. MS. USHER: Hi. Susan Usher from the budget office. During the budget policy, you've always given us a third of a mill for capital outlay to take care of capital needs within the county that impact fees cannot pay for. Because impact fee revenue has dropped off so significantly, what we've had to do is take that third of a mill and help pay debt service for all these impact fee funds that can't pay their full load, and that's what this money is. It's coming out of your one-third of a mill out of the general fund. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And suppose the general fund is cut 15 to 20 percent. You're going to get a 15 to 20 percent cut, aren't you? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We're going to have to cut expenses somewhere else, because you have to make your debt payments. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're going to cut somewhere else in another department, or you're going to be able to cut in this department to be able to cover that deficit? MR. OCHS: Well, that depends on where the board wants to place their priorities, sir. We'll give you several options, but you don't have any option obviously with regard to debt service payment. So we have to find money in other areas to cover our -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: You do have some other options. You can borrow from another fund. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And there are other funds that are doing well. And the general fund might not be doing well next year, but we can deal with that during the budget, I guess. But we've just seen, well, an allocation of $1.4 million additional to what we had yesterday from the general fund. Page 131 November 3,2009 MS. USHER: I believe that was a typo. It's not that EMS went out and borrowed money very quickly. I just think there was a typo on the page. And what Mike was doing was correcting the typographical error. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you really don't -- you're not sure you're going to get that money, right? MS. USHER: The third of a mill. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you saying that because it is debt service payment, you expect it to come from the general fund? MS. USHER: As long as you give me a third ofa mill to work with for all my capital needs, the first priority for that money is to pay debt service. We will put off all repairs, maintenance, replacements; anything that impact fees can't pay for that this third of a mill is supposed to pay for we're going to put that stuff on hold to make sure that we pay our debt service. And that's basically what we did in fiscal year 2010, in this year's budget, is that there really were no capital outlay. All we did with that money is to pay debt, and that was to loan money to impact fee funds so that they can make their debt service payments. And if we have to do that in 2011, we'll do that again in 2011. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I understand. You're not making any principal payments here; you're paying only interest or you're paying both? MS. USHER: I'm paying both. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I also had a question. Not for you, Susan. There's a page in here, number 184, and it says, ALS agreement and existing EMS zones, and then it says ALS participation 24/7, but Dr. Tober has dismantled and eliminated all ALS engines. So what is that actually meaning? MR. PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services. Page 132 November 3, 2009 Well, I don't believe that he's eliminated the agreements. The agreements are still in place. The paramedics in North Naples and East have been decertified due to lack of ride time. But you still have ALS engine agreements in both cities, City of Naples and Marco and Isles of Capri, so there's still three other agencies. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But they're only in their own city, right? MR. PAGE: Correct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. So do you really have 24/7 ALS participation? And according to this map, I see all of this pink area on Page 184, but I'm not quite sure. MR. PAGE: Well, 90 and 50 -- 90 is Isles of Capri, 50 at the bottom in pink is Marco. The 40 numbered units up in the north, that's North Naples. So no, when this document was created, they were in existence, but not in the last week. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But they are not anymore; is that correct? MR. PAGE: The 40s are not. CHAIRMAN FIALA: The 40s are not. MR. PAGE: And 23 is not. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And 23 is not. Okay. So this map is a great deal different now than what is reflected on this; is that correct? MR. PAGE: Well, it's hard to say, Commissioner, because the agreements have not been -- in other words, the agreement requires a 90-day notice on both of those districts' parts to end the agreement either by the board or their board. They're still in place; however, their certification of their paramedics does not allow for them to provide ALS. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I understood that they were required to take the ALS engine off of their vehicles because they've all been decertified, so they're not allowed to use that but yet the map shows that they are there. That's -- do you see my confusion? MR. PAGE: Yes, ma'am. The map is outdated as of last week, Page 133 November 3, 2009 but all they're required to do is take off their medications, the advanced life support. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well -- and then, of course, if they don't have anybody certified -- and I understand that they've been requesting to be certified, but nobody has gotten around to doing that. They've been rather busy from what we -- we got a letter about that. So in other words, I would like to see an updated map, really. I realize you can't produce one just like that. But if you would send us one -- MR. PAGE: Sure. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I would be very interested to see what it looks like now, because this concerns health, safety, and welfare of our residents. MR. PAGE: I understand. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think we need to understand more about what's gone on here. The fire departments still have a responsibility for basic life support functions; is that not correct? MR. PAGE: No. They're still responding every day. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it doesn't mean that there are not life-saving services being performed by the fire departments, including North Naples and East Naples. They are continuing to provide them just like they always have. They have not received their advanced life support certifications because they did not maintain their currency of experience by riding with EMS on the specified number of times so that they could maintain their skills at the level necessary to administer these advanced drugs. So there's still emergency medical services being provided. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. But see, the map says ALS. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the map is wrong. The map is Page 134 November 3, 2009 wrong. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I'm referring to. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm not getting into all of that business. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think if the map were to specify basic life support services and advanced life support services, we could see a clearer picture of what was going on. MR. PAGE: Understood. Yes, we'll do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve. Motion to approve the EMS Capital Improvement Element in the AUIR. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) MR. OCHS: Commissioners, your last item-- MR. PAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- is government buildings. That's on Page -- beginning on Page 189 of your document. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't we have enough? MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I believe we do. That's what Hank's going to tell you for the next five years. Page 135 November 3, 2009 MR. JONES: Precisely. Hank Jones, for the record, department of facilities management. We have no new projects in the next five-year AUIR period. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve based upon Mr. Hank Jones' recommendations, the government impact -- or government building Capital Improvement Plan within our AUIR. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second. Thank you. The motion is made by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas. And I don't know which is first. Commissioner Coyle, I'm going to try and get you first. Maybe you'll speak less so that I can get Commissioner Coletta in. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. I'm going to ask the same question I've asked before on things, and that's the level of servIce. We have a level of service -- available level of service greater than the required level of service, and I'm wondering if we should not consider a reduction in our level of service standard. MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, again, for the record. This is another of the impact fees that will be going into a 2010 study. So if your direction is to take a closer examination of the level of service, we can do that in conjunction with the study, which it will be done anyway. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I'd like to -- like to ask the motion maker to add to his motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When is the study going to be done? When is it -- I should say, when should it -- when's it going to start and when, the anticipation of the completion? MS. PATTERSON: These six studies were originally the 2009 update cycle, which the board, during the annual indexing -- the '09 indexing, postponed for a period of six months to get a better feel for Page 136 November 3, 2009 the economy and other things. My -- I had committed to the board that I will report back in December with the six -- to talk about the six studies that need to be performed and to reset the study schedule. So we had anticipated beginning at least a portion of those six studies, three of them in the -- early January of201O and probably starting the other three a couple months later just so they weren't all going at the same time. I'll take your direction at what your priorities are as far as the study schedule. We do have the school impact fee update, which is always a major update and one that needs to be done as a priority. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. PATTERSON: It's a very high fee. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. MS. PATTERSON: But otherwise we have government buildings, EMS, law enforcement. So usually the study takes six months, maybe a little bit longer if we run into any delays. It could hopefully be sufficiently complete to discuss at next year's AUIR. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The reason for my question -- and I'll include that in my motion. But what I would like to do is give direction as far as the studies to proceed near the end of the census taking. Here's why. I believe the census is going to show that we have a lot less population than what we're recording in here due to vacancy rates, and that, I would assume, would reflect, since it is based upon population of servicing, who we're servicing. We're going to get a higher level of service because we have less residents. Do you follow me? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And therefore, we're going to have an abundance of capital improvements that are not going to be needed, anyways a lot of buildings in the bank or a lot of roads in the bank, or whatever. So -- but that's going to change over -- as these Page 13 7 November 3, 2009 units start to become filled up. But I think the process to really capture those impact fee studies should be done with this -- with our eyes wide open, and that would be who are we -- how much are we serving and what the fee should be. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we know when we're supposed to get the results from the census back? I know it's supposed to be going out on the -- what is it, the 15th of March or is it May? I don't remember which one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, David Weeks works on that every year. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think it's the 15th of March it's supposed to be going out. I mean, they're sending them all out for -- MR. BOSI: It won't be until early 2011 before we get any early returns back from the census. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay, all right. MR. BOSI: Because their next -- next spring they will be out doing their official works, and I believe it is March is the date, and then it takes that long to assimilate all the information and disseminate it and get it out. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nix my wanting to hold it off until the census. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that was a suggestion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I think it's -- we're going to see a tremendous difference so -- anyways, I amend my motion to reflect Commissioner Coyle's comments on the adjustment. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. And I agree with Commissioner Coyle. Now is the perfect time to be assessing what we're doing out there as far as government buildings go and employees. We're down, what, 20-some percent, 22 percent? Page 13 8 November 3, 2009 MR.OCHS: Twenty-two. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty-two percent, and we're functioning what I would call fairly well. Of course, the demand out there is a little less. Now's the time to get smart, start to get more services computerized so the public can reach out to us in numerous ways. And with that in mind, I would like to have the Productivity Committee go back and take a look at some of these auxiliary buildings that we have out there, especially what the constitutional officers are using, other than the Sheriffs Department, for -- to see if those services are really being utilized to the point that it's economically feasible to keep all those buildings open. The clerk laid off 45 people, and then he got his budget and everything, but he reevaluated everything and he only brought back 14. But they're doing a lot now with the Internet, and even more so. I've been meeting with their IT people, and I'm quite amazed at what they're doing. In fact, a lot of ideas that they have I'd like to see us carry over into the county government. But what I'd like to do is have the Productivity Committee do a study of it, do it early enough so that if there is a surplus out there that's not needed, if we're not getting the best bang for the buck, there'd be plenty of time for the constitutional officers, and possibly in ourselves, to be able to draw some of these people back in through attrition to the main office. Do I have support for that? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sounds good. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Support for what? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To have the -- to direct the Productivity Committee to do a study to see if the auxiliary offices that are out there for the constitutional officers -- I'm not too sure if the county itself has any offices. I don't think we do, do we? MR. OCHS : Well, you have the north government satellite. Page 139 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got the center, but-- MR. OCHS: But that's an owned -- you own that asset. Are you talking about leased facilities? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking about the facilities that we have, whether they're leased or owned. MR. OCHS: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what I'm thinking of, if we don't need them anymore because of the change in the world with the Internet and everything, that possibly, some of these facilities that we own, rather than have them empty, we might be able to turn them into economic stimulus areas for people -- businesses to get -- start-up businesses to get into. There's a lot of things that can be done. We probably could even find special grants for it. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: On that topic, Productivity Committee is chartered to look at the county's efficiencies, not the constitutional officers' efficiencies. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I guess the question would be, would they welcome the opportunity to have it critiqued? Because the truth of the matter is, it's all taxpayer dollars in the end. It's amazing what the clerk's been able to do and how he has his operation operating so efficiently out there. And I think it wouldn't hurt -- somehow, if it's not the Productivity Committee, it's some other element. But I really do think it's something to be done. Rather than just say, oh, no, it's the constitutional officers, let's just keep paying the rent and keep on going, why not question it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- point out something? There are 11 -- 11 leased facilities to constitutional officers. Eight of the 11 are Page 140 November 3, 2009 being phased out with the movement into the Elks Club. So there are only three remaining leases, I believe; is that not true? MR. OCHS: Page 198 of your document. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 197. MR. CAMP: It's 198 of ours. COMMISSIONER COYLE: 197. See, it says that those operations that are identified by double asterisks will be relocated to county-owned facilities and the leases terminated in 2010. MR. OCHS: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: So eight of those 11 are being eliminated already according to this chart. MR. CAMP: Yes, not just -- for the record, Skip Camp. Not necessarily all to the Elks Club. County property. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes, of course. Yes, but the county property. So you only have to look at three units, the Tax Collector's Office in Greentree, FDOT on Davis Boulevard maintenance facility, and, well, Tax Collector's Office in Eagle Creek and, I guess, Golden Gate City office. But it seems to me that the county staff could advise us on those things. We don't have to task the Productivity Committee to do that. MR. CAMP: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can just tell us what's being leased and whether or not it's necessary that it be continued, or can we consolidate it into another facility? MR. CAMP: We absolutely can do that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That should come pretty fast. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm agreeable. Anything that gets it going forward so we know our best options. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor and a second. And does everybody remember the motion? Yep, okay. Do Page 141 November 3, 2009 you want to repeat it, Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's whatever Hank Jones wants. I think that's what I heard. No, it's to approve the government facilities' CIE and the BCC's AUIR. CHAIRMAN FIALA: With the addition of Commissioner Coyle's -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep, with the additions of Commissioner Coyle's comments about the studies, impact fee study. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may. The other part, what I brought up for discussion wasn't part of the motion, but I guess it was direction for staff. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion on the floor and a second. Who was the second? MS. FILSON: Commissioner Halas. COMMISSIONER HENNING: You were. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You were. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. MS. FILSON: Commissioner Halas. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was the second. No wonder I don't remember. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Page 142 November 3,2009 All right. Now we're down to public comment. Anybody in the audience want to say anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Everybody put their hands down. Sorry. MR. BOSI: Chairman, before you adjourn, just to ask, collectively, the commission to make two motions, final motions. And one is to accept and approve the attached modified document as the 2009 AUIR and -- Update and Inventory Report in public facilities, and provide -- in a separate motion, to provide staff direction to include the projects contained, the Category A projects contained within this AUIR as modified by the board as the basis for the update to the Capital Improvement Elements of the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I also want to point out that the letter from Mr. Bosi was dated today. That needs to reflect the day that we at least received the AUIR in the BCC meeting -- BCC office. But you need to identify which documents that we are approving separate. Is that the ones that were emailed to our office October 30th? MR. BOSI: You're referring to the recommendations from the advisory boards? Those-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Here's a document that -- please enclose the update Attachment F for Page 28 and 29 of the transportation component. Is that one of the documents that you're talking about? MR. BOSI: Yes. That would be a modified document. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's included in my motion, this October 30th document that the BCC received. Is there any other documents that you want us to consider, Mr. Bosi? MR. BOSI: Just the EMS summary page that I provided earlier. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the EMS summary page. Page 143 November 3,2009 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I have a second by Commissioner Coletta -- I mean Halas. Excuse me. Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only question I have is item number two on what you're showing to us now, Mike. You're saying that what we've just talked about will be the basis for the FY9/10 CIE, Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan. Now, what happens if during this process you find that you don't have the funds necessary to guarantee those Capital Improvement Elements? What are you going to do? MR. BOSI: Then the CIE that's going to be brought to you in February will be adjusted to reflect the new revenue realities. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So although we're saying we'll provide the bases, it doesn't necessarily mean it will determine the final CIE that's submitted to DCA, right? MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. It has been pretty normal for there to be a lag between the adoption ofthe AUIR and the CIE, and there have been changes since I've been working on the AUIR in the last four years where there's been some modifications which we've had to point out. Not only that, as a collective body today, you gave specific instructions to various departments to go back and actually look at their capital improvements that are being recommended. So I would expect that you're probably going to see a different document come forward, but this being the base document that we start from. So when you get it -- when you get it in February, those modifications will be pointed out to you with specificity. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can we then make the general assumption that any motion we make to approve this particular document is conditioned upon the staff direction that we Page 144 November 3, 2009 have provided you during this meeting to be included in the CIE prior to submission? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. You've been very explicit in what you wanted with respect to each element. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign? (No response.) COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the last thing you said we need to make a motion on adopting? MR. BOSI: I believe those two motions were the -- or those two recommendations were the ones. The one to accept the modified AUIR as a whole and then direct staff to include the Category A facilities as a basis for the CIE. Those were the two. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. Page 145 November 3, 2009 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 2:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL D TRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ~d~ DONNA F ALA, Chairman ATTEST: DWIGBJ~J3ROCK,CLERK ~'~ ~ ~. .. . . . . ' . , .; ,i' " ~,:'~~ ~ }, '?-~~~'~fi~,; Inllall J '-~.~. . '<-~1~-~ J \:'.'~'li\~",. '>',~' These ~ihutb~ approve5l,lfy the Board on 15 T rt 1) E c.EYY1 Bee) Z GO ~ as presented -./ - or as corrected . TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS. Page 146